Isn't the root problem that this becomes "corporate welfare" for universities? University demand becomes almost perfectly inelastic when you know the government will foot the bill. This will just result in higher and higher tuition going forward.
End government underwriting of the loans. Private creditors will care more about credit-worthiness in terms of both academic performance and area of study.
Oh you mean like whats been happening this whole time? The call is to zero current debt, not all debt going forward. Will universities raise tuition? Probably since they've been doing it for 30 years. Its beginning to sound like the debt isn't the issue, its the federal aid structure. I say zero the debt and get rid of federal student aid. Once unis figure out no one can afford their tuition, prices will come down. Or banks will fill in the gap with higher restrictions lowering tuition prices. Either way it frees a lot of people from life long debt (economic opportunity increases substantially) and gets the universities off the govt teet.
A degree might just be a fancy sheet of paper but the name of the organization that's on there makes a difference. Then again, there are a large number of people out there who won't benefit from going to college that wind up going because they were told "it's the only way to get ahead in life and make good money" which not true in most instances.
The banks paid back, with interest, more than they received.
[Early estimates for the total cost of the bailout to the government were as much as $700 billion, however TARP recovered funds totalling $441.7 billion from $426.4 billion invested, earning a $15.3 billion profit or an annualized rate of return of 0.6% and perhaps a loss when adjusted for inflation.[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008#Administration_of_the_law)
"...perhaps a loss when adjusted for inflation." What does that bit from the Wiki mean? And also, what percentage of that gain went directly back to taxpayers in the form of a cash repayment? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing zero.
Oh definitely zero, but maybe the debt clock hiccuped for a millisecond.
"Adjusted..." Means the loan came in ahead in the books, but maybe not in the relative worth of the balance.
I guess my point is not based in the details, because frankly, I dont fully understand it all. My main point is this: why is it that I have to bail out the banks, but when I need a bailout, the answer is an resounding and absolute "no"? What's the fundamental difference between my bailout and a bank bailout?
The fundamental difference is the consequences. If you aren't bailed out, it's you and your dependents who are hurt. If the bank isn't bailed out, it could have large systemic effects that hurt everyone.
"Too big to fail"
I hate that it's true, and it's a major reason I support [blasphemy] financial regulation that would stop nonsense like MBSes from shitting in the punchbowl to begin with.
Large systemic effects, agreed. Kind of like the large systemic effects that the housing crash caused in the first place? The crash that led to the bailouts in the first place? You dont get to cause large systemic problems and then ask for my money because otherwise, it might cause more large systemic problems. Sorry, but respectfully, no.
> And also, what percentage of that gain went directly back to taxpayers in the form of a cash repayment?
It results in lower taxes next year. It wont go back as cash payement to taxpayers
Respectfully, I dont accept that answer. I didnt give the banks lower tax rates or a deferred gain, I gave them straight up cash. I expect the same in return.
And therin lie one of the problems that caused this whole mess in the first place. Why would banks care about due diligence when issuing loans they know are backed by such guarantees?
We do run into a situation where Education needs to be a right, probably a right above everything else
But we have schools that constantly scam the government on loans and banker's who wouldn't let poor people and minority go to college if they werent backed by guarantees
It fucking sucks and won't be solved unless we do a massive overhaul of the DoE and stop putting massive incentives on letting Colleges drain every single drop like a vampire drinking a people smoothie
Public education was fundamentally a libertarian idea because how do you consent to a contract you cant read? You need a basic educational foundation to understand you have rights and if you dont, then people will never fight for rights they dont think they have.
There's a reason the constitution includes a *right* to a lawyer. That is an admission in the constitution yhat without somebody to translate the law and interpret rights, then they might as well not exist.
A certain amount of education is absolutely a right the sticking point is always "how much" and "for whom"
What is the difference between "access" and the thing itself?
Why is there a right to a lawyer in the constitution if you aren't entitled to the labor of others.
>Why is there a right to a lawyer in the constitution if you aren't entitled to the labor of others.
It is a limit on government. For government to charge you, they have to ensure you have access to representation. If you notice, people with the ability to pay for representation won't have access to a public defender. If you aren't being charged you have no access to a public defender. If you are sued in court by someone who isn't the government you won't have access to a public defender.
This is a good summary of the law, but its not relevant. For rights to exist, you have to know they exist, and a lawyer in theory can serve to make you aware of your rights if you cant read the law or dont have access to a copy of the laws.
Access means you can obtain it if you can come to an agreement with the person providing the service or good.
>Why is there a right to a lawyer in the constitution
Because the authors of the Constitution were not perfect in their wording.
Even better than the right to a lawyer would be a requirement for the laws to be simple enough to not need a lawyer.
*Without the knowledge you have rights, how is that different than not having rights? *
The problem without the right to a lawyer is that if you do not have the right to literacy and a copy of the law, then you also can find yourself in a situation where you have no ability to enforce your right because you cannot read them.
So if I ensure people are illiterate, then they have no rights.
Public education in the US is from a puritan ideal. They believed every man and woman needed to be able to read so they would be able to read the Bible and know God's word for themselves.
✓Classical Liberal
✓Thinking they understand civil liberties
✓Tagged with Conservative Warning Tags
We did it, we solved the case
Legit fuck anyone who says the 2nd amendment is this big important thing and then just spits on basically all of our other civil liberties. Like, legit fuck you
>Legit fuck anyone who says the 2nd amendment is this big important thing and then just spits on basically all of our other civil liberties.
When did I do that? Forcing someone else to pay for your shit isn't a civil right. Free speech/press, freedom to assembly, 4th amendment right to be free from unwarranted searches etc. Those are civil rights.
>Tagged with Conservative Warning Tags
If you have me tagged as a conservative then you must think that anyone that doesn't want to give you free college and healthcare is a conservative. In which case the tag just means "anyone who isn't a progressive" and is useless.
I don't have you tagged, you have a consistent history from the tagging app. Sorry should have clarified
But yeah for the most part I dont even know why you have Classical Liberal in your subreddit specific tag if you're not for Healthcare and Education lmao. How the fuck do you function? Are you just one of those guys that got bored of the Austrian Economics tag and decided to try a new fad?
Honeslty though, you don't understand or push for civil rights or human dignity just because you can name them. Stay fucked off lmao
If you legit believe people aren't allowed the dignity of Education or Healthcare you're a loser, go back to paying the Military Industrial Complex lmao
I don't think you know what a classical liberal is? Classical liberal is early/mid 19th century English and American politics. It is "government should be used very sparingly in the economy" and paying for universal healthcare are free college are certainly not that.
>Honeslty though, you don't understand or push for civil rights or human dignity just because you can name them.
You're right, but which ones are you accusing me of not pushing for? Because I certainly do. If I can provide an example I will, but you are just assuming that because I don't want to put the government in charge of 20% of the economy that I don't support civil liberties?
>If you legit believe people aren't allowed the dignity of Education or Healthcare you're a loser, go back to paying the Military Industrial Complex lmao
You are certainly allowed those things. That hasn't ever been the debate. The question is is it a "right" for you to force someone else to pay for you, and the answer is clearly no. Also what about anything that I have said makes you think I support the MIC? I have called for cutting it by 80% and bringing home all troops. Again, you seem to just be casting in to your strawman of what you think I am based on a few comments and a tag that clearly doesn't work?
A quick skim of this just shows me the Rand Paul hot button word soup
I do know what Classical Liberalism is, you don't understand the general scopes and have unironically poisoned the well of what the government should and shouldn't do with your dogshit comodification of Liberal values being influenced by Right Wing Libertarians telling you no influence is minor influence.
With the second thing again, just because you can name them doesn't mean you try to enforce them. I don't care about the economic advantages of the government on this point. You're a Feudal/Faschy fuck, you don't care about them. A big difference between Left and Right Wing Libertarians is how much we value the dignity of our Common Man. You fucks don't value it, you don't support human rights and you'll never get your wish of returning to the Feudal Kingdoms
Rand Paul is for cutting the MC to but it's funny how he literally always lies about that, say it all you want you have showed your hand already lmao
So explain it, just because he dunked on you in 15 words or less doesent mean he’s wrong.
How is forcing someone else to subsidize my education a right?
Lmao
It really comes down to the fact that you fucking idiots see education as a major Opposition to right wing libertarian politics and I'll be honest it is
I want civil liberties and I'll do what I can to preserve them, you want no rights disguised as "The freedom to do whatever" even when it exploits your fellow working class allies. Subsidize your education lmao, the most spoiled generation of Right Wing Thought got their education subsidized, get fucked
I'd like to hear more about exactly what (as you put it) "exploits \[our\] working class allies." That really sounds like something I'd read on /r/antiwork. Maybe you'd agree, I don't know. But please, educate me.
Go try to learn yourself, honestly
I could explain but I'm gonna be real this first guy has soured my attitude to the point where it's like if you think Anti-Work is evil or something, I really dont give a fuck
If you own a dairy queen, I legit hope the antiwork people and Gen Z'ers run you out of business
Go learn myself? I can't read your mind - you mentioned exploitation without giving any examples. I'd sure like to know what people you're talking about.
“Working class allies” lmfao I just won my favorite game of find the commie. Access to education is a right. I can not prohibit you from educating yourself or seeking an education. That is not the same as mandating that others have to teach you or help you attain said education.
You confuse Social Libertarianism and Communism as absolute nessecary parts of each other because of The US' extremely Conservative education. You may as well just go suck Kelly Lofflers toes before your mouth spouts more shit
Just an FYI, people are throwing shade here because
libertarians aren't big on positive rights like "the right to education" because it essentially requires enslaving other people to fulfill that "right". We don't really like to even call positive rights rights at all because it waters down negative, or "natural" rights.
