There are many driving factors behind the potential crisis in student loans, but one of the largest is the increase in the cost of college over the past couple of decades. It’s difficult to derive the actual statistics from the data, but several datasets I reviewed show that the college education inflation rate is between 150 percent and 200 percent of the base price inflation rate. Financial planning courses suggest planners use a similar ratio.

In a previous post, I talked about why service industries, such as medicine and education, are much more difficult to scale. Inputs—doctors and teachers—become less effective with scale, which means that costs go up with size. That’s why medical and educational expenses increase faster than overall prices.

Probably the most important industry in America, for many reasons, is health care. As a percentage of the economy, as a growth sector, and, of course, as a key to people’s health, this industry touches everyone in multiple ways. It is so central, in fact, that many would deny it’s an industry at all. Doctors refer to themselves, as they should, as professionals serving patients, not the economy.

But health care is an industry, and it does take money; as such, what happens here affects the country as a whole. Precisely because it’s been seen as something beyond economics, health care has been more or less exempt from the contractionary forces operating on the rest of the economy.

Not a lot of urgent economic news today, thank goodness. The recovery continues, with more good news and an increasing percentage of data points coming in above expectations. The Fed continues to emphasize that it has not and will not pull back in the immediate future, and stock markets are responding.

Over the past three months, we have seen quite a bit of volatility. What we’ve been talking about the past week or so has been downward volatility—the drop following the Fed meeting and Ben Bernanke’s press conference. This is what most people mean when they talk about market risk, and what upsets people.

Understandably so. I would argue, though, that the run we had from November up until late May—an almost uninterrupted ascent of the market indices—was also an example of volatility that should have worried us even more.

Seems like the central banks’ soothing is working. U.S. markets were up yesterday, and international markets are up broadly today. Even the narrative has changed, with neither of the major papers dealing with the central banks or the markets on the front pages, and the only real discussion in the Wall Street Journal being “A Hawkish Signal Bernanke Didn’t Send.” Got that? Nothing to see here. Move along.

I don’t usually focus on short-term market movements, but one of the things I found interesting yesterday was that, even as rates ratcheted up through most of the day, U.S. stock markets rallied. Although one day is far too short a time to draw conclusions, at least at that scale we have demonstrated that equity markets can do well while rates increase. We also have historical evidence that this is the case, over much longer time periods.

The volatility continues, with another decline yesterday in stock markets worldwide. And yet, in the U.S. at least, after a large drop at the open, markets slowly recovered through most of the afternoon before slipping again at the close. For today, most markets are in the green, and U.S. market futures are up as I write this.

One of the risks I pointed out the other day was China. As one of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the world, China matters for a lot of reasons—mainly, at this point, because it was the only one that seemed set to power forward and take the lead in the global recovery. I’ve long had my doubts about this, but that was the general consensus.

Last week, Chinese interbank borrowing rates—the cost that banks pay to borrow money from other banks—spiked, reportedly due to a cash shortage. Chinese banks called on the People’s Bank of China to inject more cash into the system and ease the shortage.

Yesterday saw the largest one-day drop in the financial markets since last year’s election, following a significant drop the previous day. Peak to current, the S&P 500 is down more than 5 percent. What is going on here?

The easiest, and substantially correct, explanation is that markets hate uncertainty. When the Fed announced plans to taper its stimulus program, as clear as it tried to be, it forced the financial markets to recognize that one constant over the past several years—the government’s commitment to stabilize the economy—was being dialed back. Never mind that the Fed’s reason for pulling back was that the economy was improving. The fact that a change was occurring was enough to make investors reconsider—and pull back themselves.

No prizes for guessing today’s topic. The Federal Reserve’s meeting ended yesterday with the usual statement and press conference by Ben Bernanke. But, as you could see from the market reaction, what was discussed was far from the usual.

For anyone who missed it, the Fed released a statement, which Bernanke amplified in his press conference, that a pullback from the bond purchasing program is indeed in the works. He even gave a target for when the Fed plans to start pulling back: at an unemployment rate of around 7 percent. To further support this, the Fed released more cheerful economic projections that suggest the pullback would start around the end of this year or so. The financial markets promptly sold off.

I speak regularly to groups of advisors and clients, and a question that has come up several times recently is whether the housing recovery can survive rising interest rates. In other words, as rates rise, will we see average housing prices level off or even start to decline again?