• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

The corallary to that, and the worst part of Loren's objection (that he consistently brings up, regardless of the actual topic, and with no evidence) is that these systems and programs and services are always abused in some way by some small portion of the populace.

Loren would just restrict it so that onlyy the rich could abuse them....

The bloated cost to students is the current system being abused. The school suffers no loss when a student fails or doesn't put the education to use for any reason. They've got their money from lenders (dusting hands-off) and lenders have to get their money from the student whether that lender is public or private. Colleges aren't in any shortage of students since the system is set up to feed them clients, annually. What a racket.
I beg your pardon, but for the US universities and colleges as a group, there is a growing shortage of in-person students. Between lower birth rates and more difficult immigration, most institutions of higher learning (not the elites) are scrambling for students.

What many people who comment on higher education fail to appreciate is that there are economies of scale in higher education - up to a certain point for any institution depending on its physical facilities and staff, per unit cost per student fall as the number of student increases.

The blathering about "administrative bloat" is usually driven by ideology and ignorance. For public institutions, public financing has drastically fallen.
 
Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.
You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.
I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.
The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.
I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.
Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.
Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.
 
The corallary to that, and the worst part of Loren's objection (that he consistently brings up, regardless of the actual topic, and with no evidence) is that these systems and programs and services are always abused in some way by some small portion of the populace.

Loren would just restrict it so that onlyy the rich could abuse them....

The bloated cost to students is the current system being abused. The school suffers no loss when a student fails or doesn't put the education to use for any reason. They've got their money from lenders (dusting hands-off) and lenders have to get their money from the student whether that lender is public or private. Colleges aren't in any shortage of students since the system is set up to feed them clients, annually. What a racket.
I beg your pardon, but for the US universities and colleges as a group, there is a growing shortage of in-person students. Between lower birth rates and more difficult immigration, most institutions of higher learning (not the elites) are scrambling for students.

What many people who comment on higher education fail to appreciate is that there are economies of scale in higher education - up to a certain point for any institution depending on its physical facilities and staff, per unit cost per student fall as the number of student increases.

The blathering about "administrative bloat" is usually driven by ideology and ignorance. For public institutions, public financing has drastically fallen.

I'm confused. Maybe it's satire? It's a multi-billion dollar industry, right? Right?
 
Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.
You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.
I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.
The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.
I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.
Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.
Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.
Loren, you can take anything any way you like but anybody with even a passing familiarity with economics understands that you are mistaken, You're too married to your ideology to actually understand what someone typed.
 
Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.
You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.
I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.
The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.
I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.
Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.
Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.
They are not non-replies. The Laffer curve is a short-run argument was not applied to longer run economic growth, so whether one accepts the Laffer curve or not is simply irrelevant to my point.

Observing that whether or not a policy results in a net benefit is an empirical question means one is not taking a "side", so your response is based on a failure of reasoning.
 
The corallary to that, and the worst part of Loren's objection (that he consistently brings up, regardless of the actual topic, and with no evidence) is that these systems and programs and services are always abused in some way by some small portion of the populace.

Loren would just restrict it so that onlyy the rich could abuse them....

The bloated cost to students is the current system being abused. The school suffers no loss when a student fails or doesn't put the education to use for any reason. They've got their money from lenders (dusting hands-off) and lenders have to get their money from the student whether that lender is public or private. Colleges aren't in any shortage of students since the system is set up to feed them clients, annually. What a racket.
I beg your pardon, but for the US universities and colleges as a group, there is a growing shortage of in-person students. Between lower birth rates and more difficult immigration, most institutions of higher learning (not the elites) are scrambling for students.

What many people who comment on higher education fail to appreciate is that there are economies of scale in higher education - up to a certain point for any institution depending on its physical facilities and staff, per unit cost per student fall as the number of student increases.

The blathering about "administrative bloat" is usually driven by ideology and ignorance. For public institutions, public financing has drastically fallen.

I'm confused. Maybe it's satire? It's a multi-billion dollar industry, right? Right?
Yes, but the notion that the unsubstantiated "administrative bloat" is sufficiently large that its elimination would result in noticeable or appreciable reduction in tuition is rather whimsical.
 
Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.
You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.
I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.
The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.
I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.
Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.
Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.
Loren, you can take anything any way you like but anybody with even a passing familiarity with economics understands that you are mistaken, You're too married to your ideology to actually understand what someone typed.
All I see is a string of non-responses.
 
Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.
You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.
I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.
The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.
I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.
Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.
Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.
They are not non-replies. The Laffer curve is a short-run argument was not applied to longer run economic growth, so whether one accepts the Laffer curve or not is simply irrelevant to my point.

Observing that whether or not a policy results in a net benefit is an empirical question means one is not taking a "side", so your response is based on a failure of reasoning.
I'm saying you're using the same argument, with the same lack of support.