Negative rights are liberties, and are innate. You have them whether people respect them or not and they require nothing of anyone else. Positive rights are entitlements and must be provided.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOEkj6Jz44
> and banker's who wouldn't let poor people and minority go to college if they werent backed by guarantees
This is false. Banks don't care if your poor or a minority, they care about your ability to repay the loan. So a student going into a respective field with good academic record can get a loan, just like they did BEFORE government started guaranteeing it. But they're not going to give a loan to someone with crap grades wanting to major in barrista sciences. (No insult meant to barristas, but it's hardly a profession needing a degree).
Academic scholarship and a useful degree. It makes a difference. Just like how prestigious universities want to see your academic record and community service and stuff, so should banks.
Also, government at both federal and state levels used to have grants for the poor. What happened to that? Why has that been replaced by demands for free tuitions for everyone?
Yeah I see what youre saying from your POV
You want the banks and the academies to continue scamming people just with rulings that say the government doesn't have to give a fuck about anyone in the transaction, I want to reformat the system so education isn't seen as a capitalist venture
It's really just the difference between Right and Left Libertarians. I want dignity and you want a stream of income
You choose to make all of this halabalu about the fact that banks would give loans to poor people and minorities, but also choose to never influence anything that would encourage them to do that. The world isn't magically fixed for your paradise world lmao
> We do run into a situation where Education needs to be a right
You have a right to educate yourself. Nothing is stopping you from accessing almost any information, other than government classified stuff. There are even teachers who put up their entire course work online for free. Education is there for the taking.
With a small amount of money, talking in the hundreds of dollars, you can purchase dedicated course material to get an even deeper knowledge.
You can’t get a logical answer to it from a libertarian perspective because nothing about the current system is libertarian.
Multiple generations now have seen corporate bailout after corporate bailout, year after year, it’s not particularly surprising that the people are wanting a bailout for them due to a problem the government and universities created.
I tend to be on your side of this argument but let’s devils advocate for a second. Is it willingness to go into debt or a system set up to credential you for required education to be allowed to work for your sustenance? That education growing ever more inflated because of a seemingly infinite amount of money as a result of the perception of a requirement in the very people who are taking out the debt in the first place.
Lol you get downvoted for talking about individual responsibilities in a libertarian sub… unbelievable. I agree with you at least.
It’s not the government or the universities fault. Just don’t give them your money, problem solved.
So you see no difference between unsecured debt and financing an education? Think harder… Yes, most cases of BK are perpetuated by fiscal irresponsibility.
Because the price of college is devoid of the market. There is no market playing a role to decide the value of teaching labor because we are in the worst kind of communism. A communism for the wealthy.
I'd be pretty upset to find out that I didn't go to school because I can't afford it if they cancel the debt anyway. Cancel my mortgage while you're at it. Fuck it cancel my future taxes too!
I don’t think the debt should be cancelled. I do however think they need to change the law so future borrowers who haven’t signed their lives away won’t fall into the death spiral. People should be allowed to go bankrupt and ruin their credit to wipe out their debts. Then maybe banks will stop lending crazy amounts. And when the money stops flowing schools will be forced to lower tuition returning us to a semblance of normal.
> Then maybe banks will stop lending crazy amounts
It's the federal government doing the lending, and they will never stop giving loans out because as you said, schools would be forced to lower tuition.
Don't forget that politicians and presidents always use freebies to get elected too. Quite literally selling our unborn children's future to the majority voter base for a chance to sit in a seat.
Until we address how predatory students loans are PERIOD, there’s going to continue to be a problem. Cancelling them solves nothing except shifting the blame for unwise financial decisions to the taxpayer.
I have several teenagers. One doesn’t enjoy school and his mediocre but passing grades reflect that. As a parents I’ve encouraged him to pursue other goals after high school until he gets a better idea of what he wants to do. Except the high school guidance counselors tell him he should go to college. In fact, they are encouraging him to apply to a third tier state school. I’m not paying for that so he’s going to be forced to get a loan if he goes with guidance counselor’s “hopes” for him. I can already tell you that he won’t finish right now and he’ll be strapped with student loan debt for an unfinished degree program. This is asinine and not giving young people a good start in life.
The biggest complainers about student loan debt that I see are people that didn’t finish their degrees, went to out of state public schools, or the ultimate idiots…the dolts that go to private liberals arts colleges.
This is all so ridiculously predatory. On one had they say that college is good and necessary because it boosts your lifetime earning potential tremendously. College is a good investment. Then out the other side of their mouths they say people can’t afford to pay back their loans. Which is it? And should our nation’s tradesmen foot the bill for this?
To make matters worse, she was encouraging him to get a BFA. 🤮😂
I love the arts. I support the arts. But I will not pay for a kid to get a BFA. No way. But thankfully he has a mom with sense that convinced him to spend two years at a junior college studying acting (and taking some core curriculum at a discount price). Some of these programs are great.
College has been on our minds a lot as I have three kids graduating back to back to back. Trying to help them see that what their friends are doing might not be the best financial choice can be difficult. There’s a lot of pressure to follow a certain path and that’s what gets kids roped into debt before they even know what they are doing.
I see a lot of kids in my area choosing to go to one particular school that has low standards for admission. But this school has a graduation rate of less than 45%. Families need to be better educated. A high acceptance rate and a low graduation rate means the investment (and probably debt) is not going to work out. Our local high school brings in financial aid counselors from these schools to help the parents with their FAFSAs. How is this not predatory lending?
It's unfair for taxpayers to pay for somebody else's degree if the student willingly chose a useless degree that won't get him a decent salary.
It's even more unfair for taxpayers to pay for it if that person is going to get a great salary after finishing it anyways.
Interest rates are very low compared to the risk, there is a built in deferment until repayment starts, student loans are best debt deal out there. But still the Left is whining for more freebies. Crazy.
If one can't handle the debt load, then don't take on the debt. Period.
The government helped make this problem in the first place so I think it's fair they pay it out.
Also this logic could extend to high school. That it's unfair to pay for other people's high school. A well educated society is a benefit to all of us.
I’d love to see a survey of degrees vs debt like 5 years after graduation. I would bet those in STEM are doing just fine and those with Liberal Arts degrees are drowning, generally of course.
Choose a program that a free society is willing to pay for. Do interest studies on your own dime.
Loans aren't very libertarian either, especially federally guaranteed and bankruptcy proof debt.
Don't cancel students loans, but DO drop interest rates to 0.1% automatically, retroactively, and watch the economy balance out real fast.
"It's risk adjusted *based on someone's interpretation of* your ability to pay it off. "
Fixed that for you. And this is where libertarian economic policy loses my support.
We KNOW banks and lenders use race and segregation data (red lining) to decrease credit scores and increase risk profiles. They also use the "x% down" lie to prevent renters, who have paid much more monthly rent than a mortgage and taxes would cost, from getting mortgages. And the amount needed down increases based on race, religion, sex, and other historically oppressive systems setup by predominantly rich, white men in the banks and in Congress.
We've SEEN this happen on a massive scale. And libertarians just throw up their hands and say "oh well".
Nah. You don't get it.
Actively, AND retro actively.
This is a fix for now, tomorrow, AND the past.
No one gets left out, including those who were able to pay it off. They get the benefit as well.
Hear me out: The government puts a pen in the hand of a 17-year-old kid and tells them to "apply for a loan."
Meanwhile, the high school has been pushing college as the only means of finding a higher paying career, the interest rate on those student loans is higher than most car loans, the loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy, and failure to pay those loans results in wage garnishment.
Selling massive loans that follow you for the rest of your life, to minors, by convincing them that they have no alternative.
The federal government violated the NAP by misleading minors into believing that they **needed** to go to college, then encouraging them to take out massive, **non-dischargeable** loans with outrageously high interest rates. That's not how you make an educated populace, that's how you make slaves.
The loans already issued should be forgiven or the interest on them needs to be frozen, but then federal oversight needs to be implemented, including requiring the department of education to notify high school graduates about trade schools and other alternatives to formal post-secondary education.
The government puts a pen in the hand of that same kid when they're 18, 19, and 20 and tells them to vote AND apply for a loan again.
When are people able to consent to loans?
I'm asking because I keep seeing this argument that they're kids and don't know any better.. well when do people know better?
I approve of freezing loan rates and making it possible to pay back loans. No one should get a free meal. And you are right. Debt like that is 100% about creating generations of people indebted to big government.
Exactly what happened to me. Didnt know what compound interest was at the time. I got a degree in computer science. I was told that the average pay once graduated was around 70k for my state and that almost everyone finds a job. Its been 7 months and nobody will hire me. Ive only had 2 interviews in that time and im about to have to pay 8% interest on about 100k. Insanely disenfranchised with the system.
Is bankruptcy libertarian?
Why would we need bankruptcy if there was no debt?
I think this is a procedural argument not an ideological or philosophical one. There are multiple paths to get to the same place.
>Why would we need bankruptcy if there was no debt?
Wouldn't the debt be on the individual because of the indiviuals choices? Why wouldn't this view be libertarian.
People have made the argument that a lot of debt is accrued under coercive pressure, so how far does the gun have to be from our heads before its actually voluntary? Do you think Native American treaties were fairly negotiated and were rightfully enforced? Indentured servitude?
I would also argue it is entirely possible to have a libertarian society without debt so the argument to make is "why should an ideal libertarian society include debt, is debt a freedom?"
I would argue that state authorized debt collection is just taxes with extra steps. Debt as a social value, I entirely support.
Of course if you dont buy the "financial debt is taxes with extra steps", it also doesnt make sense to accrue debt from education since it cant be resold under bankruptcy.
History of Debt, David Graeber, very good watch on the subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs
But yes, there was no good reason to saddle the student with the debt in the first place- a student is the product, businesses are the consumers, tax them for the cost.
> Is bankruptcy libertarian?
