Predicting the future is inherently stupid. Trying to show what will happen in our complex world using models is the stuff of Science Fiction.
Going back to the article and economics, if you follow David Graber (Debt The First 5,000 Years and Bullshit Jobs), he talks in his books about how every great civilization needs to have debt resets. Going back to the Babylonians, the Sumerians, and tons of others, there were always leaders or kings or emperors who would rise to power on the promise of debt relief. Israel had the year of Jubilee, where ever 50 years debts would be forgiven and slaves set free.
Continue inflationary debt is never sustainable. At some point, the world bank will lose its influence, smaller autocratic States will pull out of the "debt" they "owe" to their "liberators" and larger States will no longer be able to extract resources without force, that they're going to have a harder time paying for.
Debt reset needs to happen. Ever American student loan, loans with ballooning interest, medical debt, debt that's normally written off, debt that's never written off ... at some point we need less tracking and a bigger reset for each human being to start fresh.
Student loan debt is interesting because it could swing an election. All it needs is a candidate offering to write it off and a large enough portion of the population that stands to gain. I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen in the next decade or two.
I doubt it. Less than 15% of adults have student loan debt, and only a small portion of those are past due. Plus young people don’t vote. The only thing that might happen, is what has happened which is to delay payments or maybe interest, but politically, student loan borrowers are not a sympathetic group to other voters.
Any solution to student loan debt that doesn't fix the problem of how we wound up in the situation shouldn't (and probably won't) get widespread support for at least another 5 years or so.
Even as someone who's still paying off student loans, it's hard to want blanket forgiveness unless there is a system put in place to help minimize the number of people taking out loans for degrees that have a low chance of being able to make enough to make the cost worth it.
IOW, if a degreeholder in Underwater basket weaving on average makes only 5k/year more than someone who doesn't, we probably should limit the number of loans given to people pursuing those degrees.
Yes, this means many universities will have to trim down or eliminate programs. Perhaps it doesn't make sense for more than one or two colleges in a state (especially in smaller states) to have underwater basket weaving degrees.
There's also the psychological aspect to keep in mind; I recall my time in college and the first few years of what I was doing with my career, versus many of the people I know who are now complaining about student loans.
I graduated close enough to the 2008 crash that I couldn't get a job in my field after college. Building my career was years of long hours, cost me my marriage, and left me without a social life. Most of my associates who now complain about their student loans constantly were waiting for the next job to 'drop in their lap' (I even helped one get a job. They eventually got fired because they were incapable of even showing up to work less than an hour late for 6 months straight. No, they didn't think to save any of the extra money they made.)
That really there is the biggest rift: What's the solution that doesn't make people who sacrificed other parts of themselves to pay their bills feel like they got ripped off for doing the right thing?
I agree, it is completely unfair to give one group of people tens of thousands of dollars. If they are going to do that, then they should give everyone the same amount of money, even if you repaid your loans, even if you didn't take out loans!
On the one hand I worry about the moral hazard, the devaluing of the currency, and the debt being passed to future generations. On the other hand I recognize that it is almost criminal how we pressured 18 year olds into this situation.
Presidential elections have been pretty close lately. A candidate might increase their odds of winning substantially by swinging a fraction of a percent of actual voters.
They would have to swing voters who live in swing states. Voters in non swing states don’t matter. I also don’t think voters in swing states are particularly sympathetic to those with student loans either.
It could have the opposite effect too. For every person with an outstanding student debt, there may be another 3 people who absolutely do not want to "pay" someone else's student debt. Those who have gone to great lengths to successfully pay off their student debts might be particular vehement against such policy.
I'm pretty angry that young people don't vote much. It's idiotic. I've never understood this. My whole life I've voted since I turned 18, even when I was in college (mostly, oops). Then people vote more as they get older. I can't understand this, can't they see the impact?
Peter Thiel had the idea of allowing student loan debt to be dischargable in bankruptcy to the university that granted the degree. Seems like a reasonable idea to me.
We absolutely need a way to have colleges suffer repercussions for poor degree outcomes. It's at least part of the problem that colleges just want you to finish your degree (so you don't scare people way) and sign those maximal govt loan papers. They don't care what happens next much. The nicest thing you can say is they need to be incentivized for your post college success more.
>Predicting the future is inherently stupid. Trying to show what will happen in our complex world using models is the stuff of Science Fiction.
I think stupid is the wrong word to use here. "Flawed" would have worked just as well without having potential for misunderstandings. Attempts of predicting the future is _essential_ for our society to work. The reason we move forward at the pace we currently do is because we use assumptions and approximations of reality to plan ahead.
It did end up having that effect, which is why Hillel the Elder created a device called the "Prozbul" which transferred debt to the court before the Jubilee year, thus preventing forgiveness and enabling borrowers to borrow even close to the Jubilee. This is one of the few (maybe only) true loopholes invented by the Rabbis, with the justification "so as not to close the door to borrowers."
Going back to the article and economics, if you follow David Graber (Debt The First 5,000 Years and Bullshit Jobs), he talks in his books about how every great civilization needs to have debt resets. Going back to the Babylonians, the Sumerians, and tons of others, there were always leaders or kings or emperors who would rise to power on the promise of debt relief. Israel had the year of Jubilee, where ever 50 years debts would be forgiven and slaves set free.
Continue inflationary debt is never sustainable. At some point, the world bank will lose its influence, smaller autocratic States will pull out of the "debt" they "owe" to their "liberators" and larger States will no longer be able to extract resources without force, that they're going to have a harder time paying for.
Debt reset needs to happen. Ever American student loan, loans with ballooning interest, medical debt, debt that's normally written off, debt that's never written off ... at some point we need less tracking and a bigger reset for each human being to start fresh.