3 ms·

Illegal activity takes place on the side of the originators and the services, and you still argue that the loan recipient hold the moral weight of compliance?

Illegal activity takes place on the side of the originators and the services, and you still argue that the loan recipient hold the moral weight of compliance? No. As this article clearly shows, and as was the case with the subprime lenders, many of the originators and the servicers acted illegally, it's not a simple argument about 'what I agreed to'. There are two parties to that agreement, and if anyone acts contrary to the contract, the other party has a right to respond, and not be morally required to follow through on their end of the agreement. In fact, they are morally required to respond to those changes by the people on the other side of the negotiating table. Lastly, these loans were not just provided for fun. They were provided to the students with the promise of higher income. If that doesn't happen, and the jobs and income are not there to support it, that promise becomes false, and both parties to the agreement have to face the consequences, not just the student.

Vivtek 11y ago
They were provided to the students with the plausibly deniable implication of higher income. I think you'll find, should you actually look at any printed material, that nowhere is there any promise of higher income. (That's how you know it's a long con.)
- ChuckFrank 11y ago
  I love that people understand the long con. It's almost one of the defining characteristics of the current system. Sure everywhere you look, we promised you greater success, but not at the moment when you signed, then it was up to you to believe it. A classic long con move.
jazzyk 11y ago
Nope. No promise or guarantee of any job/income level is ever included in loan documents. Both parties are only bound to whatever is included in the contract. Have you ever heard the term 'caveat emptor'?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > Have you ever heard the term 'caveat emptor'? Which is exactly why these borrowers should default. The risk of default is priced into the interest rate. Tough love time for lenders.
  - ChuckFrank 11y ago
    Again, great point.

Vivtek 11y ago

They were provided to the students with the plausibly deniable implication of higher income. I think you'll find, should you actually look at any printed material, that nowhere is there any promise of higher income. (That's how you know it's a long con.)

ChuckFrank 11y ago
I love that people understand the long con. It's almost one of the defining characteristics of the current system. Sure everywhere you look, we promised you greater success, but not at the moment when you signed, then it was up to you to believe it. A classic long con move.

jazzyk 11y ago

Nope. No promise or guarantee of any job/income level is ever included in loan documents. Both parties are only bound to whatever is included in the contract. Have you ever heard the term 'caveat emptor'?

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> Have you ever heard the term 'caveat emptor'? Which is exactly why these borrowers should default. The risk of default is priced into the interest rate. Tough love time for lenders.
- ChuckFrank 11y ago
  Again, great point.