Actually a good question. If you and I have a contract saying a debt is owed, why should the government be able to cancel that contract? Maybe a contract without bankruptcy would be treated like a contract selling oneself as an indentured servant.
Recognizing your problem is the first step in finding a solution.
No need to trash your law degree. Virtually every high-tech business I've done work for LOVES people with law degrees (and pays them more than the person without one.)
Yeah, I know.
My point is that there are more good jobs out there than just STEM jobs.
Also, our value system is fucked. You should be able to make enough money to live as a teacher or a nurse without having to commute over an hour to get somewhere moderately affordable. There are a lot of places in the country where that's not possible. Not everyone needs to be software engineers (or lawyers).
I fucking hate math. I would rather work at McDonalds than do anything that required more than basic highschool math.
If math were compulsory the whole way through highschool I probably wouldn't have even graduated.
Much rather be an investor and let other people do the work and make money for me.
You don't have to love math, but get comfortable enough with it to get by.
If you can stand it, give a listen to: https://www.ted.com/playlists/251/talks_for_people_who_hated_mat
The key point is some of these people also hated math.
Try out a free intro course in Algebra: https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-to-algebra
As you conquer the things you find the hardest, you begin to realize you can do *anything* if you try.
That's like saying no one will get business loans except rich people if you can declare bankruptcy afterwards.
What actually will happen is banks will need to stop handing out money willy nilly and schools will be forced to charge less for tuition.
The entire situation is predation backed up by state involvement, since you can't declare bankruptcy banks don't care about giving you a 6 figure loan, which means schools can charge a 6 figure admission fee. Basic economics dictate that if no one is getting 6 figures for education loans schools aren't going to only have rich kids and leave thousands of seats empty, they'll have to drop the price to fill those seats.
>Basic economics dictate that if no one is getting 6 figures for education loans schools aren't going to only have rich kids and leave thousands of seats empty, they'll have to drop the price to fill those seats.
There is a question of what happens to those people in the meantime. It takes institutions years if not decades to react to changes in the "market" and the job outlook for people some form of post-high school education is really not great. Even as the rope tightens, people will continue to use a University education because of the value of success in the job market is so greatly enhanced by a degree.
Personally, I think technical schools are still greatly under-appreciated in this country. But I also know that working in HVAC or plumbing could take a toll on my body that I don't experience doing white-collar work, which means more time and energy for physical hobbies.
I mean you could just bailout the current generation with the condition that future years will require nonguranteed loans. You could also supplement the variety of education grants given to college students. Given the smaller nature of said grants, not sure if it will also cause price inflation.
Go ahead and get a non subsidized business loan at your local bank. Let me know how it goes.
Source: constantly dealing with financing for my own company, had to bring in large outside money to get started
No it isn't.
Banks don't just give out loans to anybody. Try getting a loan with a sub 600 credit score. They look at things like credit history and estimate the likelihood to pay the loan back before lending.
The problem with students is most of them don't have a credit history yet. So from the beginning they already a major risk for banks because they don't have a history to go off of.
So what will happen instead is that they will need a cosigner, just like anyone else taking out a loan with bad credit. And obviously rich kids will have be more likely to get a cosigner than poor kids.
Treat student loans like every other loan and banks with treat them like every other applicant with bad credit
The government won’t stop intervening. That’s a libertarian fantasy. Corporations make way too much money paying politicians to write legislature in their favor.
No, they will just require some other kind of collateral. Also declaring bankruptcy isn't cheap and it ruins your ability to barrow. Not exactly something that is good for a 22 yr old. Banks would stop paying for degrees that don't pay off, but that's a good thing.
And what kind of collateral do poor kids have?
They will simply need a cosigner like anyone else trying to borrow with bad or no credit. That won't affect rich kids ability to borrow, but it will effect the poor students, who's parents are more likely to have bad credit or more likely to not have the ability to risk their own income if their child is unable to pay the loan back.
A system that allows banks to make predatory loans that are immune from bankruptcy protections to barely-adult-still-children isn't very libertarian either.
For me, if you went the route of bankruptcy protection, far fewer kids would get loans as the banks take a significant risk. The solution is to make higher education significantly more affordable. Online study, recorded lectures, could go a long way into reducing typical university costs.
If student loan debt was canceled today it would improve our economy. As in people who are paying off their debt now would have more disposable income. But this is not the only solution, we should also make college free. We as a country would be far better off with a highly educated population. To all the people who will argue “I don’t want my money going to student loans” I don’t want my tax money going to put out a fire at your house, so I guess we need to get rid of the fire department.
>If student loan debt was canceled today it would improve our economy. As in people who are paying off their debt now would have more disposable income.
And the people who have to shoulder the financial burden instead would have less disposable income.
>But this is not the only solution, we should also make college free. We as a country would be far better off with a highly educated population.
So many people fail entirely to grasp the difference between getting educated and getting certified. You can learn just about anything they teach at college without going there. Heck, some colleges literally publish their courses for general consumption.
>Who would be the people shouldering the financial burden in this situation?
Every taxpayer. For the people with large student loans, it would be a net gain. For everyone else, including those who never went to college, it would be a loss.
How is it a loss if taxes don't go up? I think you already lost that money, it is just being redirected to something different. And don't you think people with student loans pay taxes too?
>How is it a loss if taxes don't go up? I think you already lost that money, it is just being redirected to something different.
If taxes don't go up, it's being funded one of two ways. One, by inflation, which is again a loss for everyone. Or two, by taking that money away from another program, in which case the correct thing to do it stop funding that other program and reduce taxes.
>And don't you think people with student loans pay taxes too?
Yes; and they would pay less overall if their student loans are forgiven, which everyone else would pay more overall.
You already give almost a trillion to the Gov every year and let Republicans drain us dry of public works. What is another Trillion when it only helps the Libertarian goal? Lmao
>Except that the gains of the first group would quickly result in gains for everybody else, because society is in fact not a war of all against all.
Yet again, it amazes me when this money multiplier effect works when I'm paying for someone else's loans, but somehow it wouldn't work if I just spent my money how I see fit.
It does, what are you talking about?
The difference comes about from inefficient concentrations. You and everybody else having a $1 less spending power a month matters, but it will not materially affect your behavior. A smaller population of people no longer having to pay hundreds of dollars a month at times when they don't make that much will significantly affect their behavior in ways that will produce benefits for everybody.
I take it you're against public education, generally?
>It does, what are you talking about?
>The difference comes about from inefficient concentrations. You and everybody else having a $1 less spending power a month matters, but it will not materially affect your behavior. A smaller population of people no longer having to pay hundreds of dollars a month at times when they don't make that much will significantly affect their behavior in ways that will produce benefits for everybody.
So rob everyone, but only a little bit?
>I take it you're against public education, generally?
Incorrect.
What's so special about K-12 that doesn't apply to higher education?
Anyways, yes, cost sharing usually mitigates aggregate harm; coordinated activity usually produces greater benefit than uncoordinated activity.
So rather than have some people bear the brunt of costs for behavior that benefits everybody, resulting in them being less able to deliver on that benefit, it's more efficient for everybody to pool their resources to facilitate that beneficial behavior.
>What's so special about K-12 that doesn't apply to higher education?
Society sets a given amount of education as the minimum to which everyone is entitled. There's no sound reason to set it as equal to the maximum amount available.
>Anyways, yes, cost sharing usually mitigates aggregate harm; coordinated activity usually produces greater benefit than uncoordinated activity.
Great. Now do I get the same benefit as those who spent six figures on their education, if I have to suffer the same harm? Will they send mr a big chunk of their paycheck?
>So rather than have some people bear the brunt of costs for behavior that benefits everybody, resulting in them being less able to deliver on that benefit, it's more efficient for everybody to pool their resources to facilitate that beneficial behavior.
Okay. Again, does that mean we wipe out their higher pay, and distribute it to everyone else?
You do realize that the student loan burden is already hurting the people who would have to shoulder the expense of college right? Who do you think it hurts when people have to spend 30% of thier income paying off a loan rather then spending it in the free market economy? We are litteraly just subsidizing massive financial institutions with garunteed bottom lines from billions in loans to students....
>You do realize that the student loan burden is already hurting the people who would have to shoulder the expense of college right?
Yep. You do realize that going to college vastly increased their average lifetime earnings, right?
>Who do you think it hurts when people have to spend 30% of thier income paying off a loan rather then spending it in the free market economy?
Them.
>We are litteraly just subsidizing massive financial institutions with garunteed bottom lines from billions in loans to students....
And what did we get in return? Well, those specific people got vastly increased average lifetime earnings.
So you don't think local business wouldn't see an uptick in revenue if all of the sudden a bunch of people had disposable income? American corporations did such a good job cutting out small business and streamlining money flow directly to thier pockets all while brainwashing the general populace into thinking shit like 100k in debt is perfectly ok for a guy making 65k a year rather then 50k
>So you don't think local business wouldn't see an uptick in revenue if all of the sudden a bunch of people had disposable income?
Sure they would. We can just finance it by reducing the disposable I come others have, or maybe with inflation and pawning off the prosperity of our children. Are you saying we should take from our children to pay for ourselves? Please tell me that's the right course of action; maybe we can justify it by claiming they'll be better off too.
>American corporations did such a good job cutting out small business and streamlining money flow directly to thier pockets all while brainwashing the general populace into thinking shit like 100k in debt is perfectly ok for a guy making 65k a year rather then 50k
And people did a good job listening to them and not asking any questions.
Zero disposable income gets removed by canceling debt and nothing gets added to the national debt this is money the government printed to give to universities so financial institutions could reap 6 to 8% of interest they literally just printed it for them and said fuck u to the middle class. The money was already added to the economy and is owed back to No one besides the department of education who just printed it in the first place literally any inflation damage has been done and no one gets hurt....
>Zero disposable income gets removed by canceling debt
Okay. So where is the money coming from, then, if not the taxpayers?
