regardless of indoctrination, i never had an opportunity to remove the pen from that hand, only the person taking the loan had the opportunity to read it and reject the terms

so how is it moral to take my $1 a way to pay for this issue

I'm very happy you made better choices in your life. Does that help other people who might be failing?
Also, how many times have i said this, i'm not advocating for his idea, i'm asking if you have something better then "Sucks to be them".

i have presented many better ideas

You did list 4 things, i'm not sure why they would be better but i'll have to also think about those.

I don't even see how I'm a part of this

also its a debate about whether a freeze on interest accruing after 10 years is the best solution for resolving student loan debt (which was never clearly defined but last i was able to gather from DJ_Anuz). if the freeze is based off of government (and which level) regulation or something companies would do as a marketing strategy was never defined

It was someone asking to work out his idea, and you did very little to understand it or offer up anything really useful. Which is fine, its not really yours to contend with, but it was annoying how much you kept not understanding.

there are many approaches to win the debate, only one would be required to shift audiences position as to the freeze being the best solution:

- Does society owe it the students to bear the burden of their debt
- Current systems are in place that already aid in recovering student loan debt, should the be expanded
- Can the money used to support a freeze program be better spent elsewhere
- If society does owe it to the students to bear the burden of the debt, is there any alternative solution that makes more sense fiscally or socially
- does the program incentivize bad actions (like making minimum payments vs working to pay down debt early)
- etc etc etc

i understand his concept, which is simply a complicated way of getting society to shoulder a portion of the debt. It can be replaced by many other methods including lower interest rates

How does not paying interest after 10 years on debt that the individual will still have to pay = Society has to pay for it.

because society (the lender) has their money depreciated for 20 years without compensation and that money can be used for alternative investments with greater rates of return

a part of that interest payment is covering the devaluation of the dollar over time

So money that doesn't need to exist hurts everyone else who may or may not find use for it later down the road?

that $1 today that isn't repaid, could have been used to pay down national debt for an example

it has alternative uses that have higher rates of return

Are banks paying down national debt?

no but they get their money from the fed

As of July 8, 2016, the federal government owned approximately $1 trillion in outstanding consumer debt

Cool.

That figure was up from less than $150 billion in January 2009, representing a nearly 600% increase over that time span. The main culprit is student loans, which the federal government effectively monopolized in 2010

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/081216/who-actually-owns-student-loan-debt.asp

None of this is a great argument against his idea....I'll stick to your other 4 alternatives.

the alternative uses of that money is a valid argument for why the idea may not be the best use of $1

Helping people now vs money that might be used for other things down the road that we don't know anything about yet.

Yep it is an option...

there are always options, that's why i like the copenhagen consensus approach

Which is something to think about.

a better alternative argument is even interest free for first 10 years, then you accrue interest, to encourage people to pay off loans earlier

Could be.

and why do we think people are capable of paying off 400k house loans in 30 years but not 36k in student loans in 30 years. the terms and duration are very similar

You do know the average isn't something that everyone pays right? Some people might owe less then 20k, some could owe 120k, saying oh these people only owe 36k isn't helpful.

it is helpful because we need to plan for the normal not the extremees

some people will fall through the cracks, you don't plan for them, there are acceptable losses in any plan, because over planning is expensive

You want a plan to help everyone who needs it, which are people in the extremes first.

no you plan for the average people, realign your scope from there

there is a margin of error in any production model, the cost of reducing that margin of error determines whether you reduce it or not

You want general policies like that, but not when you are looking at a problem that needs to be solved.

why does one person per day still get hit with a landmine in cambodia, because the cost of reducing the margin of error exceeds the value of human life

i see no problem to be solved, i don't have to produce a solution, i have to prove that the freeze is not the ideal solution

Which wasn't very helpful. But again you did offer some alternatives.