4 ms·

So you ignore and refuse the well argumented conclusions of the book author interviewed in the article and instead give some arbitrary opinions because...?

• RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
  Because, I am sure we could have found a mortgage expert in 2007 to assure us that there was no mortgage crisis. In addition, the concept of federal government offering loans with no independent verification (which we could easily do) as to the value of what they are giving the loan for seems like a good way to create a bubble (see Fannie Mae). I agree with the author that student loans are good in that it enables people who would otherwise have not been able to afford college to be able to get a degree. However, student loans are an issue that a major constituency in the United States think is an issue (see Bernie Sander's campaign). To dismiss that concern as just due to media scare tactics does not seem reasonable.
  • blahi 10y ago
    So your argument is that the author is wrong because somebody else might have been wrong for something that happened in the past. Makes total sense.