If Student Loans Were Honest

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[philostam]

If that's actually something you believe, then loans shouldn't be granted until 23, and by extension, people shouldn't enter tertiary education until the arbitrary age you plucked from thin air.

It's not out of thin air, do some research before being edgy.

We don't let people drink in bars until 21, but they can take a 100k loan. Makes sense.

 

[Matty]

It's not out of thin air, do some research before being edgy.

We don't let people drink in bars until 21, but they can take a 100k loan. Makes sense.

So forbid them from loans and tertiary education until your arbitrary age threshold. Or allow them to take loans and tertiary education at 17.

I think you don't understand your own dissonance.

While you continue to argue with yourself, my opinion is that 17 year olds that are capable of learning and understanding tertiary material should have no trouble understanding something as basic as how loans work. In case you haven't figured it out: if you borrow money with interest rates, you have to pay the money plus interest to the loaner. It's quite simple.

 

[Wyote]

my opinion is that 17 year olds that are capable of learning and understanding tertiary material should have no trouble understanding something as basic as how loans work.

Don't underestimate people's inability to cross modalities lol

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[Matty]

Effectively cancelling debt (if the loan was from a government body), or paying it out doesn't cause an increase in the number of goods and services in an economy. In fact, it just increases the amount of money in the economy, while removing the negative incentive to work extra hours (by those trying to pay off the debt). The effect would be to cause inflation.

On the other hand, stimulus via tax cuts can increase goods and services, by regulating the rules which make the tax exemption applicable. For example, making wages to new employees a deductible, or the purchase of new manufacturing equipment, etc.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

Effectively cancelling debt (if the loan was from a government body), or paying it out doesn't cause an increase in the number of goods and services in an economy. In fact, it just increases the amount of money in the economy, while removing the negative incentive to work extra hours (by those trying to pay off the debt). The effect would be to cause inflation.

On the other hand, stimulus via tax cuts can increase goods and services, by regulating the rules which make the tax exemption applicable. For example, making wages to new employees a deductible, or the purchase of new manufacturing equipment, etc.

Can't help but think that you are four decades behind the curve on this one as that money is already long gone with most of it piled up in institutions that profited never mind the securities. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you still think that young people use fax machines to sext.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[philostam]

So forbid them from loans and tertiary education until your arbitrary age threshold. Or allow them to take loans and tertiary education at 17.

I think you don't understand your own dissonance.

While you continue to argue with yourself, my opinion is that 17 year olds that are capable of learning and understanding tertiary material should have no trouble understanding something as basic as how loans work. In case you haven't figured it out: if you borrow money with interest rates, you have to pay the money plus interest to the loaner. It's quite simple.

They can also "understand" by the age of 17 that engaging in unprotected sex is dangerous, yet some do it. Young people do all kinds of stupid things they later regret.

But there is wider point. Now it is what it is. I am not against helping the generation of millennials who got relatively poorer compared to other generations. Printing money is not a solution, but politicians always do it because it's expedient. Politics works on 4 year cycles, which makes it inherently short sighted.

So while I'm against printing money, at least this time it's to "benefit" millennials. This has to be fixed:

 

[philostam]

My prediction is there's gonna be more and more policies that benefit the younger generations, at least in the short term. There's big backlash against the boomers in younger circles, rightly or wrongly.

Of course you cannot fix the problems long term via more printing/currency debasment, but you can effect the wealth distribution between generations.

Looks like the FED is also trying to crash the housing market. Stock indexes are already down 20% (some companies like Netflix 70%), bonds are getting crushed, I think housing will be next.

They are tyring to solve supply side inflation by killing demand via reverse wealth effect. Make rich people feel poorer so they spend less. At the same time millennials have little assets and will just have their debt written off to some extent. So they will feel relatively richer.

 

[Matty]

Can't help but think that you are four decades behind the curve on this one as that money is already long gone with most of it piled up in institutions that profited never mind the securities. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you still think that young people use fax machines to sext.

Since you made no economic arguments, I will presume that you don't understand economics.

There's financial services, or even family/friends that can help you make better decisions.

Even if you have already gotten yourself into unmanageable debt, seek advice from people who deal with finance regularly.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]