Artificially-injected funding caused the demand of the product(higher-education) to explode while supply remained more or less static.

Your logic still conflates “funding” with “financing”. The simple fact that the loans must be paid back causes their impact on the economy and the supply/demand balance, not the money spent. When resources are limited but demand is not the result is inflation, but the “federal” government can afford anything priced in its currency without resulting economic impact beyond the price in question.

Degrees became more commonplace and therefore devalued in the job market, compounding the issue of the rapidly increasing price.

Do we really want to limit the education of future workers/citizens to only what the job market demands? Ditto for healthcare?? I believe in the power of market forces, but not to the extent that they should determine every facet of our society. That is the definition of neoliberalism, which is currently the largest problem our society faces and the cause of our climate emergency.

A truly representative government would place some things above the reach of those forces for the “common welfare” as Congress is Constitutionally mandated to do in deploying the currency. Upward price movement creates increased demand for resources and the market will adjust the supply of those resources, including educators, healthcare providers, and facilities to capture that demand to the limit of potential availability. Moderate and targeted inflation is a tool Congress can use to set priorities and assure future productivity.

However, this is only true when the reality of Congress “funding” the economy is recognized in place of the false narrative of it being restricted by tax revenue. As long as we use the economy in an attempt to force a balance of a mostly meaningless number and conflate the budget process of the monopoly issuer of the currency with that of our households we will remain in the current downward spiral.