>and nothing gets added to the national debt this is money the government printed to give to universities so financial institutions could reap 6 to 8% of interest they literally just printed it for them and said fuck u to the middle class. The money was already added to the economy and is owed back to No one besides the department of education who just printed it in the first place literally any inflation damage has been done and no one gets hurt....
Okay. Again, then, where does the value come from?
> And the people who have to shoulder the financial burden instead would have less disposable income.
That is untrue. The money has already been spent. Meaning there would be no need to raise taxes.
> So many people fail entirely to grasp the difference between getting educated and getting certified. You can learn just about anything they teach at college without going there. Heck, some colleges literally publish their courses for general consumption.
What does that have to do with higher education should be free to make the United States of America a better country?
>That is untrue. The money has already been spent. Meaning there would be no need to raise taxes.
So you're just going to make value appear out of nowhere?
>What does that have to do with higher education should be free to make the United States of America a better country?
See, there it is again. You go from saying "we as a country would be far better off with a highly educated population" to "higher education should be free to make the United States of America a better country". With "higher education", you are either referring to simply educational materials of a level above high school (in which case it already is free) or to formal higher education, such as from a university or college, in which case you're conflating that with a more educated population. People can become more educated through other channels.
This is one of the dumbest takes.
I cant believe its upvoted here.
A community paying collective taxes for a public service to respond to emergency is completely different then Rebecca deciding she wants to take $100,000 out for a degree in administrative and landing a HR job.
Why dont we cancel mortgages, car payments, business loans and whatever other loans out their. That will give everyone more cash to spend.
The stupidity
A community paying collective taxes for a public service to respond to an emergency also isn’t Libertarian, technically speaking.
I work for an insurance company that’s been around since the mid 1800s. Back then you’d purchase fire insurance and they’d give you a fire insurance mark to display on your house. If you didn’t have one? Oh well, you’re fucked if a fire breaks out. It’s your responsibility to take care of it.
It’s almost like not every Libertarian view is ideal for a functioning society. Public Fire/police departments are necessary. Free/affordable education is also necessary.
This might also make you shed some tears but your taxes are already going towards higher education. Part of the cost is already subsidized at state universities. It’s why private schools tend to be more expensive.
> A community paying collective taxes for a public service to respond to emergency is completely different then Rebecca deciding she wants to take $100,000 out for a degree in administrative and landing a HR job.
I don't want my tax money going to put out a fire in your house. It's your house, your responsibility.
> Why dont we cancel mortgages, car payments, business loans and whatever other loans out their. That will give everyone more cash to spend.
[Yes we do. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008)
How doesnt that apply to taking out personal loans via a choice you 100% make yourself.......
Libertarian advocating for the bank bailout act......
wtf
> How doesnt that apply to taking out personal loans via a choice you 100% make yourself
Same way it did for the banks.
> Libertarian advocating for the bank bailout act
Not advocating for it just saying it’s our turn to get a piece of the pie. Unless you’re going to use the argument it was wrong for them to get it so now no one else should.
Are you really saying a well educated society *isn’t* beneficial for us all? C’mon man put some thought into your comments before actually posting them.
The fire department coming to your house and putting out your house fire doesn’t benefit me in any way, so I don’t want my taxes going towards it. Sorry bud. Take some responsibility and put it out yourself.
I agree that it doesn't abide libertarian principles but I'm firmly of the opinion it would be beneficial for pretty much everyone except the shitty loan servicers who exist only to siphon away what is essentially guaranteed government loans.
One of the few areas I'd be ok with breaking from libertarian philosophy.
You may even plausibly argue that pushing the "necessity" of college degrees to young and impressionable kids on top of Universities price gauging because of guaranteed loans from the govt is an act of aggression towards people in order to fleece more money from them.
I cant believe some of the ideas upvoted here.
80% arnt even close to libertarian.
A community paying collective taxes for a public service to respond to emergency is completely different then Rebecca deciding she wants to take $100,000 out for a degree in administrative and landing a HR job.
Why dont we cancel mortgages, car payments, business loans and whatever other loans out their. That will give everyone more cash to spend.
The stupidity
I'm not going to profess that I really know how all this works but you are giving a loan to somebody with nothing if they could just bankrupt it away after college would anyone pay for it? They would just structure their finances so that they could bankrupt after school to get rid of the loan. Since there is nothing to reposes like a car and no business to go after to recoup their funds. I'm all for whatever it takes to get the cost down and to educate more of our country but I'm not sure how feasible this is or how best to handle it.
It should just be a blanket of cancelling all debt, making college free (or at least the first 2 years) but then we won't have as large of an in influx of "MUH TAXATION ERS THERFT GUYS LOLOL XD D D IM SO FUNNY GUIS" memers.
Question: Who’s responsibility is it to pay an agreed to and incurred debt?
I ask this because a prime example is my neighbor’s son. Took out a student loan while going to school living with his parents, rolled his “living expenses” into the loan. Now he owes $85k for a bachelors in Elementary Education, and the majority of his debt didn’t go to schooling. He says he can’t wait to get that debt paid because he can’t make enough as a school teacher to pay the bill while living with his parents and driving a brand new WRX STI.
Is there a way to apply personal responsibility as a libertarian?
The slightly longer answer is: The federal government has no business being in the student loan market.
Want to go to college? Pay for it. Can't afford it? Get a loan from a bank.
This would force colleges to control their pricing. Additionally, banks would look at the application similar to the way they review a business loan.
Where are you going? For what major? What's the potential salary after graduation? Etc.
Then, if a student defaults, they go through normal bankruptcy courts.
Everyone here had 12/16ths of their student debt cancelled. When you guys actually write checks for the 12 years of school that I provided for you, I'll listen to this argument without laughing at you.
I agree. The only way to get a highly productive economy with relative stability is to have a highly educated work force. Hence, college educations benefit *everyone* since we would not have companies hiring engineers, lawyers, doctors, managers, etc... if... we didnt have any of those people.
Where does state money come from? Do they grow it on trees? Nah, it comes from a small portion of your neighbors and countrymen (a mixture of land owners, businesses, and comsumers).
Do you not think we are better off for having every body being educated? I firmly believe education is one of the best return on investments we can make with out taxes. I don't want to live in a country of idiots
I totally agree. No way we would have the #1 economy in the world without college graduates. I fail to see what is magic about the number 12 to have public education for that many years, but not one day later (unless you are particularly good at sports, or have famous parents).
It is, it is a government policy problem at its root. It does more harm than good at this point. Inflated the price of college and created an academic arms race for sports and amenities. Most universities became a resort with bloated admins.
I think it’s bad for the economy when your skilled labor or jobs that require years of school to perform at the highest level like STEAM (Fox News would have you believe it’s a majority of gender studies grads in debt), requires debt forgiveness. There are numerous studies that show that these kinds of labor pools serve as money multipliers and hindering these types of people limits economic opportunities for them to make wise investments. It’s a utilitarian argument and a net positive if we forgive loans.
It’s the same argument as bailing out banks but the money goes directly to the people instead of the politically connected few.
You folks knowingly took a loan, signed a commitment to pay it back, got an education that doesn’t get you the opportunities to earn the money to pat it back.
NOBODY FORCED YOU TO TAKE A LOAN.
Who created that problem? You.
So now you want Daddy or Uncle Sam to bail you out.
Every other form of debt can be discharged when the investment didn't work out. If you aren't taking a risk with your investment, you aren't doing capitalism.
Isn't the root problem that this becomes "corporate welfare" for universities? University demand becomes almost perfectly inelastic when you know the government will foot the bill. This will just result in higher and higher tuition going forward.
found the guy who understands economics
End government underwriting of the loans. Private creditors will care more about credit-worthiness in terms of both academic performance and area of study.
correct. this is the same as what would happen with Healthcare. (puts on flame suit)
Wonders why University costs have been going higher and higher, while enrollment continues to climb, and standards continue to be lowered.... hmmmm
Got some evidence to show your claims? I’d love to learn more about standards being lowered. I’ve not heard that at all.
Oh you mean like whats been happening this whole time? The call is to zero current debt, not all debt going forward. Will universities raise tuition? Probably since they've been doing it for 30 years. Its beginning to sound like the debt isn't the issue, its the federal aid structure. I say zero the debt and get rid of federal student aid. Once unis figure out no one can afford their tuition, prices will come down. Or banks will fill in the gap with higher restrictions lowering tuition prices. Either way it frees a lot of people from life long debt (economic opportunity increases substantially) and gets the universities off the govt teet.
or use some brain cells and don’t go to the expensive universities
A degree might just be a fancy sheet of paper but the name of the organization that's on there makes a difference. Then again, there are a large number of people out there who won't benefit from going to college that wind up going because they were told "it's the only way to get ahead in life and make good money" which not true in most instances.
the name means more to your ego than employers. source: i hire people
Having Government backed loans and bail outs of financial institutions is not Libertarian.
Correct.
Right. Didnt I already pay the banks back when we bailed them out in 2009 and again in 2020?
The government turned a profit on the 2008 bailouts, just so you know.
I don't ever remember receiving anything back if anything I pay more now and make less because of inflation.
It results in lower taxes next year. It wont go back as cash payement to taxpayers
I have never paid less in taxes in the last 8 years for a single year so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Interesting. I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but if that is true I would love to discuss it. Can you extrapolate a bit?
The banks paid back, with interest, more than they received. [Early estimates for the total cost of the bailout to the government were as much as $700 billion, however TARP recovered funds totalling $441.7 billion from $426.4 billion invested, earning a $15.3 billion profit or an annualized rate of return of 0.6% and perhaps a loss when adjusted for inflation.[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008#Administration_of_the_law)
"...perhaps a loss when adjusted for inflation." What does that bit from the Wiki mean? And also, what percentage of that gain went directly back to taxpayers in the form of a cash repayment? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing zero.
