Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not addressing my point.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)

Well, we won't know unless it happens, right?

And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

And a quasi-point: The Cultural Revolution stripped away wealth--but there's still a considerable relationship between pre-Revolution wealth and how the next generation fared. It's not as clear because educational advantages could persist.

 

[Metaphor]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money

Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.

and how it balances directly and not if you disregard the benefits realized not merely for the student borrower but for society in general—because of the services provided directly by the ability of the student to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, banker, whatever —and benefit in the increase in taxes the student borrower will pay as they earn more money than without a degree.

You are very confused. You are counting the value of the education as a benefit in favour of forgiving the debt. But the value of the education has already been realised when the person got it. Forgiving debt does not cause the value of the education to appear.

Harder to quantify directly but real nonetheless is the benefit to society of having a more educated population. One of the most concrete benefits in recent times is the differences in voter behavior depending on level of education. Another is differences in behavior with regards to mask wearing and vaccination.

Again, you are confused. If you want to talk about the value of education and why society should make it free to end users, you can have that conversation, but I am talking about the forgiveness of debts with taxpayer money.

 

[Toni]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

2) the forgiveness of the debt by gov’t necessarily harms taxpayers.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money

Money is certainly a concern but it is more than that. You damage the moral fabric of society when you use somebody else's money to forgive debts because you personally feel sorry for delinquent debtors.

and how it balances directly and not if you disregard the benefits realized not merely for the student borrower but for society in general—because of the services provided directly by the ability of the student to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, banker, whatever —and benefit in the increase in taxes the student borrower will pay as they earn more money than without a degree.

You are very confused. You are counting the value of the education as a benefit in favour of forgiving the debt. But the value of the education has already been realised when the person got it. Forgiving debt does not cause the value of the education to appear.

Harder to quantify directly but real nonetheless is the benefit to society of having a more educated population. One of the most concrete benefits in recent times is the differences in voter behavior depending on level of education. Another is differences in behavior with regards to mask wearing and vaccination.

Again, you are confused. If you want to talk about the value of education and why society should make it free to end users, you can have that conversation, but I am talking about the forgiveness of debts with taxpayer money.

No—the value of the education received is realized for the rest of the student’s life, and is extended to any family the student might have now or in the future, any community that is includes the student and society as a whole.

The value of a doctor’s degree or a nurse’s or a teacher’s is realized by the patients, the students the doctor has—and is multiplied by whatever good those individuals do, however they benefit society, any wealth they accrue, any decisions sciveries they make, any inventions, any further students, patients, etc. and their descendents.

The benefits of education are not limited to your imagination or understanding. Thankfully.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly the same crap as the right is peddling.

Of course there's a multiplier. Government spending has a multiplier, tax cuts have a multiplier.

Then it doesn't follow from current deficits that future tax payers will get less.

The question is whether the multiplier is large enough to be a net positive.

And, as I just said, there's plenty evidence of that. And, no, a multiplier of 1 would still be a net positive. And it's not like <1 just isn't "large enough" but that it diverts resources from other activity. What you say suggests that you are indeed getting confused with some "crap the right is peddling".

You're not addressing my point.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)

I don't think anyone is arguing that it will necessarily grow the economy.

What it will necessarily do is lead to a lot of people being less of idiots and tolerating less idiocy, and while I expect that can't do anything but grow the economy it will certainly grow my ability to tolerate people.

That is a magic no amount of dollars could buy, or pay me off of wanting.

I might be willing to pay in body parts for that, even if it never led to another dime in my pocket.

The argument I was responding to said it would pay for itself in growing the economy. You're trying to move the goalposts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the govt "deficit" spends a dollar, then both GDP and govt debt increase by a dollar, regardless of subsequent multiplier effects. The nominal stock of govt debt (almost) always increases while the debt-to-GDP ratio goes up and down all the time. There's no reason to think future tax payers necessarily get less as a consequence of the former - unless you confuse that with household finances.

By this logic we simply abolish taxes and fund the government with debt.

I'm sure you know what happens when you do that.

Why is it somehow ok when it's "good" spending?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money and how it balances directly and not if you disregard the benefits realized not merely for the student borrower but for society in general—because of the services provided directly by the ability of the student to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, banker, whatever —and benefit in the increase in taxes the student borrower will pay as they earn more money than without a degree. Harder to quantify directly but real nonetheless is the benefit to society of having a more educated population. One of the most concrete benefits in recent times is the differences in voter behavior depending on level of education. Another is differences in behavior with regards to mask wearing and vaccination.

In other words, any government spending is good so long as you approve of the purpose.

That's the current Republican approach. Are you now a QOPer??

