The argument against this relief is that it will fuel resentment. Resentment does not need any more fuel added to it right now. The leading alternative would be some sort of universal basic income (UBI) which has zero-point-zero (the #FullBlutarski) percent chance of becoming federal law in a nation of moral scolds. Giving every person $1000/month and saying, "here you go, do what you will" has an eloquent simplicity to it that appeals. If we give up on "perfect" and instead go for "better" some modest amount of debt relief (i dunno, $15k??) could have the biggest impact while fueling the least amount of resentment.
Wait until Americans find out we helicopter-dropped $46 billion on to corporate farmers in 2020. Oh wait, it's common knowledge and no one seems to care.
I was interested in your newsletters no matter what but the Simpsons pics are another reason to stick around.
Fascinating point about degrees becoming more a ticket to the labor market than actually boosting profits. I think our society puts way too much emphasis on degrees now.
I think the this article makes the fairly obvious point that has been kicked around by people favoring loan forgiveness for a long time: a huge portion of these loans will be defaulted on, so its just a matter of when and how we want to take the medicine. From a strictly "utilitarian" standpoint, this seems evidentially correct. But this is overly reductionist thinking to the many people who are not comfortable with the moral implications (and perceived moral hazard) of giving a "free ride". Ultimately, the idea that an argument that something is in the best interests for everyone doesn't always appeal to large swarth of people, who in their mundane everyday lives realize that "everyone" doesn't really care about them anyway and they, in kind, reciprocate the feeling. While the student debt crisis need addressing, I don't think the current solutions focus enough on the pernicious system that creates and enabled this crisis. In Finance, moral hazard led to the the Glass Spiegel act, and then after 2008 crisis, the Volkcer rule (for the moment, lets ignore that the results are mixed). I also believe the notion that "a lot of people got scammed" is an paternalistic way of saying people are misinformed but its not their fault. I wouldn't argue the notion that people are misinformed (which is another layer of euphemism for the actual word: stupid), but let's accept it for what it is. A fool and his money are soon parted.
With money as cheap as it is there’s no real fiscal constraint, so it’s basically a question of political trade offs. How does this stuff poll? It hardly seems like an issue worth tanking your approval ratings on.
Alternatively (and more cynically), just do it on day 1 with no discussion along with the rest of your unpopular stuff and everyone will forget by the midterms when we’re in post vaccine growth.
Personally this isn’t an issue that moves the needle for me. Even money spent inefficiently right now is still better stimulus than none. Ice cream party.
I didn't want student debt, so I went to the best school I could that allowed me to graduate debt-free. Because of this, the school I went to was a regional non-competitive state school, and my long-term earning potential has undoubtedly taken a hit from it. Had I gone to Columbia, I would have likely racked up significant costs, but my earning potential would probably be significantly higher than it is. It's hard to quantify exactly how much I would lose out on net if a debt forgiveness plan were to be enacted, but it's hard not to be resentful of those who went to more prestigious and costly schools (and gained elite connections from them) who then get a taxpayer funded bailout.
(I bring this up not to cry woe-is-me but to suggest that my profile seems under-discussed in the student debt discourse, although I think that experience may be rather common.)
I feel like questions of "fairness" along these types of lines are somewhat under-discussed among us on the left. This is certainly not to say that the idea does not have merit but it is more thorny than people sometimes realize. The thing is that most people inhabit social circles with people of vaguely similar economic conditions, so for every borrower there is someone else who didn't borrow or borrowed less. This basically guarantees a situation whereby everybody knows someone personally who would benefit much more than them in any forgiveness plan. Again, doesn't mean its not worth it but still.
I think its also interesting that although it is great to emphasize win-win situations: 1) most people do not intuitively think this way, and 2) there are real cases of zero-sum economics, as in the housing market. If a sizeable population of your peers gets 50 K of debt relieved that is likely to push you further down, or out of the housing market which you are in direct competition for. Obviously if we actually had an elastic housing market these would not be significant issues, but....
