Message from @Shadows
Discord ID: 589692522360602624
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
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
I mean, those four options aren't really feasible, or rely on tax payers to fund. I could go into the nuances of why, but only if ya'll would care.
don't care, already proved the freeze is not the optimal solution to the not so clearly defined problem (which i assume is the risk of delinquency in paying off student loan debt)
Umm... No. It's not been about delinquency at all.
then as ive said many times, your proposal is not clearly defined
It was many times, you just didn't care to see it.
Which is fine.
i havent seen it, ive asked for it
Whats wrong with the idea of interest free for first 10 years then it all on you to pay it back before the interest starts
Yep, i did say that was something to consider.
It would help for those that could manage to pay it off in the first ten years, though there would be many underemployed grads that wouldn't be able to make the deadline and would still get hit by the interest on the total.
Though after that their interest would be more manageable.
if you cant get a job in that feld in 10 years it was a bad university degree
Very many degrees are bad heh.
Most kids going to school don't quite comprehend that there are more bad degrees than good.
It also wouldn't solve the issue of people that currently have their loans they're paying interest on.
Ideally the govt would just stop backing new loans so they can fizzle out of existence.
then so maybe the government should assign you a career based on aptitude tests and needs, so you don't choose incorrect carrers?
Last thing I want is the govt telling me what jobs I am or am not apt to do well in.
Their tests would probably suck.
so society can't determine job placement, but should socialize the cost of a bad personal selection