4 ms·

> all the while ignoring the lenders that are taking on too much risk. At least, they would be taking on too much risk, if they hadn't captured the market so ef

> all the while ignoring the lenders that are taking on too much risk. At least, they would be taking on too much risk, if they hadn't captured the market so effectively The lenders? Risk? 93% of all student loan debt is owned by the US Government. What risk? How is it everybody pretends it's the Big Evil Bankers making all the money on this racket? It's equivalent to the false narrative about private prisons driving the high US incarceration rate (when in fact it was over 95% government prisons across the decades that the rate was skyrocketing). It's a government replacement funding system for the entitlement programs that are bleeding out. They had to find a new funding source as entitlements dipped red, so they're strapping young people with massive debt (forever rising interest payments) they can't discharge and that derives from magic fiat dollars the US Government 'prints' at will. This is another case of the government abusing the population. Anti abortion laws? Government. Anti gay marriage laws? Government. Anti trans laws? Government. Segregation laws? Government. The war on drugs? Government. The war on terrorism? Government. Foreign adventurism wars? Government. Vast illegal domestic espionage? Government. Non-existent social security 'lock box' (not filled with $10+ trillion like it should be; should be the world's largest sovereign wealth fund)? Government theft. How many examples do you all need?

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
People hate Comcast for raising their rate $10/month but when the government prints trillions causing you to lose 20% of your income and assets to inflation it’s not a big deal.
- roamerz 3y ago
  It’s easy to miss the connection between printing money and the affect of printing money since there is always a time period between cause and affect. The example of comcast raising hour bill is immediate. Well comparatively. Eventually and hopefully people will wise up.
  - imtringued 3y ago
    It is easy to miss because there is hardly any money printing going on. Physical cash is nowadays pretty insignificant.
taeric 3y ago
I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here. Government debt has been discharged before. Look into the number of cities that have declared bankruptcy. (That is, you don't even have to look at failed nation states. Plenty of places in the US have done this.) That is, no amount of lending is ever risk free. To pretend that you can hedge all risk out of a loan is the problem. It doesn't matter who issues it. It doesn't matter why they issued it. So, to put the question back to you, why would you feel there is no risk in lending to students to go to college?
- speakfreely 3y ago
  It's not about getting the risk to zero. It's about managing it. Right now anyone can take on massive debt to go to college programs they almost certainly will not finish. There's no risk evaluation for individual students, no qualification process that decides to only give loans to those with a history of performance that indicates they will finish. And almost 40% of student loan defaults are people that didn't finish [0]. Whether they finish or not, it surges the demand for education and makes it more expensive for the people that did perform well in high school and achieved a minimum level of personal organization to succeed in an academic environment. [0] https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-how-many-student-loan-borrowers-failed-to-finish-college/19524091/ https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-how-many-student-loan-...
  - taeric 3y ago
    If I loaned out a ton of money to people that couldn't repay it, the system would rightfully tell me that I took on too much risk in lending the money out and that I earned the losses. To that end, the system works as designed and desired. People, by and large, are not capable of putting others in absurd debts that they are unable to get out of. The way these loans are done, the "risk" is supposedly managed down to zero by some byzantine limits on how much people can take out. This is silly, at face value, as the limits on how much a family can take out are basically non-existent. Yes, we have limits on individuals, but those seem to be little more than token talking points. That said, reading your post again, feels like we are in agreement?

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

People hate Comcast for raising their rate $10/month but when the government prints trillions causing you to lose 20% of your income and assets to inflation it’s not a big deal.

roamerz 3y ago
It’s easy to miss the connection between printing money and the affect of printing money since there is always a time period between cause and affect. The example of comcast raising hour bill is immediate. Well comparatively. Eventually and hopefully people will wise up.
- imtringued 3y ago
  It is easy to miss because there is hardly any money printing going on. Physical cash is nowadays pretty insignificant.

taeric 3y ago

I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here. Government debt has been discharged before. Look into the number of cities that have declared bankruptcy. (That is, you don't even have to look at failed nation states. Plenty of places in the US have done this.) That is, no amount of lending is ever risk free. To pretend that you can hedge all risk out of a loan is the problem. It doesn't matter who issues it. It doesn't matter why they issued it. So, to put the question back to you, why would you feel there is no risk in lending to students to go to college?

speakfreely 3y ago
It's not about getting the risk to zero. It's about managing it. Right now anyone can take on massive debt to go to college programs they almost certainly will not finish. There's no risk evaluation for individual students, no qualification process that decides to only give loans to those with a history of performance that indicates they will finish. And almost 40% of student loan defaults are people that didn't finish [0]. Whether they finish or not, it surges the demand for education and makes it more expensive for the people that did perform well in high school and achieved a minimum level of personal organization to succeed in an academic environment. [0] https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-how-many-student-loan-borrowers-failed-to-finish-college/19524091/ https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-how-many-student-loan-...
- taeric 3y ago
  If I loaned out a ton of money to people that couldn't repay it, the system would rightfully tell me that I took on too much risk in lending the money out and that I earned the losses. To that end, the system works as designed and desired. People, by and large, are not capable of putting others in absurd debts that they are unable to get out of. The way these loans are done, the "risk" is supposedly managed down to zero by some byzantine limits on how much people can take out. This is silly, at face value, as the limits on how much a family can take out are basically non-existent. Yes, we have limits on individuals, but those seem to be little more than token talking points. That said, reading your post again, feels like we are in agreement?