I feel like you need to do a mini section that explains the Simpsons bit for each post
if you know you know
The argument against this relief is that it will fuel resentment. Resentment does not need any more fuel added to it right now. The leading alternative would be some sort of universal basic income (UBI) which has zero-point-zero (the #FullBlutarski) percent chance of becoming federal law in a nation of moral scolds. Giving every person $1000/month and saying, "here you go, do what you will" has an eloquent simplicity to it that appeals. If we give up on "perfect" and instead go for "better" some modest amount of debt relief (i dunno, $15k??) could have the biggest impact while fueling the least amount of resentment.
Wait until Americans find out we helicopter-dropped $46 billion on to corporate farmers in 2020. Oh wait, it's common knowledge and no one seems to care.
I was interested in your newsletters no matter what but the Simpsons pics are another reason to stick around.
Fascinating point about degrees becoming more a ticket to the labor market than actually boosting profits. I think our society puts way too much emphasis on degrees now.
I think the this article makes the fairly obvious point that has been kicked around by people favoring loan forgiveness for a long time: a huge portion of these loans will be defaulted on, so its just a matter of when and how we want to take the medicine. From a strictly "utilitarian" standpoint, this seems evidentially correct. But this is overly reductionist thinking to the many people who are not comfortable with the moral implications (and perceived moral hazard) of giving a "free ride". Ultimately, the idea that an argument that something is in the best interests for everyone doesn't always appeal to large swarth of people, who in their mundane everyday lives realize that "everyone" doesn't really care about them anyway and they, in kind, reciprocate the feeling. While the student debt crisis need addressing, I don't think the current solutions focus enough on the pernicious system that creates and enabled this crisis. In Finance, moral hazard led to the the Glass Spiegel act, and then after 2008 crisis, the Volkcer rule (for the moment, lets ignore that the results are mixed). I also believe the notion that "a lot of people got scammed" is an paternalistic way of saying people are misinformed but its not their fault. I wouldn't argue the notion that people are misinformed (which is another layer of euphemism for the actual word: stupid), but let's accept it for what it is. A fool and his money are soon parted.
With money as cheap as it is there’s no real fiscal constraint, so it’s basically a question of political trade offs. How does this stuff poll? It hardly seems like an issue worth tanking your approval ratings on.
Alternatively (and more cynically), just do it on day 1 with no discussion along with the rest of your unpopular stuff and everyone will forget by the midterms when we’re in post vaccine growth.
Personally this isn’t an issue that moves the needle for me. Even money spent inefficiently right now is still better stimulus than none. Ice cream party.
I didn't want student debt, so I went to the best school I could that allowed me to graduate debt-free. Because of this, the school I went to was a regional non-competitive state school, and my long-term earning potential has undoubtedly taken a hit from it. Had I gone to Columbia, I would have likely racked up significant costs, but my earning potential would probably be significantly higher than it is. It's hard to quantify exactly how much I would lose out on net if a debt forgiveness plan were to be enacted, but it's hard not to be resentful of those who went to more prestigious and costly schools (and gained elite connections from them) who then get a taxpayer funded bailout.
(I bring this up not to cry woe-is-me but to suggest that my profile seems under-discussed in the student debt discourse, although I think that experience may be rather common.)
I feel like questions of "fairness" along these types of lines are somewhat under-discussed among us on the left. This is certainly not to say that the idea does not have merit but it is more thorny than people sometimes realize. The thing is that most people inhabit social circles with people of vaguely similar economic conditions, so for every borrower there is someone else who didn't borrow or borrowed less. This basically guarantees a situation whereby everybody knows someone personally who would benefit much more than them in any forgiveness plan. Again, doesn't mean its not worth it but still.
I think its also interesting that although it is great to emphasize win-win situations: 1) most people do not intuitively think this way, and 2) there are real cases of zero-sum economics, as in the housing market. If a sizeable population of your peers gets 50 K of debt relieved that is likely to push you further down, or out of the housing market which you are in direct competition for. Obviously if we actually had an elastic housing market these would not be significant issues, but....
It's not taxpayer funded if you just print all the money though 🤔