Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[Metaphor]

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.

Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt

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

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.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.

It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.

Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.

"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief

Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?

When a debtor promises to pay back a loan, they ought keep that promise. If laughing dog thinks this is a controversial "idiosyncratic" moral opinion instead of a ubiquitous belief shared by billions across time and cultures, laughing dog is wrong.

 

[Gospel]

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.

Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt

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

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.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.

It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.

Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.

"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief

Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?

When a debtor promises to pay back a loan, they ought keep that promise. If laughing dog thinks this is a controversial "idiosyncratic" moral opinion instead of a ubiquitous belief shared by billions across time and cultures, laughing dog is wrong.

So the bonds aren't backed by tax players.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not every promise stands to be kept, plain and simple.

People in general recognize that promises made asymmetrically are generally null and void. Most people I know recognize that ANY decision with long term consequences be reviewed carefully and discussed for some time before such decisions are allowed of young people.

Financial decisions are one of the most important ones: student loans are set up like the mouth of a funnel.

I don't believe the fish deserves to be eaten for biting the hook, and I certainly don't accept in society the act of setting out a snare for human beings on the path to education.

 

[laughing dog]

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.

Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt

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

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.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.

It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.

Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.

"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief

Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?

When a debtor promises to pay back a loan, they ought keep that promise. If laughing dog thinks this is a controversial "idiosyncratic" moral opinion instead of a ubiquitous belief shared by billions across time and cultures, laughing dog is wrong.

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.

Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt

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

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.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.

It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.

Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.

"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief

Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?

When a debtor promises to pay back a loan, they ought keep that promise. If laughing dog thinks this is a controversial "idiosyncratic" moral opinion instead of a ubiquitous belief shared by billions across time and cultures, laughing dog is wrong.

That is just another straw man. The issue under discussion is not borrowers refusing to repay a loan, but the lender voluntarily forgiving repayment.

You are the one claiming the voluntary forgiveness is somehow immoral without any real justification other than "waaah, me think it is immoral".

 

[laughing dog]

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.

Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt

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

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.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.

It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.

Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.

"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief

The discussion is about lenders voluntarily allowing debtors to forego repayment. No one is saying people ought to break their promise to repay a loan. So your characterization is s either an incredible stupid straw man or another example of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Metaphor]

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.

Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt

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

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.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.

It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.

Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.

"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief

Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?

When a debtor promises to pay back a loan, they ought keep that promise. If laughing dog thinks this is a controversial "idiosyncratic" moral opinion instead of a ubiquitous belief shared by billions across time and cultures, laughing dog is wrong.

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.

Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt

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

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.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.

It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.

Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.

"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief

Aren't those promises kept in government bonds? I presume tax players cover the bonds. Am I wrong?

When a debtor promises to pay back a loan, they ought keep that promise. If laughing dog thinks this is a controversial "idiosyncratic" moral opinion instead of a ubiquitous belief shared by billions across time and cultures, laughing dog is wrong.

That is just another straw man. The issue under discussion is not borrowers refusing to repay a loan, but the lender voluntarily forgiving repayment.

You are the one claiming the voluntary forgiveness is somehow immoral without any real justification other than "waaah, me think it is immoral".

Voluntary forgiveness for no good reason, where people other than you are picking up the tab, is immoral.

 

[Metaphor]

The Private sector have debts to pay too which shows up in the consumer's invoice.

Indeed it does. And so a company that needlessly forgave legitimate debts owing to it would pay the price -- the employees would pay the price and the shareholders (or owners) would pay the price and the customers would pay the price. And all three of those groups voluntarily associate themselves with the company (though obviously customers have the least to lose - they'll just stop paying).

Toni earlier tried to say I am not harmed if she forgives bilby's $100 debt

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

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.

Why? If the lender is a financial institution, they are using other people's money to forgive a debt, something that appears to bother you as an alleged moral principle.