 

[Toni]

It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money and how it balances directly and not if you disregard the benefits realized not merely for the student borrower but for society in general—because of the services provided directly by the ability of the student to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, banker, whatever —and benefit in the increase in taxes the student borrower will pay as they earn more money than without a degree. Harder to quantify directly but real nonetheless is the benefit to society of having a more educated population. One of the most concrete benefits in recent times is the differences in voter behavior depending on level of education. Another is differences in behavior with regards to mask wearing and vaccination.

In other words, any government spending is good so long as you approve of the purpose.

That's the current Republican approach. Are you now a QOPer??

In other words, you’ve no rational argument to counter mine so you Troy out this garbage accusation. You’re better than that Loren.

 

[laughing dog]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

Which is an economically illiterate conclusion.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

I suggest you read post 172. Whether or not there is harm is ultimately an empirical question. It is economic illiteracy to claim it must harm taxpayers.

 

[Metaphor]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

Which is an economically illiterate conclusion.

They are not the same thing, and your babbling that uttering a basic fact is 'economically illiterate' is nuts.

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

I suggest you read post 172. Whether or not there is harm is ultimately an empirical question. It is economic illiteracy to claim it must harm taxpayers.

It causes moral harm to selectively forgive debts, using other people's money, because bilby and Toni have pity for the debtors.

 

[bilby]

If the govt "deficit" spends a dollar, then both GDP and govt debt increase by a dollar, regardless of subsequent multiplier effects. The nominal stock of govt debt (almost) always increases while the debt-to-GDP ratio goes up and down all the time. There's no reason to think future tax payers necessarily get less as a consequence of the former - unless you confuse that with household finances.

By this logic we simply abolish taxes and fund the government with debt.

I'm sure you know what happens when you do that.

Why is it somehow ok when it's "good" spending?

We already fund the government with debt.

Doing so is, of course, inflationary. So something must be done to deflate the economy. One of the big things that is currently done is to destroy some money via taxation. But that's not the only possibility.

Abolishing taxes would be a bad idea for a number of reasons, but the idea that doing so would in any way affect the government's ability to spend is simply false. It's also false to claim that borrowing is the only alternative to taxation. The government can spend money without doing either.

 

[Toni]

You're not addressing my point.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)

Well, we won't know unless it happens, right?

And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

And a quasi-point: The Cultural Revolution stripped away wealth--but there's still a considerable relationship between pre-Revolution wealth and how the next generation fared. It's not as clear because educational advantages could persist.

Your point is what, exactly? Poland (without any links, context or anything other than a single sentence--excuse me: incomplete sentence. Kansas, again with out any data, context, etc. Simply your say so.

I suppose you mean China when you talk about the Cultural Revolution? Again, your point is so unclear and unformed that it is not possible to address it.

Your 'data points' are not data. Their relevance is undetermined.

However, we DO know that in the US, higher levels of education correlates with significantly higher earnings. This effect is actually smaller in the years right after entering the workforce but escalates throughout the working careers of people.

People with college degrees usually outearn people without college degrees by a significant amount, regardless of what that degree is in.

 

[Jarhyn]

You're not addressing my point.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)

Well, we won't know unless it happens, right?

And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

And a quasi-point: The Cultural Revolution stripped away wealth--but there's still a considerable relationship between pre-Revolution wealth and how the next generation fared. It's not as clear because educational advantages could persist.

Your point is what, exactly? Poland (without any links, context or anything other than a single sentence--excuse me: incomplete sentence. Kansas, again with out any data, context, etc. Simply your say so.

I suppose you mean China when you talk about the Cultural Revolution? Again, your point is so unclear and unformed that it is not possible to address it.

Your 'data points' are not data. Their relevance is undetermined.

However, we DO know that in the US, higher levels of education correlates with significantly higher earnings. This effect is actually smaller in the years right after entering the workforce but escalates throughout the working careers of people.

People with college degrees usually outearn people without college degrees by a significant amount, regardless of what that degree is in.

And either way, people with college degrees usually are far less problematic and annoying to those around them, too, and you can't really put a price tag on that.

It's "shut up and take my money" territory to have some mostly-effective inoculation against commonly avoidable ignorance.

 

[Gospel]

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[laughing dog]

What have I said in this thread that is 'economically illiterate'?

Basically everything. Two premises that stand out as economic illiteracy are
1) that forgiveness of debt repayment has the same effect on the debtor as a tax cut (bilby’s main point}, and

That was your interpretation of bilby's claim, and I didn't even say it was wrong. I said calling them the same thing was nuts.

Which is an economically illiterate conclusion.

They are not the same thing, and your babbling that uttering a basic fact is 'economically illiterate' is nuts.

In previous discussions, you've demonstrated that your difficulty in distinguishing between actual facts and your beliefs. What exactly is this "basic fact" you are raving about?

Of course it harms taxpayers. You have simply decided the harm doesn't count.

