4 ms·

> I suffered so others should have to I didn't "suffer", I just fulfilled the obligations I signed up for when I signed up to my loans.

by drcode 8y ago

stouset 8y ago
This is not a defensible reason to allow the whole system to come crashing down.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  It's not going to come crashing down. The national Debt is a much bigger deal.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- candiodari 8y ago
  If the system isn't beyond fixing yet ... no worries, have you seen the rate at which it's growing ? So of course it's going to crash. It's like watching a feedback loop in your motor controller, and seeing the numbers start going up, knowing there's too much force in the system to abort it now. It could be an hour before the loud bang comes, but nothing can stop it. If you interrupt it right now, you do less damage right now (still enough to destroy the system of course), but if you let it go, it remains undamaged until it overloads. And you know, you might get really lucky and have the axle melt or something, which avoids the damage. The odds, to put it mildly, don't favor that outcome though. Technically the better action is to interrupt it, but I've hardly ever seen anyone do that.
- citrablue 8y ago
  3 questions 1/ Are there solutions on the table where the cure isn't worse than the disease? That money has been spent, it came from somewhere. Can it just be vanquished without repercussions? 2/ Objectively, what is the likelihood that continuing the status quo crashes the system? 3/ What are the long term consequences from potential solutions? E.g., if current debts are forgiven/cancelled, would lenders refuse to lend for colleges? Would well off people with significant debt take advantage of the system we're protecting, leading to less trust in it, which could cause it's own collapse movement? The defensible logic is that we don't really know that current student debt will "crash the system", and we definitely don't know what the 2nd and 3rd order consequences would be if any of the solutions were implemented.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Much of this debt was never spent it was created from thin air due to interest. Saying someone does not get profit is very different from saying they don’t get principal. But more directly these people and institutions made a bet, the fact not all bets win is a basic fact of life. PS: I have negligible student debt at sub inflation interest rates remaining. But, for people with 8+% interest rate loans that interest should very much should be on the table at a minimum.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - debtfreer 8y ago
    1. The money is in the form of a loan, which by virtue of our fractional reserve system, is created upon signing a promissory note. This is the basic form of money creation in the United States. Repaying the loan extinguishes the principal balance and "destroys" that money. However, interest owed remains and the debtor must "seek" out that money in the economy (which, consequently for many people, is in the form of another debt from some other person or company). 2. An economy where a major portion of debtors are unable to discharge their loans (due to the laws presuming student loans as ineligible for discharge), debtors will fall into a cycle of inability to pay debt, inability to qualify for a home, apartment or a vehicle, and potential inability to qualify for a job (credit check) and become increasingly dependent on government programs to stay afloat. This can put a strain on government resources beyond what a simple bankruptcy would do, which is the forced cancellation (discharge) of a debt. Basically, the cost of a bankruptcy (to the economy) is smaller than the cost of an otherwise capable judgment-debtor on welfare/Medicade/SNAP/others. 3. Private student loans, which are effectively no different than unsecured debt, should be presumed dischargeable in bankruptcy. Federal student loans are actually structured quite nicely, except many debtors do not understand the complexities of the multiple forms of loans they carry (perkins, plus, university-managed, subsidized, unsubsidized, private) and rules for one loan type do not necessarily apply to the other. Colleges would actually benefit from student loan reform, since they could better educate students and parents on standardized loan packages, rather than the large array of loan options available now.
- darkerside 8y ago
  You're setting up a regrettable false dichotomy there
wtvanhest 8y ago
Maybe you can go in to specifics? When I graduated in 2005, the cost of college was just heating up. It is now in a full meltdown and it would be ridiculous for me to compare my situation in 2005 to someone entering college in 2018. Cost is way up from then to now.
- adminprof 8y ago
  I've heard this a lot but don't see much in terms of numbers about this. For private universities, the sticker price is high, but the effective tuition that students are paying has actually stayed the same or decreased [e.g. http://time.com/money/4777909/private-college-scholarships-2017/ http://time.com/money/4777909/private-college-scholarships-2...] For public universities, they were substantially cheaper than private universities due to state subsidies. The tuition has almost doubled over the past 15 years for the few places I checked, but that's only a bit over inflation. Public state universities are still a great deal. So I think the stats are using a lot of for-profit colleges which skew the numbers up. They are expensive and don't offer a lot. Anyways, I would love to see some actual data and the breakdown of what schools are increasing tuition.

