4 ms·

> You undermine your own point with your assertion that that government guarantees are the issue, not the inability to discharge debt that provide the abundance

by breck 7y ago

> You undermine your own point with your assertion that that government guarantees are the issue, not the inability to discharge debt that provide the abundance of students. I'm failing to see the difference. The government should not guarantee the debt and people should be allowed to discharge the debt in bankruptcy. The responsibility should shift to the lenders, not the government. The price of colleges should tumble. Some should have to close their doors. There should be a great reshuffling in the education space. > "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." This is a great quote, thanks for sharing. I would say a more accurate quote would be: For every complex problem, there are infinite answers that are clear, simple, and wrong, but also a few that are right.

bumby 7y ago
The difference is that one presupposes the other. In other words, there fact that the government started guaranteeing and subsidizing loans created conditions that led to excess debt, which set the table for a need to remove the ability to discharge that debt in order to make the risk of lending acceptable. I believe much of this can be traced back to The Great Society program. I don't think you're wrong, I think you're just focusing on the wrong aspect. Its the supply of easily incurred debt that is incentivizing high tuition. The laws regarding discharging of that debt are predictable blowback. It sounds like what you're advocating is a return to the way higher education was treated prior to the 1980s, a time when many less people had degrees. The problem is that return is no longer a simple solution, especially when we live in a society that now requires 4 year and even graduate degrees to be competitive, regardless of whether the position necessitates it
breck 7y ago
I'd point you to this paper pasted above: "https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1709&context=articles" https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article.... It's an unjust law enacted in the 1970's at the behest of dishonest people. It needs to be fixed. Pretending it's a more complicated issue is just a tactic to delay doing the right thing.
- bumby 7y ago
  Unfortunately the link is throwing an error me. If it's related to the bankruptcy law, I'm not advocating that it is moral. I'm saying it's part of a complex system that a simple repeal may have unintended consequences. From my experience in an organization specially tasked to help redesign problem processes, I can only say that every single time someone thought a simple solution would cure a complex issue, they were wrong. I'm sure there's an occasional case that could be the exception to prove the rule, but it became such an inside joke that my boss had a desk placard that read (tongue-in-cheek), "All you've got to do..." Unfortunately, for those adamant about their idealized simple fix, they could only be convinced by seeing it fail.
  - breck 7y ago
    Oh, I imagine there would be a number of 2nd order effects. Another commenter mentioned that we might then see bankruptcy records preserved for 20 years, not 7. You are right about that for sure. It's like a big refactor. Often hugely worth it in the end, but lots of problems crop up along the journey. I still think simplicity is the thing to fight for. Corruption hides in complexity.

by breck 7y ago

bumby 7y ago

The difference is that one presupposes the other. In other words, there fact that the government started guaranteeing and subsidizing loans created conditions that led to excess debt, which set the table for a need to remove the ability to discharge that debt in order to make the risk of lending acceptable. I believe much of this can be traced back to The Great Society program. I don't think you're wrong, I think you're just focusing on the wrong aspect. Its the supply of easily incurred debt that is incentivizing high tuition. The laws regarding discharging of that debt are predictable blowback. It sounds like what you're advocating is a return to the way higher education was treated prior to the 1980s, a time when many less people had degrees. The problem is that return is no longer a simple solution, especially when we live in a society that now requires 4 year and even graduate degrees to be competitive, regardless of whether the position necessitates it

breck 7y ago

I'd point you to this paper pasted above: "https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1709&context=articles" https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article.... It's an unjust law enacted in the 1970's at the behest of dishonest people. It needs to be fixed. Pretending it's a more complicated issue is just a tactic to delay doing the right thing.

bumby 7y ago
Unfortunately the link is throwing an error me. If it's related to the bankruptcy law, I'm not advocating that it is moral. I'm saying it's part of a complex system that a simple repeal may have unintended consequences. From my experience in an organization specially tasked to help redesign problem processes, I can only say that every single time someone thought a simple solution would cure a complex issue, they were wrong. I'm sure there's an occasional case that could be the exception to prove the rule, but it became such an inside joke that my boss had a desk placard that read (tongue-in-cheek), "All you've got to do..." Unfortunately, for those adamant about their idealized simple fix, they could only be convinced by seeing it fail.
- breck 7y ago
  Oh, I imagine there would be a number of 2nd order effects. Another commenter mentioned that we might then see bankruptcy records preserved for 20 years, not 7. You are right about that for sure. It's like a big refactor. Often hugely worth it in the end, but lots of problems crop up along the journey. I still think simplicity is the thing to fight for. Corruption hides in complexity.