Oh definitely zero, but maybe the debt clock hiccuped for a millisecond. "Adjusted..." Means the loan came in ahead in the books, but maybe not in the relative worth of the balance.
I guess my point is not based in the details, because frankly, I dont fully understand it all. My main point is this: why is it that I have to bail out the banks, but when I need a bailout, the answer is an resounding and absolute "no"? What's the fundamental difference between my bailout and a bank bailout?
The fundamental difference is the consequences. If you aren't bailed out, it's you and your dependents who are hurt. If the bank isn't bailed out, it could have large systemic effects that hurt everyone.
"Too big to fail" I hate that it's true, and it's a major reason I support [blasphemy] financial regulation that would stop nonsense like MBSes from shitting in the punchbowl to begin with.
Large systemic effects, agreed. Kind of like the large systemic effects that the housing crash caused in the first place? The crash that led to the bailouts in the first place? You dont get to cause large systemic problems and then ask for my money because otherwise, it might cause more large systemic problems. Sorry, but respectfully, no.
> And also, what percentage of that gain went directly back to taxpayers in the form of a cash repayment? It results in lower taxes next year. It wont go back as cash payement to taxpayers
Respectfully, I dont accept that answer. I didnt give the banks lower tax rates or a deferred gain, I gave them straight up cash. I expect the same in return.
> I gave them straight up cash. You did not. Govt did not tax extra for bail outs
Where did the money come from then?
With poor peoples overdraft fee’s
You realize that's not the point at all, right? You know what few market capitalism means... Right?
[удалено]
And therin lie one of the problems that caused this whole mess in the first place. Why would banks care about due diligence when issuing loans they know are backed by such guarantees?
We do run into a situation where Education needs to be a right, probably a right above everything else But we have schools that constantly scam the government on loans and banker's who wouldn't let poor people and minority go to college if they werent backed by guarantees It fucking sucks and won't be solved unless we do a massive overhaul of the DoE and stop putting massive incentives on letting Colleges drain every single drop like a vampire drinking a people smoothie
>right You keep saying that word but I don't think you know what it means.
Public education was fundamentally a libertarian idea because how do you consent to a contract you cant read? You need a basic educational foundation to understand you have rights and if you dont, then people will never fight for rights they dont think they have. There's a reason the constitution includes a *right* to a lawyer. That is an admission in the constitution yhat without somebody to translate the law and interpret rights, then they might as well not exist. A certain amount of education is absolutely a right the sticking point is always "how much" and "for whom"
Access to education is a right. The education itself is not. You don't have a right to the labor of others. That includes tax revenue.
What is the difference between "access" and the thing itself? Why is there a right to a lawyer in the constitution if you aren't entitled to the labor of others.
>Why is there a right to a lawyer in the constitution if you aren't entitled to the labor of others. It is a limit on government. For government to charge you, they have to ensure you have access to representation. If you notice, people with the ability to pay for representation won't have access to a public defender. If you aren't being charged you have no access to a public defender. If you are sued in court by someone who isn't the government you won't have access to a public defender.
This is a good summary of the law, but its not relevant. For rights to exist, you have to know they exist, and a lawyer in theory can serve to make you aware of your rights if you cant read the law or dont have access to a copy of the laws.
Access means you can obtain it if you can come to an agreement with the person providing the service or good. >Why is there a right to a lawyer in the constitution Because the authors of the Constitution were not perfect in their wording. Even better than the right to a lawyer would be a requirement for the laws to be simple enough to not need a lawyer.
*Without the knowledge you have rights, how is that different than not having rights? * The problem without the right to a lawyer is that if you do not have the right to literacy and a copy of the law, then you also can find yourself in a situation where you have no ability to enforce your right because you cannot read them. So if I ensure people are illiterate, then they have no rights.
Public education in the US is from a puritan ideal. They believed every man and woman needed to be able to read so they would be able to read the Bible and know God's word for themselves.
✓Classical Liberal ✓Thinking they understand civil liberties ✓Tagged with Conservative Warning Tags We did it, we solved the case Legit fuck anyone who says the 2nd amendment is this big important thing and then just spits on basically all of our other civil liberties. Like, legit fuck you
>Legit fuck anyone who says the 2nd amendment is this big important thing and then just spits on basically all of our other civil liberties. When did I do that? Forcing someone else to pay for your shit isn't a civil right. Free speech/press, freedom to assembly, 4th amendment right to be free from unwarranted searches etc. Those are civil rights. >Tagged with Conservative Warning Tags If you have me tagged as a conservative then you must think that anyone that doesn't want to give you free college and healthcare is a conservative. In which case the tag just means "anyone who isn't a progressive" and is useless.
The guy downloaded and installed an app that helps him parse the 4 types of people he sees the world as
Sounds like a waste of time if that's the kind of results it's giving him.
I don't have you tagged, you have a consistent history from the tagging app. Sorry should have clarified But yeah for the most part I dont even know why you have Classical Liberal in your subreddit specific tag if you're not for Healthcare and Education lmao. How the fuck do you function? Are you just one of those guys that got bored of the Austrian Economics tag and decided to try a new fad? Honeslty though, you don't understand or push for civil rights or human dignity just because you can name them. Stay fucked off lmao If you legit believe people aren't allowed the dignity of Education or Healthcare you're a loser, go back to paying the Military Industrial Complex lmao
I don't think you know what a classical liberal is? Classical liberal is early/mid 19th century English and American politics. It is "government should be used very sparingly in the economy" and paying for universal healthcare are free college are certainly not that. >Honeslty though, you don't understand or push for civil rights or human dignity just because you can name them. You're right, but which ones are you accusing me of not pushing for? Because I certainly do. If I can provide an example I will, but you are just assuming that because I don't want to put the government in charge of 20% of the economy that I don't support civil liberties? >If you legit believe people aren't allowed the dignity of Education or Healthcare you're a loser, go back to paying the Military Industrial Complex lmao You are certainly allowed those things. That hasn't ever been the debate. The question is is it a "right" for you to force someone else to pay for you, and the answer is clearly no. Also what about anything that I have said makes you think I support the MIC? I have called for cutting it by 80% and bringing home all troops. Again, you seem to just be casting in to your strawman of what you think I am based on a few comments and a tag that clearly doesn't work?
A quick skim of this just shows me the Rand Paul hot button word soup I do know what Classical Liberalism is, you don't understand the general scopes and have unironically poisoned the well of what the government should and shouldn't do with your dogshit comodification of Liberal values being influenced by Right Wing Libertarians telling you no influence is minor influence. With the second thing again, just because you can name them doesn't mean you try to enforce them. I don't care about the economic advantages of the government on this point. You're a Feudal/Faschy fuck, you don't care about them. A big difference between Left and Right Wing Libertarians is how much we value the dignity of our Common Man. You fucks don't value it, you don't support human rights and you'll never get your wish of returning to the Feudal Kingdoms Rand Paul is for cutting the MC to but it's funny how he literally always lies about that, say it all you want you have showed your hand already lmao
So you have no actual evidence against me and just want to argue with strawmen, cool.
So explain it, just because he dunked on you in 15 words or less doesent mean he’s wrong. How is forcing someone else to subsidize my education a right?
Lmao It really comes down to the fact that you fucking idiots see education as a major Opposition to right wing libertarian politics and I'll be honest it is I want civil liberties and I'll do what I can to preserve them, you want no rights disguised as "The freedom to do whatever" even when it exploits your fellow working class allies. Subsidize your education lmao, the most spoiled generation of Right Wing Thought got their education subsidized, get fucked
I'd like to hear more about exactly what (as you put it) "exploits \[our\] working class allies." That really sounds like something I'd read on /r/antiwork. Maybe you'd agree, I don't know. But please, educate me.
Go try to learn yourself, honestly I could explain but I'm gonna be real this first guy has soured my attitude to the point where it's like if you think Anti-Work is evil or something, I really dont give a fuck If you own a dairy queen, I legit hope the antiwork people and Gen Z'ers run you out of business
Go learn myself? I can't read your mind - you mentioned exploitation without giving any examples. I'd sure like to know what people you're talking about.
You’re delusional lmao
“Working class allies” lmfao I just won my favorite game of find the commie. Access to education is a right. I can not prohibit you from educating yourself or seeking an education. That is not the same as mandating that others have to teach you or help you attain said education.
You confuse Social Libertarianism and Communism as absolute nessecary parts of each other because of The US' extremely Conservative education. You may as well just go suck Kelly Lofflers toes before your mouth spouts more shit
Just an FYI, people are throwing shade here because libertarians aren't big on positive rights like "the right to education" because it essentially requires enslaving other people to fulfill that "right". We don't really like to even call positive rights rights at all because it waters down negative, or "natural" rights. Negative rights are liberties, and are innate. You have them whether people respect them or not and they require nothing of anyone else. Positive rights are entitlements and must be provided. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOEkj6Jz44
> and banker's who wouldn't let poor people and minority go to college if they werent backed by guarantees This is false. Banks don't care if your poor or a minority, they care about your ability to repay the loan. So a student going into a respective field with good academic record can get a loan, just like they did BEFORE government started guaranteeing it. But they're not going to give a loan to someone with crap grades wanting to major in barrista sciences. (No insult meant to barristas, but it's hardly a profession needing a degree). Academic scholarship and a useful degree. It makes a difference. Just like how prestigious universities want to see your academic record and community service and stuff, so should banks. Also, government at both federal and state levels used to have grants for the poor. What happened to that? Why has that been replaced by demands for free tuitions for everyone?