> I suffered so others should have to I didn't "suffer", I just fulfilled the obligations I signed up for when I signed up to my loans.

by drcode 8y ago

> I suffered so others should have to I didn't "suffer", I just fulfilled the obligations I signed up for when I signed up to my loans.

stouset 8y ago

This is not a defensible reason to allow the whole system to come crashing down.

SamReidHughes 8y ago
It's not going to come crashing down. The national Debt is a much bigger deal.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
candiodari 8y ago
If the system isn't beyond fixing yet ... no worries, have you seen the rate at which it's growing ? So of course it's going to crash. It's like watching a feedback loop in your motor controller, and seeing the numbers start going up, knowing there's too much force in the system to abort it now. It could be an hour before the loud bang comes, but nothing can stop it. If you interrupt it right now, you do less damage right now (still enough to destroy the system of course), but if you let it go, it remains undamaged until it overloads. And you know, you might get really lucky and have the axle melt or something, which avoids the damage. The odds, to put it mildly, don't favor that outcome though. Technically the better action is to interrupt it, but I've hardly ever seen anyone do that.
citrablue 8y ago
3 questions 1/ Are there solutions on the table where the cure isn't worse than the disease? That money has been spent, it came from somewhere. Can it just be vanquished without repercussions? 2/ Objectively, what is the likelihood that continuing the status quo crashes the system? 3/ What are the long term consequences from potential solutions? E.g., if current debts are forgiven/cancelled, would lenders refuse to lend for colleges? Would well off people with significant debt take advantage of the system we're protecting, leading to less trust in it, which could cause it's own collapse movement? The defensible logic is that we don't really know that current student debt will "crash the system", and we definitely don't know what the 2nd and 3rd order consequences would be if any of the solutions were implemented.
- Retric 8y ago
  Much of this debt was never spent it was created from thin air due to interest. Saying someone does not get profit is very different from saying they don’t get principal. But more directly these people and institutions made a bet, the fact not all bets win is a basic fact of life. PS: I have negligible student debt at sub inflation interest rates remaining. But, for people with 8+% interest rate loans that interest should very much should be on the table at a minimum.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- debtfreer 8y ago
  1. The money is in the form of a loan, which by virtue of our fractional reserve system, is created upon signing a promissory note. This is the basic form of money creation in the United States. Repaying the loan extinguishes the principal balance and "destroys" that money. However, interest owed remains and the debtor must "seek" out that money in the economy (which, consequently for many people, is in the form of another debt from some other person or company). 2. An economy where a major portion of debtors are unable to discharge their loans (due to the laws presuming student loans as ineligible for discharge), debtors will fall into a cycle of inability to pay debt, inability to qualify for a home, apartment or a vehicle, and potential inability to qualify for a job (credit check) and become increasingly dependent on government programs to stay afloat. This can put a strain on government resources beyond what a simple bankruptcy would do, which is the forced cancellation (discharge) of a debt. Basically, the cost of a bankruptcy (to the economy) is smaller than the cost of an otherwise capable judgment-debtor on welfare/Medicade/SNAP/others. 3. Private student loans, which are effectively no different than unsecured debt, should be presumed dischargeable in bankruptcy. Federal student loans are actually structured quite nicely, except many debtors do not understand the complexities of the multiple forms of loans they carry (perkins, plus, university-managed, subsidized, unsubsidized, private) and rules for one loan type do not necessarily apply to the other. Colleges would actually benefit from student loan reform, since they could better educate students and parents on standardized loan packages, rather than the large array of loan options available now.
darkerside 8y ago
You're setting up a regrettable false dichotomy there

wtvanhest 8y ago

Maybe you can go in to specifics? When I graduated in 2005, the cost of college was just heating up. It is now in a full meltdown and it would be ridiculous for me to compare my situation in 2005 to someone entering college in 2018. Cost is way up from then to now.

adminprof 8y ago
I've heard this a lot but don't see much in terms of numbers about this. For private universities, the sticker price is high, but the effective tuition that students are paying has actually stayed the same or decreased [e.g. http://time.com/money/4777909/private-college-scholarships-2017/ http://time.com/money/4777909/private-college-scholarships-2...] For public universities, they were substantially cheaper than private universities due to state subsidies. The tuition has almost doubled over the past 15 years for the few places I checked, but that's only a bit over inflation. Public state universities are still a great deal. So I think the stats are using a lot of for-profit colleges which skew the numbers up. They are expensive and don't offer a lot. Anyways, I would love to see some actual data and the breakdown of what schools are increasing tuition.