They take it on faith that tax rates are above the point of maximum tax revenue. You take it on faith that government services are below the point of maximum tax revenue. Both sides argue by showing benefits to be obtained, neither side looks at costs.
 

Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.
You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.
I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.
The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.
I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.
Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.
Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.
They are not non-replies. The Laffer curve is a short-run argument was not applied to longer run economic growth, so whether one accepts the Laffer curve or not is simply irrelevant to my point.

Observing that whether or not a policy results in a net benefit is an empirical question means one is not taking a "side", so your response is based on a failure of reasoning.
I'm saying you're using the same argument, with the same lack of support.

They take it on faith that tax rates are above the point of maximum tax revenue. You take it on faith that government services are below the point of maximum tax revenue. Both sides argue by showing benefits to be obtained, neither side looks at costs.
The cost is higher national "debt". It is a "debt" as discussed to the void, and the entry point of money into that ratio.

We don't owe it to anyone but ourselves to make the quantity of our imaginary resources (dollars) the match of the worth of our material resources (useful work and estate).

Education itself is a resource, material in the moment, a collection of ideas written of and on the material of our minds and useful as templates for accomplishing cool shit.

It may in fact stand to invest part of our imagination of value, our money, into education.

As I have said, an educated society is its own reward.
 
Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.
You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.
I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.
The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.
I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.
Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.
Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.
Loren, you can take anything any way you like but anybody with even a passing familiarity with economics understands that you are mistaken, You're too married to your ideology to actually understand what someone typed.
All I see is a string of non-responses.
That's what she just said.

You do have the option to try harder, but nobody can force you to do so.
 
Either future taxes will be higher than they would be without it, or future government services would be lower than they would be without it.
You are making assumptions about what the rich did with their tax cuts. According to your ideology, the rich do not eat their seed corn. If they invested the tax cuts, it is possible that they will boost economic growth and tax revenues in the long-run lower than they would have been without it.

Personally, I don't think that is likely, but the point is you cannot say for certain you will be harmed.
I don't support that Laffer curve garbage.
The Laffer curve was a short-run argument,not one based on economic growth.
I'm just saying you're doing the same thing in the other direction.
Saying it is an empirical question is not going in either direction.
Your non-replies are noted, I'm taking this as a concession.
They are not non-replies. The Laffer curve is a short-run argument was not applied to longer run economic growth, so whether one accepts the Laffer curve or not is simply irrelevant to my point.

Observing that whether or not a policy results in a net benefit is an empirical question means one is not taking a "side", so your response is based on a failure of reasoning.
I'm saying you're using the same argument, with the same lack of support.

They take it on faith that tax rates are above the point of maximum tax revenue. You take it on faith that government services are below the point of maximum tax revenue. Both sides argue by showing benefits to be obtained, neither side looks at costs.
Your response is pure babble. The Laffer curve is simply the observation that is starting at a zero tax rate and increasing tax rates, tax revenue will rise up to a maximum and then decline. Conservative ideologues grabbed that idea to argue that tax rates could be lowered and raise revenue. However, there was no empirical to demonstrate whether current tax rates were on the "high" side (i.e. lowering them would raise revenue) or the "low" side (i.e. lowering them would reduce revenue).

There is no way anyone with even a modicum of reading comprehension should conclude that the observation "it is an empirical question" means I am taking anything on faith because requiring empirical data is the fucking opposite of faith.

Finally, only the economically illiterate or the deeply obtuse would conclude that anyone who refers to "net benefits" is ignoring costs because net benefits = benefits - costs.
 
Your response is pure babble. The Laffer curve is simply the observation that is starting at a zero tax rate and increasing tax rates, tax revenue will rise up to a maximum and then decline. Conservative ideologues grabbed that idea to argue that tax rates could be lowered and raise revenue. However, there was no empirical to demonstrate whether current tax rates were on the "high" side (i.e. lowering them would raise revenue) or the "low" side (i.e. lowering them would reduce revenue).

There is no way anyone with even a modicum of reading comprehension should conclude that the observation "it is an empirical question" means I am taking anything on faith because requiring empirical data is the fucking opposite of faith.

Finally, only the economically illiterate or the deeply obtuse would conclude that anyone who refers to "net benefits" is ignoring costs because net benefits = benefits - costs.
You're doing the same thing the other way around--taking it on faith that spending is on the low side.
 
Black voters, a key group for President Joe Biden, demonstrated outside the White House on Thursday morning as part of an NAACP effort demanding that Biden cancel $50,000 in student loan debt—a figure five times larger than what the president may be considering.
 
Compare the number of positions asking for a certain degree with the number of people who want that degree. The state should provide more funding for degrees where the ratio of ask to want is higher.