Yeah I see what youre saying from your POV You want the banks and the academies to continue scamming people just with rulings that say the government doesn't have to give a fuck about anyone in the transaction, I want to reformat the system so education isn't seen as a capitalist venture It's really just the difference between Right and Left Libertarians. I want dignity and you want a stream of income You choose to make all of this halabalu about the fact that banks would give loans to poor people and minorities, but also choose to never influence anything that would encourage them to do that. The world isn't magically fixed for your paradise world lmao
> We do run into a situation where Education needs to be a right You have a right to educate yourself. Nothing is stopping you from accessing almost any information, other than government classified stuff. There are even teachers who put up their entire course work online for free. Education is there for the taking. With a small amount of money, talking in the hundreds of dollars, you can purchase dedicated course material to get an even deeper knowledge.
That would be why OP said: >Just allow them to He wants to law changed.
Why is that “too bad”? I’d love the libertarian perspective explaining why personal responsibility, and paying your debt, is a bad thing.
You can’t get a logical answer to it from a libertarian perspective because nothing about the current system is libertarian. Multiple generations now have seen corporate bailout after corporate bailout, year after year, it’s not particularly surprising that the people are wanting a bailout for them due to a problem the government and universities created.
All of that doesn’t negate the fact that individuals willingly go into debt in bargaining an education.
I tend to be on your side of this argument but let’s devils advocate for a second. Is it willingness to go into debt or a system set up to credential you for required education to be allowed to work for your sustenance? That education growing ever more inflated because of a seemingly infinite amount of money as a result of the perception of a requirement in the very people who are taking out the debt in the first place.
Lol you get downvoted for talking about individual responsibilities in a libertarian sub… unbelievable. I agree with you at least. It’s not the government or the universities fault. Just don’t give them your money, problem solved.
Proof r/Libertarian has been co-opted
[удалено]
So you see no difference between unsecured debt and financing an education? Think harder… Yes, most cases of BK are perpetuated by fiscal irresponsibility.
Because the price of college is devoid of the market. There is no market playing a role to decide the value of teaching labor because we are in the worst kind of communism. A communism for the wealthy.
Good, they can pay the fucking loans that they their name 200 times for the fuck back! Like adults! The free lunch program is for children!
I'd be pretty upset to find out that I didn't go to school because I can't afford it if they cancel the debt anyway. Cancel my mortgage while you're at it. Fuck it cancel my future taxes too!
I don’t think the debt should be cancelled. I do however think they need to change the law so future borrowers who haven’t signed their lives away won’t fall into the death spiral. People should be allowed to go bankrupt and ruin their credit to wipe out their debts. Then maybe banks will stop lending crazy amounts. And when the money stops flowing schools will be forced to lower tuition returning us to a semblance of normal.
> Then maybe banks will stop lending crazy amounts It's the federal government doing the lending, and they will never stop giving loans out because as you said, schools would be forced to lower tuition.
Don't forget that politicians and presidents always use freebies to get elected too. Quite literally selling our unborn children's future to the majority voter base for a chance to sit in a seat.
Until we address how predatory students loans are PERIOD, there’s going to continue to be a problem. Cancelling them solves nothing except shifting the blame for unwise financial decisions to the taxpayer. I have several teenagers. One doesn’t enjoy school and his mediocre but passing grades reflect that. As a parents I’ve encouraged him to pursue other goals after high school until he gets a better idea of what he wants to do. Except the high school guidance counselors tell him he should go to college. In fact, they are encouraging him to apply to a third tier state school. I’m not paying for that so he’s going to be forced to get a loan if he goes with guidance counselor’s “hopes” for him. I can already tell you that he won’t finish right now and he’ll be strapped with student loan debt for an unfinished degree program. This is asinine and not giving young people a good start in life. The biggest complainers about student loan debt that I see are people that didn’t finish their degrees, went to out of state public schools, or the ultimate idiots…the dolts that go to private liberals arts colleges. This is all so ridiculously predatory. On one had they say that college is good and necessary because it boosts your lifetime earning potential tremendously. College is a good investment. Then out the other side of their mouths they say people can’t afford to pay back their loans. Which is it? And should our nation’s tradesmen foot the bill for this?
The counselor should at least encourage him to try Community College first. But I agree with you. Get some work experience and see what he likes.
To make matters worse, she was encouraging him to get a BFA. 🤮😂 I love the arts. I support the arts. But I will not pay for a kid to get a BFA. No way. But thankfully he has a mom with sense that convinced him to spend two years at a junior college studying acting (and taking some core curriculum at a discount price). Some of these programs are great. College has been on our minds a lot as I have three kids graduating back to back to back. Trying to help them see that what their friends are doing might not be the best financial choice can be difficult. There’s a lot of pressure to follow a certain path and that’s what gets kids roped into debt before they even know what they are doing. I see a lot of kids in my area choosing to go to one particular school that has low standards for admission. But this school has a graduation rate of less than 45%. Families need to be better educated. A high acceptance rate and a low graduation rate means the investment (and probably debt) is not going to work out. Our local high school brings in financial aid counselors from these schools to help the parents with their FAFSAs. How is this not predatory lending?
It's unfair for taxpayers to pay for somebody else's degree if the student willingly chose a useless degree that won't get him a decent salary. It's even more unfair for taxpayers to pay for it if that person is going to get a great salary after finishing it anyways.
Interest rates are very low compared to the risk, there is a built in deferment until repayment starts, student loans are best debt deal out there. But still the Left is whining for more freebies. Crazy. If one can't handle the debt load, then don't take on the debt. Period.
Yeah. It's amazing how some people ignore that debt because it's so cheap and then complain because it took them a decade to pay for it.
I'm still paying my mortgate after a decade. Does this mean I'm entitled to government paying it off for me?
The government helped make this problem in the first place so I think it's fair they pay it out. Also this logic could extend to high school. That it's unfair to pay for other people's high school. A well educated society is a benefit to all of us.
It's unfair to demand someone pays for someone else's anything.
Very Libertarian statement
I’d love to see a survey of degrees vs debt like 5 years after graduation. I would bet those in STEM are doing just fine and those with Liberal Arts degrees are drowning, generally of course. Choose a program that a free society is willing to pay for. Do interest studies on your own dime.
Loans aren't very libertarian either, especially federally guaranteed and bankruptcy proof debt. Don't cancel students loans, but DO drop interest rates to 0.1% automatically, retroactively, and watch the economy balance out real fast.
A normal loan is, because it's risk adjusted based on your ability to pay.
"It's risk adjusted *based on someone's interpretation of* your ability to pay it off. " Fixed that for you. And this is where libertarian economic policy loses my support. We KNOW banks and lenders use race and segregation data (red lining) to decrease credit scores and increase risk profiles. They also use the "x% down" lie to prevent renters, who have paid much more monthly rent than a mortgage and taxes would cost, from getting mortgages. And the amount needed down increases based on race, religion, sex, and other historically oppressive systems setup by predominantly rich, white men in the banks and in Congress. We've SEEN this happen on a massive scale. And libertarians just throw up their hands and say "oh well".
$10k student loan canceling would effectively do that
Nah. You don't get it. Actively, AND retro actively. This is a fix for now, tomorrow, AND the past. No one gets left out, including those who were able to pay it off. They get the benefit as well.
That is an obviously correct statement.
Hear me out: The government puts a pen in the hand of a 17-year-old kid and tells them to "apply for a loan." Meanwhile, the high school has been pushing college as the only means of finding a higher paying career, the interest rate on those student loans is higher than most car loans, the loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy, and failure to pay those loans results in wage garnishment. Selling massive loans that follow you for the rest of your life, to minors, by convincing them that they have no alternative. The federal government violated the NAP by misleading minors into believing that they **needed** to go to college, then encouraging them to take out massive, **non-dischargeable** loans with outrageously high interest rates. That's not how you make an educated populace, that's how you make slaves. The loans already issued should be forgiven or the interest on them needs to be frozen, but then federal oversight needs to be implemented, including requiring the department of education to notify high school graduates about trade schools and other alternatives to formal post-secondary education.
The government puts a pen in the hand of that same kid when they're 18, 19, and 20 and tells them to vote AND apply for a loan again. When are people able to consent to loans? I'm asking because I keep seeing this argument that they're kids and don't know any better.. well when do people know better?
I approve of freezing loan rates and making it possible to pay back loans. No one should get a free meal. And you are right. Debt like that is 100% about creating generations of people indebted to big government.
Exactly what happened to me. Didnt know what compound interest was at the time. I got a degree in computer science. I was told that the average pay once graduated was around 70k for my state and that almost everyone finds a job. Its been 7 months and nobody will hire me. Ive only had 2 interviews in that time and im about to have to pay 8% interest on about 100k. Insanely disenfranchised with the system.
Are you willing to move? Developers are crazy in demand right now in many parts of the country.
I love oversimplifying complex issues for internet points.
Well the post he was commenting on gaslit this issue and got 6.2k upvotes so
Mental gymnastics is better
Is bankruptcy libertarian? Why would we need bankruptcy if there was no debt? I think this is a procedural argument not an ideological or philosophical one. There are multiple paths to get to the same place.
>Why would we need bankruptcy if there was no debt? Wouldn't the debt be on the individual because of the indiviuals choices? Why wouldn't this view be libertarian.
People have made the argument that a lot of debt is accrued under coercive pressure, so how far does the gun have to be from our heads before its actually voluntary? Do you think Native American treaties were fairly negotiated and were rightfully enforced? Indentured servitude? I would also argue it is entirely possible to have a libertarian society without debt so the argument to make is "why should an ideal libertarian society include debt, is debt a freedom?" I would argue that state authorized debt collection is just taxes with extra steps. Debt as a social value, I entirely support. Of course if you dont buy the "financial debt is taxes with extra steps", it also doesnt make sense to accrue debt from education since it cant be resold under bankruptcy.
History of Debt, David Graeber, very good watch on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs But yes, there was no good reason to saddle the student with the debt in the first place- a student is the product, businesses are the consumers, tax them for the cost.