It depends on the consent of the other people. In Toni's example, she asked me why it harmed me for her to forgive bilby's debt and not mine. But she was playing only with her own money and it wasn't a business context.

So I agree that for non-natural persons where there are tax and fiduciary considerations, it would be wrong to write off debt for no good reason.

If the lender pays taxes, debt forgiveness is a tax write-off which means, according to you, will mean taxpayers foot the bill.

That is just another example of the economic illiteracy underpinning your "moral" argument.

You are right: debts written off for no good reason should not get tax relief of any kind.

And people who incurred debts to the government should not get forgiven for no good reason.

Your rationale is based solely your idiosyncratice morality.

"People ought keep promises" is hardly an idiosyncratic moral belief

The discussion is about lenders voluntarily allowing debtors to forego repayment. No one is saying people ought to break their promise to repay a loan. So your characterization is s either an incredible stupid straw man or another example of intellectual dishonesty.

To forgive debt for no good reason undermines the general moral duty of keeping promises you made.

To forgive debt for no good reason, using other people's money, when the debtees were promised repayment, is actively immoral. The government is going back on its own promise to taxpayers.

 

[Metaphor]

Not every promise stands to be kept, plain and simple.

And some debts ought be forgiven, in certain circumstances. Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven.

People in general recognize that promises made asymmetrically are generally null and void.

No, they don't recognise that. All kinds of deals are made asymmetrically. They're still valid.

Most people I know recognize that ANY decision with long term consequences be reviewed carefully and discussed for some time before such decisions are allowed of young people.

Like cutting their genitals off?

Financial decisions are one of the most important ones: student loans are set up like the mouth of a funnel.

I don't believe the fish deserves to be eaten for biting the hook, and I certainly don't accept in society the act of setting out a snare for human beings on the path to education.

If you think being given money to build your personal capital is analogous to 'snaring' human beings you are out of touch and out of your mind.

 

[laughing dog]

Voluntary forgiveness for no good reason, where people other than you are picking up the tab, is immoral.

Since you have not provided a shred of reality-based evidence that
1) there is no good reason for the proposed policy, or
2) that other people are necessarily against picking up the tab, or
3) other people are actually going to end up picking up the tab,

it seems you are engaging in your usual form form of abstract and absurd virtue signalling,

 

[Metaphor]

Voluntary forgiveness for no good reason, where people other than you are picking up the tab, is immoral.

Since you have not provided a shred of reality-based evidence that
1) there is no good reason for the proposed policy, or
2) that other people are necessarily against picking up the tab, or
3) other people are actually going to end up picking up the tab,

it seems you are engaging in your usual form form of abstract and absurd virtue signalling,

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

 

[Toni]

Not every promise stands to be kept, plain and simple.

And some debts ought be forgiven, in certain circumstances. Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven.

People in general recognize that promises made asymmetrically are generally null and void.

No, they don't recognise that. All kinds of deals are made asymmetrically. They're still valid.

Most people I know recognize that ANY decision with long term consequences be reviewed carefully and discussed for some time before such decisions are allowed of young people.

Like cutting their genitals off?

Financial decisions are one of the most important ones: student loans are set up like the mouth of a funnel.

I don't believe the fish deserves to be eaten for biting the hook, and I certainly don't accept in society the act of setting out a snare for human beings on the path to education.

If you think being given money to build your personal capital is analogous to 'snaring' human beings you are out of touch and out of your mind.

Wait wait wait: you are opposed to GIVING money to ‘build your personal capital.’ I think what you are talking about here is borrowing capital and paying to back, with interest, even if it takes you the rest of your life. You think that is fine and dandy and the way it should be for all Americans whose parents are not rich enough to pay for it outright.

It’s different in Australia, tho.

As it should be.

 

[Metaphor]

Not every promise stands to be kept, plain and simple.

And some debts ought be forgiven, in certain circumstances. Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven.

People in general recognize that promises made asymmetrically are generally null and void.

No, they don't recognise that. All kinds of deals are made asymmetrically. They're still valid.

