3 ms·

> A useful statement would be saying that by making it very difficult to discharge loans in bankruptcy (under certain specific terms), the number of loans incre

> A useful statement would be saying that by making it very difficult to discharge loans in bankruptcy (under certain specific terms), the number of loans increased by 15% and the terms changed by blah blah. I'm afraid I don't have enough information to make such a specific statement. :( > Yet you don't want to revisit why the government is effectively subsidizing them by removing their risk? I don't object to the government stopping their subsidy. I'm just saying what I expect the result to be: either loans would stop being issued overall, or they would only be issued to certain majors, which the public would find unacceptable.

CogitoCogito 8y ago
> I don't object to the government stopping their subsidy. I'm just saying what I expect the result to be: either loans would stop being issued overall, or they would only be issued to certain majors, which the public would find unacceptable. The government could certainly choose to subsidize those students explicitly by providing loans on better terms itself. It's not like there are no other solutions. Regardless, we as a society should get beyond some bizarre idea that there is no other way to provide university education without allowing the loans to be dischargeable. That's exactly how it used to be in the US. Furthermore, many other models are used elsewhere in the world. We should call it what it is: a government supported subsidization of the loan industry taking advantage of naive students. Of course it works out well for some people, but there should be recourse for those it does not. That's exactly the point of bankruptcy.
- sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
  > The government could certainly choose to subsidize those students explicitly by providing loans on better terms itself. It's not like there are no other solutions. Sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to exhaustively enumerate the solution space. I was not! Thanks for the discussion.

CogitoCogito 8y ago

> I don't object to the government stopping their subsidy. I'm just saying what I expect the result to be: either loans would stop being issued overall, or they would only be issued to certain majors, which the public would find unacceptable. The government could certainly choose to subsidize those students explicitly by providing loans on better terms itself. It's not like there are no other solutions. Regardless, we as a society should get beyond some bizarre idea that there is no other way to provide university education without allowing the loans to be dischargeable. That's exactly how it used to be in the US. Furthermore, many other models are used elsewhere in the world. We should call it what it is: a government supported subsidization of the loan industry taking advantage of naive students. Of course it works out well for some people, but there should be recourse for those it does not. That's exactly the point of bankruptcy.

sdhgaiojfsa 8y ago
> The government could certainly choose to subsidize those students explicitly by providing loans on better terms itself. It's not like there are no other solutions. Sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to exhaustively enumerate the solution space. I was not! Thanks for the discussion.