3 ms·

Upvoted. But. The argument against this could be that due to the unsecured nature of the six-figure (potentially) debt the free market rates will be insane effe

Upvoted. But. The argument against this could be that due to the unsecured nature of the six-figure (potentially) debt the free market rates will be insane effectively reducing access to higher ed for those who can't afford it without the loans. Then again, if less ppl could afford a degree in Queer Musicology (does exist - https://www.musicology.ucla.edu/mission-and-history-1 https://www.musicology.ucla.edu/mission-and-history-1) or let's say Environmental Studies etc maybe the supply and demand would even out so that'll be a good thing.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The argument against this could be that due to the unsecured nature of the six-figure (potentially) debt the free market rates will be insane effectively reducing access to higher ed for those who can't afford it without the loans. Given that federal loans have always had rates set by government policy (not market rates) and the fact that private participation in the program was ended in favor of exclusively direct loans in 2010, I'm not sure what the concern for "market rates" is -- there is no market involved.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  see the comment I was replying to >>> "Get the government out of the loan business and the market will correct itself."
zanny 10y ago
There is already plenty of movement, and in general close to ready availability, of free college in everyones home state at their state university or several other public universities funded by the state government. If you got rid of the insanity that is federal loans it would just increase demand for state schools and community college.
paulcole 10y ago
>Environmental Studies God forbid.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  in the "free market" student loan situation this would be an unsafe bet on the creditor's behalf.
  - mywittyname 10y ago
    There's no such thing as "free market" lending because so much of it is tied to legal institutions. For example, is bankruptcy allowed in a free market? Indentured servitude? Seizure of assets? Absent a government, lending is a lose-lose situation. The lender has little recourse to compel the lendee to pay, and the lendee has no protection from the lender.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> The argument against this could be that due to the unsecured nature of the six-figure (potentially) debt the free market rates will be insane effectively reducing access to higher ed for those who can't afford it without the loans. Given that federal loans have always had rates set by government policy (not market rates) and the fact that private participation in the program was ended in favor of exclusively direct loans in 2010, I'm not sure what the concern for "market rates" is -- there is no market involved.

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
see the comment I was replying to >>> "Get the government out of the loan business and the market will correct itself."

zanny 10y ago

There is already plenty of movement, and in general close to ready availability, of free college in everyones home state at their state university or several other public universities funded by the state government. If you got rid of the insanity that is federal loans it would just increase demand for state schools and community college.

paulcole 10y ago

>Environmental Studies God forbid.

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
in the "free market" student loan situation this would be an unsafe bet on the creditor's behalf.
- mywittyname 10y ago
  There's no such thing as "free market" lending because so much of it is tied to legal institutions. For example, is bankruptcy allowed in a free market? Indentured servitude? Seizure of assets? Absent a government, lending is a lose-lose situation. The lender has little recourse to compel the lendee to pay, and the lendee has no protection from the lender.