Most people I know recognize that ANY decision with long term consequences be reviewed carefully and discussed for some time before such decisions are allowed of young people.

Like cutting their genitals off?

Financial decisions are one of the most important ones: student loans are set up like the mouth of a funnel.

I don't believe the fish deserves to be eaten for biting the hook, and I certainly don't accept in society the act of setting out a snare for human beings on the path to education.

If you think being given money to build your personal capital is analogous to 'snaring' human beings you are out of touch and out of your mind.

Wait wait wait: you are opposed to GIVING money to ‘build your personal capital.’

No, I am not opposed to it, as long as that was the understanding at the time.

If an Australian government got elected on the promise they would eliminate university course fees, and then they did it, I would have no problem with the government doing what it promised and giving away money.

But above I should have written 'loaning' money, not 'giving', which is the case with student debts in America.

I think what you are talking about here is borrowing capital and paying to back, with interest, even if it takes you the rest of your life. You think that is fine and dandy and the way it should be for all Americans whose parents are not rich enough to pay for it outright.

Yes, I am for people keeping their promises.

However, I do find a general personal bankruptcy not wiping out student debt to be problematic, and I think that should be changed. That's only a thing in Canada and the US, as far as I know.

It’s different in Australia, tho.

As it should be.

 

[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.

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.

The schools are (hopefully more were than are) part of the issue. There are a lot of other issues, as you have conceded. But regarding Flint, I'm not talking about corrosive water letting lead leach into the water, I'm talking about dust from lead paints being inhaled and how those children in poor housing are being poisoned by it.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Mr. Biden handily won the presidency. One of his campaign promises was to cancel or forgive up to $10,000 in student debt. If one accepts the precepts of democracy, the majority of taxpayers did not object to that promise. If Mr. Biden fulfills his promise, it suggests the forgiveness is voluntary on the part of the public. Of course, one is free to reject the rules by which we live, but then one is posturing about some utopian ideal, not the actual world.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not every promise stands to be kept, plain and simple.

And some debts ought be forgiven, in certain circumstances. Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven.

People in general recognize that promises made asymmetrically are generally null and void.

No, they don't recognise that. All kinds of deals are made asymmetrically. They're still valid.

Most people I know recognize that ANY decision with long term consequences be reviewed carefully and discussed for some time before such decisions are allowed of young people.

Like cutting their genitals off?

Financial decisions are one of the most important ones: student loans are set up like the mouth of a funnel.

I don't believe the fish deserves to be eaten for biting the hook, and I certainly don't accept in society the act of setting out a snare for human beings on the path to education.

If you think being given money to build your personal capital is analogous to 'snaring' human beings you are out of touch and out of your mind.

Wait wait wait: you are opposed to GIVING money to ‘build your personal capital.’ I think what you are talking about here is borrowing capital and paying to back, with interest, even if it takes you the rest of your life. You think that is fine and dandy and the way it should be for all Americans whose parents are not rich enough to pay for it outright.

It’s different in Australia, tho.

As it should be.

No true Scotsman: "Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven."

"Compelling" in this is "something Metaphor, subjectively, likes".

Assertion Fallacy: "No, they don't recognise that [promises made asymmetrically are null and void]."

Several people recognized that here, in this very thread, so they clearly do recognize it.

Then, it's also recognized in the fact that children cannot unilaterally engage in contracts.

It's also recognized that contracts made under duress (another asymmetry) or between people of differing power dynamics (boss/employee) can be void owing to an asymmetry...

There are all sorts of different, identified asymmetries which void contracts owing to the asymmetry.

This is merely the formal identification of yet another "voiding asymmetry".

"Like cutting their genitals off?"

Honestly what is it with Metaphor and cutting off genitals?

It must be something they think about a lot.

But yes, given time and careful review, even that ought be allowed.

