> the point of this article is that moralizing about who "deserves" it more is a waste of time that is destroying the economy That was arguably the point of th

> the point of this article is that moralizing about who "deserves" it more is a waste of time that is destroying the economy That was arguably the point of the NY Mag article, but the paper that the article is based on goes a lot deeper, and doesn't claim that student loan debt is destroying the economy. > Is it really worth it to hold back everyone else just so you can finger wag at people that wern't responsible? The last part of my comment addresses that. If you believe that (at least cost-effective) college education can have a net positive impact on the nation's economy, as I also believe, then put the money one would put into eliminating debt into making future public college free (or subsidized in whatever way maximizes impact for the subsidy). Since they're both very expensive changes, the chances that both can happen is unlikely. Moreover, until at least some college is free, future students would still need to borrow. They'd re-create the same debt problem. (Less important: it's not "finger-wagging" to not want to change the game underneath someone. It's trying to create a set of circumstances that reward good choices. Large swaths of our society exist to try to make incentives reward good choices.)