Scanned article, will parse it later.

From the hip: Direct != indirect subsidizes and shouldn't be conflated. Direct subsidizes lowers the retail cost.

Outsiders need to understand that, just like business, higher ed has been reducing costs aggressively. Most faculty and staff have been taking it in the teeth. Meanwhile, admins and coaches and select faculty have been getting outsized compensation. No different than any where else.

Edit: If I had to guess, tuition at private institutions went up because it could. Charge what the market will bear. Maintain appearance of a premium quality product. Differentiate oneself from the plebes.

Edit 2: Chewed on the other two articles. Tim Worstall confuses cause and effect. Both he and Alex Tabarrok ignore that tuition costs were just fine before state subsidies (to the institutions) were removed. Drives me nuts. Further, why the American-centric exceptionalism? There are plenty of other nations with a variety of systems. A god-given natural experiment. So we can compare and contrast. Why are their costs and outcomes ignored?

If interest rates are much lower...

Changing access and cost of capital won't free up land to be redeveloped, therefore increasing supply.