6 ms·

I don't understand why the Department of Education hires these servicers. Why can't they service the loans in house?

by bradleyjg 11y ago

ceejayoz 11y ago
Because the servicers buy members of Congress.
- HiLo 11y ago
  This is an intellectually lazy response. Why does our government always use contractors? You won't let them spend more internally to grow their departments, but you also want them to be able to handle an ever-growing mountain of job functions? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    We should spend more internally in this sort of situation. There's no reason to inject a middleman for the sole purpose of diverting profits to the private sector. Same thing with healthcare.
    - HiLo 11y ago
      I actually personally agree with you, I was just trying to note the inconsistencies in that argument.
johnnyb9 11y ago
Because a private company could to it more cheaply and efficiently?
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  Probably not. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/ http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-ef...
  - johnnyb9 11y ago
    Well then, why not have the government do everything? Service mortgages, run supermarkets, etc.
    - mfringel 11y ago
      I'm sure you have about fifty more strawmen in your back pocket, but whipping them out and waving them around is a bit unseemly, don't you think?
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        You're the one who responded to a question about education loans with the example of medicare. How are those more similar to each other than either of them is to mortgages?
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      Because the goal is efficiency, not having the government do everything. In mortgages, student loans, and healthcare, the government is already heavily involved on all aspects of the transaction. They might be providing insurance for a mortgage via FHA, student loan guarantees for a federal loan, or paying via Medicare. Private servicers/insurance are, in these cases, usually an unnecessary middleman that exists mainly to make a profit. In much of the rest of the developed world, the government acts as a single-payer for education and healthcare, and is more involved in housing than in the US. Having the government take over supermarkets would be less efficient - it'd be adding complexity to the system, not reducing it.
    - srtjstjsj 11y ago
      Because the government fund these loans but doesn't care about the quality. Private supermarkets aren't funded by the government. Student loan industry is a moral hazard.
    - srtjstjsj 11y ago
      Because the government fund these loans but doesn't care about the quality. Private supermarkets aren't funded by the government. Student loan industry is a moral hazard.
HiLo 11y ago
For the same reason the government hires construction firms to build roads, for the same reason the government hires contractors to build bases, the same reason the Federal Reserve uses primary banks as intermediaries, the same reason the military gets their fuel from tender offers and not their own refineries... Plus, I can only imagine what would happen to the GOP/austerity/small government types if you started suggesting they move all those (necessary) function in house. Oh man that would be a fun debate to watch.
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  There's a couple of different categories there. One is surge capacity for occasional needs. While the federal government is paying for some road building somewhere all the time, they might not want to hire permanent civil servants in a particular place for a project that's only going to last a few years. There's some sense to that. Another category is where the government is buying goods or services off the shelf that lots of other entities buy too. That's your fuel example. Here again, there's sense to not duplicating effort. But the last category is where the government is the only buyer and it's a permanent need. And that's where I don't see any sense to it.
  - srtjstjsj 11y ago
    Why wouldn't the government hire shortist-term employees for road projects, same as the contractors do? contractors aren't out building private highways for the rest of the time everywhere.
  - HiLo 11y ago
    Good points, actually, but can you clarify on what you mean with the government being the only buyer of student loans? All those other needs are permanent, too. "Roads" will permanently be under constructions somewhere, just as "loans" will always be outstanding somewhere. Fuel will always be needed, just in different grades, locations, and quantities. Just to be clear on my point, it's not very hard to go and buy a portfolio of student loans for yourself (assuming you'd want them...)

I don't understand why the Department of Education hires these servicers. Why can't they service the loans in house?

ceejayoz 11y ago

Because the servicers buy members of Congress.

HiLo 11y ago
This is an intellectually lazy response. Why does our government always use contractors? You won't let them spend more internally to grow their departments, but you also want them to be able to handle an ever-growing mountain of job functions? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  We should spend more internally in this sort of situation. There's no reason to inject a middleman for the sole purpose of diverting profits to the private sector. Same thing with healthcare.
  - HiLo 11y ago
    I actually personally agree with you, I was just trying to note the inconsistencies in that argument.

johnnyb9 11y ago

Because a private company could to it more cheaply and efficiently?

ceejayoz 11y ago
Probably not. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/ http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-ef...
- johnnyb9 11y ago
  Well then, why not have the government do everything? Service mortgages, run supermarkets, etc.
  - mfringel 11y ago
    I'm sure you have about fifty more strawmen in your back pocket, but whipping them out and waving them around is a bit unseemly, don't you think?
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      You're the one who responded to a question about education loans with the example of medicare. How are those more similar to each other than either of them is to mortgages?
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    Because the goal is efficiency, not having the government do everything. In mortgages, student loans, and healthcare, the government is already heavily involved on all aspects of the transaction. They might be providing insurance for a mortgage via FHA, student loan guarantees for a federal loan, or paying via Medicare. Private servicers/insurance are, in these cases, usually an unnecessary middleman that exists mainly to make a profit. In much of the rest of the developed world, the government acts as a single-payer for education and healthcare, and is more involved in housing than in the US. Having the government take over supermarkets would be less efficient - it'd be adding complexity to the system, not reducing it.
  - srtjstjsj 11y ago
    Because the government fund these loans but doesn't care about the quality. Private supermarkets aren't funded by the government. Student loan industry is a moral hazard.
  - srtjstjsj 11y ago
    Because the government fund these loans but doesn't care about the quality. Private supermarkets aren't funded by the government. Student loan industry is a moral hazard.

HiLo 11y ago

For the same reason the government hires construction firms to build roads, for the same reason the government hires contractors to build bases, the same reason the Federal Reserve uses primary banks as intermediaries, the same reason the military gets their fuel from tender offers and not their own refineries... Plus, I can only imagine what would happen to the GOP/austerity/small government types if you started suggesting they move all those (necessary) function in house. Oh man that would be a fun debate to watch.

bradleyjg 11y ago
There's a couple of different categories there. One is surge capacity for occasional needs. While the federal government is paying for some road building somewhere all the time, they might not want to hire permanent civil servants in a particular place for a project that's only going to last a few years. There's some sense to that. Another category is where the government is buying goods or services off the shelf that lots of other entities buy too. That's your fuel example. Here again, there's sense to not duplicating effort. But the last category is where the government is the only buyer and it's a permanent need. And that's where I don't see any sense to it.
- srtjstjsj 11y ago
  Why wouldn't the government hire shortist-term employees for road projects, same as the contractors do? contractors aren't out building private highways for the rest of the time everywhere.
- HiLo 11y ago
  Good points, actually, but can you clarify on what you mean with the government being the only buyer of student loans? All those other needs are permanent, too. "Roads" will permanently be under constructions somewhere, just as "loans" will always be outstanding somewhere. Fuel will always be needed, just in different grades, locations, and quantities. Just to be clear on my point, it's not very hard to go and buy a portfolio of student loans for yourself (assuming you'd want them...)