This is a situation where careful review is simply impossible as the resulting power structure creates a situation analogous to indenturement. And of children with no practical experience, no less. It's way more impactful than drinking alcohol, which we restrict to the age of 21.

Being GIVEN resources to build up "personal capital" is not snaring someone.

It is only snaring someone when you put those resources on a hook, attached to a line, designed to give you financial power over them.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

 

[Toni]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

In that case, you should be happy with the proposed student loan forgiveness program which has excellent reasoning behind it.

 

[Metaphor]

Not every promise stands to be kept, plain and simple.

And some debts ought be forgiven, in certain circumstances. Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven.

People in general recognize that promises made asymmetrically are generally null and void.

No, they don't recognise that. All kinds of deals are made asymmetrically. They're still valid.

Most people I know recognize that ANY decision with long term consequences be reviewed carefully and discussed for some time before such decisions are allowed of young people.

Like cutting their genitals off?

Financial decisions are one of the most important ones: student loans are set up like the mouth of a funnel.

I don't believe the fish deserves to be eaten for biting the hook, and I certainly don't accept in society the act of setting out a snare for human beings on the path to education.

If you think being given money to build your personal capital is analogous to 'snaring' human beings you are out of touch and out of your mind.

Wait wait wait: you are opposed to GIVING money to ‘build your personal capital.’ I think what you are talking about here is borrowing capital and paying to back, with interest, even if it takes you the rest of your life. You think that is fine and dandy and the way it should be for all Americans whose parents are not rich enough to pay for it outright.

It’s different in Australia, tho.

As it should be.

No true Scotsman: "Nobody has made any compelling argument why these debts should be forgiven."

"Compelling" in this is "something Metaphor, subjectively, likes".

Assertion Fallacy: "No, they don't recognise that [promises made asymmetrically are null and void]."

Incredible. Not only does Jarhyn not have the courtesy to respond to my post directly, he accuses my rejection of his own "assertion fallacy" as an "assertion fallacy".

Several people recognized that here, in this very thread, so they clearly do recognize it.

This thread is not "people in general".

Then, it's also recognized in the fact that children cannot unilaterally engage in contracts.

18 year olds are not children. If you think they are, you should raise the age of consent.

It's also recognized that contracts made under duress (another asymmetry) or between people of differing power dynamics (boss/employee) can be void owing to an asymmetry...

They can be, they are not generally held to be so. Asserting that all student loans are too 'asymmetrical' to be held valid is begging the question.

There are all sorts of different, identified asymmetries which void contracts owing to the asymmetry.

This is merely the formal identification of yet another "voiding asymmetry".

"Like cutting their genitals off?"

Honestly what is it with Metaphor and cutting off genitals?

I want to see a stop to people doing it to children.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not the one proposing the forgiveness of student debts. The people proposing it have to make the arguments for it.

I understand - you have no rationale except to provide another boring example of abstract virture signalling.

Evidently you don't understand. I do have a rationale to oppose debt forgiveness for no good reason and I've already explicated it.

In that case, you should be happy with the proposed student loan forgiveness program which has excellent reasoning behind it.

It hasn't anything of the kind.

 

[Jarhyn]

18 year olds do not have enough experience with finance and debt to possibly understand an "unforgivable" loan with a price tag of "literally, more than a decent house would cost".

They have FAR more experience with things like "the effects of hormones on themselves and their peers". Even then I would discourage an 18 year old from anything so drastic as cutting their house and family off.

It's a far more damaging action than say, tossing your genitals away at 18. At least they have some years of experience regarding genitals at that point. Debt and finance though? That's just a gaping fucking pungie pit.

At least you can take some drugs to reverse the effects of the gonads, and you can still rub some part of yourself to get off, if that's even your thing, and then adopt someone from... Well, if you didn't hear a lot more mother's in certain states are going to be using safe harbors...

But having a secure financial future? With those loans, you can kiss that goodbye.

I would sincerely much rather lose my testicles to a teenage decision than lose my hope of ever being able to afford a house or children.