The government is definitely not smart enough to know what courses are valuable it will be valuable in the future.
Note that I'm talking degrees, not specific classes.
The government is t really a good predictor of where the economy will be in 4 or 10 years. Think of all the kinds of jobs there are now that didn’t exist 15 years ago.

Unless you are going into a very specific field, your major doesn’t matter much. Sure, it does if you want to be an accountant or a nurse or a teacher. Beyond that? Not so much.
Really, now? You don't realize there are degrees with very poor job prospects because there's so little demand for the skill? Such basically worthless degrees are a fair chunk of the student loan problem.
Asimov wrote a story called Profession (in the book Nine Tomorrows) that is staged in the far future where humans have the ability to educate people almost instantaneously by downloading information directly to their brains. Children show up at their local education center twice, once for Reading Day, where they are programmed to read, and then again on Profession Day where they are taught a skill. There is a huge demand among youngsters to get programmed with the most lucrative subjects that will give them well-paying jobs in the off-world colonies. And then we discover what the cost of this convenience (of getting educated instantly) is. Its a good read, and very relevant to the argument you are trying to make here, and you should check it out if you can. Its also an excellent story.

Education is not about creating programmed robots to run our factories and stores, or produce things, it is much, much bigger than that. Education is about teaching people how to think and solve problems, along with a foundation in the fundamentals of some aspect of reality that they find interesting. Education is about liberating the mind and giving it the wings to fly. You are so focused on making sure that every dollar is paid back and nobody gets a "free ride" that you fail to see the bigger picture.
 
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.
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.


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.
Wrong. The value of the education appears when the person receiving the education goes on to do things that are beneficial to the community he or she is part of, like inventing a cure for a disease, or developing technology that makes our lives better, or designing a new road that provides access to an isolated rural community, or writing a book that entertains millions, or becoming a teacher or stay home mom/dad who teaches their children how to be good citizens of the planet. Education is the fertilizer that allows people to achieve their potential towards making the world a better place.


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.
See above. The role of government is to better the lives of the community, and education is a big part of accomplishing that goal. You cannot talk about debt forgiveness without the broader context of the value of education. And we shouldn't be engaging in the practice of forcing young people to remain in debt for decades simply because that is how it has been done in the past. "We should continue to punish people by making them stay in debt because that is how we have always done it" is a piss-poor argument. And downright stupid.
 
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.
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.


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.
Wrong. The value of the education appears when the person receiving the education goes on to do things that are beneficial to the community he or she is part of, like inventing a cure for a disease, or developing technology that makes our lives better, or designing a new road that provides access to an isolated rural community, or writing a book that entertains millions, or becoming a teacher or stay home mom/dad who teaches their children how to be good citizens of the planet. Education is the fertilizer that allows people to achieve their potential towards making the world a better place.


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.
See above. The role of government is to better the lives of the community, and education is a big part of accomplishing that goal. You cannot talk about debt forgiveness without the broader context of the value of education. And we shouldn't be engaging in the practice of forcing young people to remain in debt for decades simply because that is how it has been done in the past. "We should continue to punish people by making them stay in debt because that is how we have always done it" is a piss-poor argument. And downright stupid.
I would like this post X1000 if I could.
 
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
What utter male bovine excrement. IF, the government "forgives debt" it's down to the gobby extremists that are screaming about it and it's a political decision, nothing to do with society. The only "benefit" society gets from the assholes that borrowed $100K+ to goof off in college for a four year degree in gender studies and liberal art is we get plenty Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas.
 
The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
What utter male bovine excrement. IF, the government "forgives debt" it's down to the gobby extremists that are screaming about it and it's a political decision, nothing to do with society. The only "benefit" society gets from the assholes that borrowed $100K+ to goof off in college for a four year degree in gender studies and liberal art is we get plenty Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas.
This is your brain on FoxNews.

Remember, kids: Not even once!
 
Loren, I'm going to be frank with you: if I could go back to school and pick up more STEM without a deadline of social viability, I would go back and I might never leave.

The result of this would be... Gosh. I don't even know how far I could take that!

Some day I hope to have the power to create technology that is, in fact, art.

The government is not forgiving debt because they feel sorry for the debtors. They are doing it because forgiving debt related to education is beneficial to society. That is the primary role of government - to make the lives of the community better.
What utter male bovine excrement. IF, the government "forgives debt" it's down to the gobby extremists that are screaming about it and it's a political decision, nothing to do with society. The only "benefit" society gets from the assholes that borrowed $100K+ to goof off in college for a four year degree in gender studies and liberal art is we get plenty Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas.
This is your brain on FoxNews.

Remember, kids: Not even once!
Ugh... Occasionally I expose the cut and it's almost always something toxic...

Personally, I prefer my Starbucks baristas and my Uber drivers at the very least to be kind enough to call me by my preferred pronouns, and to not ask me whether chemtrails are real.
 
Back
Top Bottom