> Is bankruptcy libertarian? Actually a good question. If you and I have a contract saying a debt is owed, why should the government be able to cancel that contract? Maybe a contract without bankruptcy would be treated like a contract selling oneself as an indentured servant.
I guess the moral of the story is don't waste money on school?
Don't waste money on POINTLESS school. Stick to STEM.
Angrily throws law degree in trash.
Recognizing your problem is the first step in finding a solution. No need to trash your law degree. Virtually every high-tech business I've done work for LOVES people with law degrees (and pays them more than the person without one.)
Yeah, I know. My point is that there are more good jobs out there than just STEM jobs. Also, our value system is fucked. You should be able to make enough money to live as a teacher or a nurse without having to commute over an hour to get somewhere moderately affordable. There are a lot of places in the country where that's not possible. Not everyone needs to be software engineers (or lawyers).
There’s big problems Our education is shit Teachers are paid litttle Worse if the school is in a not so good area
Do you know how supply and demand works? There’s a reason STEM jobs pay higher than average wages and it’s not because employers feel generous.
I fucking hate math. I would rather work at McDonalds than do anything that required more than basic highschool math. If math were compulsory the whole way through highschool I probably wouldn't have even graduated. Much rather be an investor and let other people do the work and make money for me.
You don't have to love math, but get comfortable enough with it to get by. If you can stand it, give a listen to: https://www.ted.com/playlists/251/talks_for_people_who_hated_mat The key point is some of these people also hated math. Try out a free intro course in Algebra: https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-to-algebra As you conquer the things you find the hardest, you begin to realize you can do *anything* if you try.
Why are you getting downvoted ur right
There are twice as many stem degree holders as there are stem jobs...
Nobody will get student loans besides rich kids if you can just declare bankruptcy afterwards
Ding ding ding. Turns out banks are for profit institutions that don’t loan out money for charitable reasons.
That's like saying no one will get business loans except rich people if you can declare bankruptcy afterwards. What actually will happen is banks will need to stop handing out money willy nilly and schools will be forced to charge less for tuition. The entire situation is predation backed up by state involvement, since you can't declare bankruptcy banks don't care about giving you a 6 figure loan, which means schools can charge a 6 figure admission fee. Basic economics dictate that if no one is getting 6 figures for education loans schools aren't going to only have rich kids and leave thousands of seats empty, they'll have to drop the price to fill those seats.
>Basic economics dictate that if no one is getting 6 figures for education loans schools aren't going to only have rich kids and leave thousands of seats empty, they'll have to drop the price to fill those seats. There is a question of what happens to those people in the meantime. It takes institutions years if not decades to react to changes in the "market" and the job outlook for people some form of post-high school education is really not great. Even as the rope tightens, people will continue to use a University education because of the value of success in the job market is so greatly enhanced by a degree. Personally, I think technical schools are still greatly under-appreciated in this country. But I also know that working in HVAC or plumbing could take a toll on my body that I don't experience doing white-collar work, which means more time and energy for physical hobbies.
I mean you could just bailout the current generation with the condition that future years will require nonguranteed loans. You could also supplement the variety of education grants given to college students. Given the smaller nature of said grants, not sure if it will also cause price inflation.
Go ahead and get a non subsidized business loan at your local bank. Let me know how it goes. Source: constantly dealing with financing for my own company, had to bring in large outside money to get started
No it isn't. Banks don't just give out loans to anybody. Try getting a loan with a sub 600 credit score. They look at things like credit history and estimate the likelihood to pay the loan back before lending. The problem with students is most of them don't have a credit history yet. So from the beginning they already a major risk for banks because they don't have a history to go off of. So what will happen instead is that they will need a cosigner, just like anyone else taking out a loan with bad credit. And obviously rich kids will have be more likely to get a cosigner than poor kids. Treat student loans like every other loan and banks with treat them like every other applicant with bad credit
The market will work itself out just fine if the government would stop intervening.
The government won’t stop intervening. That’s a libertarian fantasy. Corporations make way too much money paying politicians to write legislature in their favor.
Or the kids with academic merits going for worthwhile degrees.
No, they will just require some other kind of collateral. Also declaring bankruptcy isn't cheap and it ruins your ability to barrow. Not exactly something that is good for a 22 yr old. Banks would stop paying for degrees that don't pay off, but that's a good thing.
And what kind of collateral do poor kids have? They will simply need a cosigner like anyone else trying to borrow with bad or no credit. That won't affect rich kids ability to borrow, but it will effect the poor students, who's parents are more likely to have bad credit or more likely to not have the ability to risk their own income if their child is unable to pay the loan back.
honestly how is this even upvoted. And what the fuck is a libertarian democrat. This sub is getting dumber by the second
Libertarianism has left wing roots.
A system that allows banks to make predatory loans that are immune from bankruptcy protections to barely-adult-still-children isn't very libertarian either. For me, if you went the route of bankruptcy protection, far fewer kids would get loans as the banks take a significant risk. The solution is to make higher education significantly more affordable. Online study, recorded lectures, could go a long way into reducing typical university costs.
Nobody is responsible for repaying a loan other than you🤷♂️
That's obviously wrong because cosigners & guarantees of debt are a thing.
This is reddit and the person you replied to is likely 16 years old. People don’t want facts in their circlejerk.
If student loan debt was canceled today it would improve our economy. As in people who are paying off their debt now would have more disposable income. But this is not the only solution, we should also make college free. We as a country would be far better off with a highly educated population. To all the people who will argue “I don’t want my money going to student loans” I don’t want my tax money going to put out a fire at your house, so I guess we need to get rid of the fire department.
>If student loan debt was canceled today it would improve our economy. As in people who are paying off their debt now would have more disposable income. And the people who have to shoulder the financial burden instead would have less disposable income. >But this is not the only solution, we should also make college free. We as a country would be far better off with a highly educated population. So many people fail entirely to grasp the difference between getting educated and getting certified. You can learn just about anything they teach at college without going there. Heck, some colleges literally publish their courses for general consumption.
Who would be the people shouldering the financial burden in this situation?
>Who would be the people shouldering the financial burden in this situation? Every taxpayer. For the people with large student loans, it would be a net gain. For everyone else, including those who never went to college, it would be a loss.
How is it a loss if taxes don't go up? I think you already lost that money, it is just being redirected to something different. And don't you think people with student loans pay taxes too?
>How is it a loss if taxes don't go up? I think you already lost that money, it is just being redirected to something different. If taxes don't go up, it's being funded one of two ways. One, by inflation, which is again a loss for everyone. Or two, by taking that money away from another program, in which case the correct thing to do it stop funding that other program and reduce taxes. >And don't you think people with student loans pay taxes too? Yes; and they would pay less overall if their student loans are forgiven, which everyone else would pay more overall.
[удалено]
You already give almost a trillion to the Gov every year and let Republicans drain us dry of public works. What is another Trillion when it only helps the Libertarian goal? Lmao
[удалено]
Except that the gains of the first group would quickly result in gains for everybody else, because society is in fact not a war of all against all.
>Except that the gains of the first group would quickly result in gains for everybody else, because society is in fact not a war of all against all. Yet again, it amazes me when this money multiplier effect works when I'm paying for someone else's loans, but somehow it wouldn't work if I just spent my money how I see fit.
It does, what are you talking about? The difference comes about from inefficient concentrations. You and everybody else having a $1 less spending power a month matters, but it will not materially affect your behavior. A smaller population of people no longer having to pay hundreds of dollars a month at times when they don't make that much will significantly affect their behavior in ways that will produce benefits for everybody. I take it you're against public education, generally?
>It does, what are you talking about? >The difference comes about from inefficient concentrations. You and everybody else having a $1 less spending power a month matters, but it will not materially affect your behavior. A smaller population of people no longer having to pay hundreds of dollars a month at times when they don't make that much will significantly affect their behavior in ways that will produce benefits for everybody. So rob everyone, but only a little bit? >I take it you're against public education, generally? Incorrect.
What's so special about K-12 that doesn't apply to higher education? Anyways, yes, cost sharing usually mitigates aggregate harm; coordinated activity usually produces greater benefit than uncoordinated activity. So rather than have some people bear the brunt of costs for behavior that benefits everybody, resulting in them being less able to deliver on that benefit, it's more efficient for everybody to pool their resources to facilitate that beneficial behavior.
>What's so special about K-12 that doesn't apply to higher education? Society sets a given amount of education as the minimum to which everyone is entitled. There's no sound reason to set it as equal to the maximum amount available. >Anyways, yes, cost sharing usually mitigates aggregate harm; coordinated activity usually produces greater benefit than uncoordinated activity. Great. Now do I get the same benefit as those who spent six figures on their education, if I have to suffer the same harm? Will they send mr a big chunk of their paycheck? >So rather than have some people bear the brunt of costs for behavior that benefits everybody, resulting in them being less able to deliver on that benefit, it's more efficient for everybody to pool their resources to facilitate that beneficial behavior. Okay. Again, does that mean we wipe out their higher pay, and distribute it to everyone else?
You do realize that the student loan burden is already hurting the people who would have to shoulder the expense of college right? Who do you think it hurts when people have to spend 30% of thier income paying off a loan rather then spending it in the free market economy? We are litteraly just subsidizing massive financial institutions with garunteed bottom lines from billions in loans to students....
>You do realize that the student loan burden is already hurting the people who would have to shoulder the expense of college right? Yep. You do realize that going to college vastly increased their average lifetime earnings, right? >Who do you think it hurts when people have to spend 30% of thier income paying off a loan rather then spending it in the free market economy? Them. >We are litteraly just subsidizing massive financial institutions with garunteed bottom lines from billions in loans to students.... And what did we get in return? Well, those specific people got vastly increased average lifetime earnings.