I suggest you read post 172. Whether or not there is harm is ultimately an empirical question. It is economic illiteracy to claim it must harm taxpayers.

It causes moral harm to selectively forgive debts, using other people's money, because bilby and Toni have pity for the debtors.

Your claim has so many unsubstantiated assumptions that it is simply hot air. It depends on the "morals", and whether or not the forgiveness is agreed to by the "other people" just to name a few of them.

 

[ZiprHead]

The company my wife works for got a PPP covid relief loan of $125,000. The loan was forgiven by the government. The loan basically went straight into the pockets of the six shareholders.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You're not addressing my point.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)

Well, we won't know unless it happens, right?

And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

M'gosh. You saying turning around a systemically racist system takes more than money... but rather lots of time, lots of money, and lots of effort to rip through the social inertia?

Just throwing money doesn't work... and not giving it lots of time doesn't work either. Especially when we are still poisoning the brains of inner city youth with lead. Add to that, the issues of the drug war being waged (whether intentionally or not) at people who aren't quite as pale, and then there are those additional social issues that have needlessly perpetuated certain conditions.

In other words, reversing systemically induced race based poverty isn't as simple just throwing in money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It ‘harms’ taxpayers only if all you are concerned with is money and how it balances directly and not if you disregard the benefits realized not merely for the student borrower but for society in general—because of the services provided directly by the ability of the student to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, banker, whatever —and benefit in the increase in taxes the student borrower will pay as they earn more money than without a degree. Harder to quantify directly but real nonetheless is the benefit to society of having a more educated population. One of the most concrete benefits in recent times is the differences in voter behavior depending on level of education. Another is differences in behavior with regards to mask wearing and vaccination.

In other words, any government spending is good so long as you approve of the purpose.

That's the current Republican approach. Are you now a QOPer??

In other words, you’ve no rational argument to counter mine so you Troy out this garbage accusation. You’re better than that Loren.

You're still not addressing my point: What makes government spending for your wants harmless but the same thing from the Republicans bad?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not addressing my point.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)

Well, we won't know unless it happens, right?

And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

And a quasi-point: The Cultural Revolution stripped away wealth--but there's still a considerable relationship between pre-Revolution wealth and how the next generation fared. It's not as clear because educational advantages could persist.

Your point is what, exactly? Poland (without any links, context or anything other than a single sentence--excuse me: incomplete sentence. Kansas, again with out any data, context, etc. Simply your say so.

I suppose you mean China when you talk about the Cultural Revolution? Again, your point is so unclear and unformed that it is not possible to address it.

Your 'data points' are not data. Their relevance is undetermined.

However, we DO know that in the US, higher levels of education correlates with significantly higher earnings. This effect is actually smaller in the years right after entering the workforce but escalates throughout the working careers of people.

People with college degrees usually outearn people without college degrees by a significant amount, regardless of what that degree is in.

These are all cases that have been discussed on here before and were not discredited.

What I'm talking about is that we have seen that trying to pump up schooling for the disadvantaged doesn't improve outcomes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not addressing my point.

The right justifies tax cuts on the basis that they will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for themselves (to date, apparently never.) You're making the exact same argument that education spending will grow the economy (clearly true) enough to pay for itself (for which you are providing no evidence.)

Well, we won't know unless it happens, right?

And that's not addressing it, either.

We have two relevant data points that I am aware of:

Poland: Rebuilding the education system from the ground up with a goal of fairness didn't change the outcome.

Kansas: Throwing 10 figures at trying to improve education for the disadvantaged did nothing.

M'gosh. You saying turning around a systemically racist system takes more than money... but rather lots of time, lots of money, and lots of effort to rip through the social inertia?

Just throwing money doesn't work... and not giving it lots of time doesn't work either. Especially when we are still poisoning the brains of inner city youth with lead. Add to that, the issues of the drug war being waged (whether intentionally or not) at people who aren't quite as pale, and then there are those additional social issues that have needlessly perpetuated certain conditions.

In other words, reversing systemically induced race based poverty isn't as simple just throwing in money.

And note that I've long called for abolishing the drug war. Of the recreational drugs the only ones I think should be highly restricted are the ones used for date rape. The other stuff should all either be outright legal (although I would highly restrict advertising for it) or available to addicts by prescription.

And I do agree with anti-lead efforts. Flint was an abomination that should have resulted in plenty of jail time being handed out.

Address causes. The schools are a symptom, not a cause.

 

[Metaphor]

I've always wondered why the public dept gets substantially more scrutiny considering that private debt is larger and has a bigger impact on the"taxpayers" people seem to care about so much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You wonder why public debt, which is what people owe to the public, gets more public scrutiny (something you have not substantiated) than private debt owed to private persons? Really?

If some company or person somewhere wants to forgive debts for no good reason then let them.