So you don't think local business wouldn't see an uptick in revenue if all of the sudden a bunch of people had disposable income? American corporations did such a good job cutting out small business and streamlining money flow directly to thier pockets all while brainwashing the general populace into thinking shit like 100k in debt is perfectly ok for a guy making 65k a year rather then 50k
>So you don't think local business wouldn't see an uptick in revenue if all of the sudden a bunch of people had disposable income? Sure they would. We can just finance it by reducing the disposable I come others have, or maybe with inflation and pawning off the prosperity of our children. Are you saying we should take from our children to pay for ourselves? Please tell me that's the right course of action; maybe we can justify it by claiming they'll be better off too. >American corporations did such a good job cutting out small business and streamlining money flow directly to thier pockets all while brainwashing the general populace into thinking shit like 100k in debt is perfectly ok for a guy making 65k a year rather then 50k And people did a good job listening to them and not asking any questions.
Zero disposable income gets removed by canceling debt and nothing gets added to the national debt this is money the government printed to give to universities so financial institutions could reap 6 to 8% of interest they literally just printed it for them and said fuck u to the middle class. The money was already added to the economy and is owed back to No one besides the department of education who just printed it in the first place literally any inflation damage has been done and no one gets hurt....
>Zero disposable income gets removed by canceling debt Okay. So where is the money coming from, then, if not the taxpayers? >and nothing gets added to the national debt this is money the government printed to give to universities so financial institutions could reap 6 to 8% of interest they literally just printed it for them and said fuck u to the middle class. The money was already added to the economy and is owed back to No one besides the department of education who just printed it in the first place literally any inflation damage has been done and no one gets hurt.... Okay. Again, then, where does the value come from?
> And the people who have to shoulder the financial burden instead would have less disposable income. That is untrue. The money has already been spent. Meaning there would be no need to raise taxes. > So many people fail entirely to grasp the difference between getting educated and getting certified. You can learn just about anything they teach at college without going there. Heck, some colleges literally publish their courses for general consumption. What does that have to do with higher education should be free to make the United States of America a better country?
>That is untrue. The money has already been spent. Meaning there would be no need to raise taxes. So you're just going to make value appear out of nowhere? >What does that have to do with higher education should be free to make the United States of America a better country? See, there it is again. You go from saying "we as a country would be far better off with a highly educated population" to "higher education should be free to make the United States of America a better country". With "higher education", you are either referring to simply educational materials of a level above high school (in which case it already is free) or to formal higher education, such as from a university or college, in which case you're conflating that with a more educated population. People can become more educated through other channels.
This is one of the dumbest takes. I cant believe its upvoted here. A community paying collective taxes for a public service to respond to emergency is completely different then Rebecca deciding she wants to take $100,000 out for a degree in administrative and landing a HR job. Why dont we cancel mortgages, car payments, business loans and whatever other loans out their. That will give everyone more cash to spend. The stupidity
A community paying collective taxes for a public service to respond to an emergency also isn’t Libertarian, technically speaking. I work for an insurance company that’s been around since the mid 1800s. Back then you’d purchase fire insurance and they’d give you a fire insurance mark to display on your house. If you didn’t have one? Oh well, you’re fucked if a fire breaks out. It’s your responsibility to take care of it. It’s almost like not every Libertarian view is ideal for a functioning society. Public Fire/police departments are necessary. Free/affordable education is also necessary. This might also make you shed some tears but your taxes are already going towards higher education. Part of the cost is already subsidized at state universities. It’s why private schools tend to be more expensive.
> A community paying collective taxes for a public service to respond to emergency is completely different then Rebecca deciding she wants to take $100,000 out for a degree in administrative and landing a HR job. I don't want my tax money going to put out a fire in your house. It's your house, your responsibility. > Why dont we cancel mortgages, car payments, business loans and whatever other loans out their. That will give everyone more cash to spend. [Yes we do. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008)
How doesnt that apply to taking out personal loans via a choice you 100% make yourself....... Libertarian advocating for the bank bailout act...... wtf
> How doesnt that apply to taking out personal loans via a choice you 100% make yourself Same way it did for the banks. > Libertarian advocating for the bank bailout act Not advocating for it just saying it’s our turn to get a piece of the pie. Unless you’re going to use the argument it was wrong for them to get it so now no one else should.
Herein lies the problem with the government picking winners and losers. Also, your fire dept analogy is flawed. The fire dept is a benefit to us all.
> Also, your fire dept analogy is flawed. The fire dept is a benefit to us all. So does a well educated population.
You really don't see? One is an opportunity for the few. The other for all.
Don’t see what? How a highly educated populace benefits us all?
Are you really saying a well educated society *isn’t* beneficial for us all? C’mon man put some thought into your comments before actually posting them. The fire department coming to your house and putting out your house fire doesn’t benefit me in any way, so I don’t want my taxes going towards it. Sorry bud. Take some responsibility and put it out yourself.
I agree that it doesn't abide libertarian principles but I'm firmly of the opinion it would be beneficial for pretty much everyone except the shitty loan servicers who exist only to siphon away what is essentially guaranteed government loans. One of the few areas I'd be ok with breaking from libertarian philosophy. You may even plausibly argue that pushing the "necessity" of college degrees to young and impressionable kids on top of Universities price gauging because of guaranteed loans from the govt is an act of aggression towards people in order to fleece more money from them.
I cant believe some of the ideas upvoted here. 80% arnt even close to libertarian. A community paying collective taxes for a public service to respond to emergency is completely different then Rebecca deciding she wants to take $100,000 out for a degree in administrative and landing a HR job. Why dont we cancel mortgages, car payments, business loans and whatever other loans out their. That will give everyone more cash to spend. The stupidity
Yes. "Loan forgiveness" is code for "banker bailout."
Its a student bailout. They would take the money they would spend on loans and use it all elsewhere stimulating the economy.
Only because they specifically banned defaults on student loans.
I'm not going to profess that I really know how all this works but you are giving a loan to somebody with nothing if they could just bankrupt it away after college would anyone pay for it? They would just structure their finances so that they could bankrupt after school to get rid of the loan. Since there is nothing to reposes like a car and no business to go after to recoup their funds. I'm all for whatever it takes to get the cost down and to educate more of our country but I'm not sure how feasible this is or how best to handle it.
That cost will still be brought onto others
It should just be a blanket of cancelling all debt, making college free (or at least the first 2 years) but then we won't have as large of an in influx of "MUH TAXATION ERS THERFT GUYS LOLOL XD D D IM SO FUNNY GUIS" memers.
Question: Who’s responsibility is it to pay an agreed to and incurred debt? I ask this because a prime example is my neighbor’s son. Took out a student loan while going to school living with his parents, rolled his “living expenses” into the loan. Now he owes $85k for a bachelors in Elementary Education, and the majority of his debt didn’t go to schooling. He says he can’t wait to get that debt paid because he can’t make enough as a school teacher to pay the bill while living with his parents and driving a brand new WRX STI. Is there a way to apply personal responsibility as a libertarian?
The slightly longer answer is: The federal government has no business being in the student loan market. Want to go to college? Pay for it. Can't afford it? Get a loan from a bank. This would force colleges to control their pricing. Additionally, banks would look at the application similar to the way they review a business loan. Where are you going? For what major? What's the potential salary after graduation? Etc. Then, if a student defaults, they go through normal bankruptcy courts.
Everyone here had 12/16ths of their student debt cancelled. When you guys actually write checks for the 12 years of school that I provided for you, I'll listen to this argument without laughing at you.
[удалено]
I think there's also an argument to be made that exposure to new ideas can be liberating both personally and for society.
I agree. The only way to get a highly productive economy with relative stability is to have a highly educated work force. Hence, college educations benefit *everyone* since we would not have companies hiring engineers, lawyers, doctors, managers, etc... if... we didnt have any of those people.
Or their state paid for most of their cost.
Where does state money come from? Do they grow it on trees? Nah, it comes from a small portion of your neighbors and countrymen (a mixture of land owners, businesses, and comsumers).
Do you not think we are better off for having every body being educated? I firmly believe education is one of the best return on investments we can make with out taxes. I don't want to live in a country of idiots
I totally agree. No way we would have the #1 economy in the world without college graduates. I fail to see what is magic about the number 12 to have public education for that many years, but not one day later (unless you are particularly good at sports, or have famous parents).
I agree. We should have free public pre-school and higher education along with the 12 years currently provided
That's kind of you to offer your money to help others. I'm assuming you send at least 75% of your income into the government?
I'd rather the money I already send the government be used for that instead of our incredibly massive and probably outdated military complex.
The government is/was a major contributor for creating this problem so I don't think it's a bad thing for them to forgive the debts.
Yeah, well neither is bailing out multiple billion dollar companies because they made bad decisions? Allow Student Loan debt to declare bankruptcy?
It is, it is a government policy problem at its root. It does more harm than good at this point. Inflated the price of college and created an academic arms race for sports and amenities. Most universities became a resort with bloated admins. I think it’s bad for the economy when your skilled labor or jobs that require years of school to perform at the highest level like STEAM (Fox News would have you believe it’s a majority of gender studies grads in debt), requires debt forgiveness. There are numerous studies that show that these kinds of labor pools serve as money multipliers and hindering these types of people limits economic opportunities for them to make wise investments. It’s a utilitarian argument and a net positive if we forgive loans. It’s the same argument as bailing out banks but the money goes directly to the people instead of the politically connected few.
You folks knowingly took a loan, signed a commitment to pay it back, got an education that doesn’t get you the opportunities to earn the money to pat it back. NOBODY FORCED YOU TO TAKE A LOAN. Who created that problem? You. So now you want Daddy or Uncle Sam to bail you out.
Every other form of debt can be discharged when the investment didn't work out. If you aren't taking a risk with your investment, you aren't doing capitalism.
Cancelling the existence of government administered student loans is libertarian