View Single Post
Old 08-02-2019, 01:32 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,507
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post

I disagree with the authors of the BOEís paper
For the purposes of this thread, the BOE and I will agree to disagree with you.

Youíre taking a general concept, that banks receive loan payments and then reloan those funds, a concept that fractional reserve banking, the subject that you brought up, depends on and you're trying to refute it by bringing up a specific circumstance, and then using a poor cite that only marginally relates to that circumstance. Youíre also arguing that lending is at a low point but ignoring that as recently as 2017, lending was at an all-time high. Most economists are worried that worldwide debt is too high, not too low.
I used to have a bookmark with a real time listing of the excess reserve, but the computer that that was on is no longer with us, and I just grabbed the first cite that proved my point, that banks are not waiting on money to come back before they can make loans, and that cite did prove my point. Contrary to what you assert here, I did not argue that lending is at a low point, and so did not ignore that it was at an all time high, so that entire paragraph of yours is trying to attack a point I never made.

I did say that banks are sitting on capital that they would like to lend out to qualified borrowers, but that in no way fits to your description of my argument.

I'm suggesting it. If you forgive a set of student loans, you better ensure that no equivalent of future student loans is available. Because if it is, the next set of borrowers who've made bad lending decisions will expect their debt to be forgiven and will howl with outrage if they don't receive the same giveaway the previous borrowers received.
Yeah, I do think that the first step is to address how the students got into debt in the first place, then to address the debts that students have acquired already. I've pointed this out a few times, so for you to repeat this as an issue makes me wonder what exactly it is that you are trying to argue here.

No moral hazard there.

At the start of the thread, didn't you object to whataboutism? I'm happy to respond, but I don't want to react to something you object to.
No, I did not object to whataboutism, I accused you of whataboutism, as this is a thread about "whether or not personal responsibility is even a value, and JohnT's point about (if it is a value) it's uniquely conservative. " as stated in the OP. Which would put my point about CEO's writing giant paychecks on the back of bankrupting corporations a very valid question as to conservative values, and pointing at democrats being concerned about student loans is not.
The would you say that the person that the party that is affiliated with conservatives nominated someone who exemplifies the ideals of personal responsibility?

I've already refuted that. The students paid for their education. Their payments entered the economy. Those payments were based on borrowed funds. If the students made poor forecasting decisions about borrowing for their education, then their personal economy is certainly hurt. However, the effect that subset economy is offset by the subset that received the funds, the university economy.
No, you disagreed with that. A disagreement is not a refutation.
Anyway, enough about banking and economics.
Fair enough, but I do recommend you just google the words "Lending creates money", or "paying a loan destroys money", as it seems that these are things that you are unaware of.

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
This is a thread hijack, which I started, but within modern times, I donít think you can find a better government investment than vaccinations. The benefit/cost ratio is probably in the hundred-thousands. I agree and have stated that education is a societal investment. However, at some point, the beneficiaries of that investment need to pay it back. This is especially true if the students have received greater benefits than someone who opted out of those benefits due to cost.
A better investment, as far as medical dollars and lives saved, sure. As an investment in stimulating the economy, especially into the future, not really.

You say that at some point, the beneficiaries need to pay it back, and they will, in the form of taxes that go towards educating the next generation. When is the generation that got free education to the standards needed for a living wage, along with much cheaper college education if they wanted to go further going to "pay that back"? The students who receive the greater benefits will be higher earners, which means higher tax payers.

Because at a certain point, societally necessary education turns into personally beneficial education. Thereís no clear dividing line between the two, and indeed the point isnít binary, but a crossing of a variable percentage threshold. Nevertheless, American society has determined that point to be high school graduation. Students who pursue college education are generally expected to pay for at least a part of their education and often the entirety. The students borrow student loans to receive the personally beneficial education. No one is forcing them to do so, and if the education is not personally beneficial to them, they can choose not to pursue it.
We used to only give a 5th grade education, as that was what was needed in the workforce. We had about the same fight in making later grades paid by the public as we are now. I don't know that American society has decided the point of "personally beneficial" education is high school. I think that is simply the status quo, that is simply how it is, and has been since the last time that American Society decided that it needed to better educate its citizens in order to have the workforce with the skills it needed.

The entire point of this is to recognize that American society has declared that a high school diploma is not enough to be a fully engaged and productive member of society. You may disagree, but the companies out that that won't talk to you without a degree show that your disagreement is based on your opinion on what you are willing to allow someone else to have, but is not based on the facts.

As is, college education is highly subsidized by the state. Is that also something that you disagree with?

The students are making an investment in their university education that they will have to pay off later, unless that debt is relieved. While attending university, they are undergoing an expense which they are not paying off with an asset, but are instead accepting a liability. My argument is that they are knowingly accepting this liability, which will need to be paid off later.
My argument is that they are also making an investment into the future of society. They are making an investment in some companies future workforce. The investment they are making in themselves is one that is made with inadequate information and even fewer choices.

If Iím not creating a strawman, why are you accusing me of doing so? Also, in a thread discussing personal responsibility, to state that a question relating to personal responsibility is a false question is a dodge of the question.
How does my point that your question is not relevant to anything I said indicate that you are *not* creating a strawman. That is exactly what a strawman is. You demanded to know what statement you were strawmanning, when I said none, that was not getting you off the hook for making things up, that was pointing out that your fabrication was not related to anything I had said. In fact, the question that you are asking there is a strawman question as well, as once again, it assumes facts not in evidence.

Your "question" is not relevant, and is purely meant as an accusation. This is not a good faith debating tactic. It is meant only as a gotcha question, and has no reason or ability to advance a productive conversation.
Iím sure thereís more to the remainder of your response to debate, but I think this current post is long enough.
There's a bit you did skip there, but that's fine. Some quick summaries, I do not agree with Warren's position on student loans as the best thing to do, but I do agree with her position as a starting negotiating point when dealing with people who want to do nothing. I also do not feel as though students are given a real choice. They are told to either go into an enormous amount of debt, or they will have to struggle to even find a living wage job.

I also had a question that you avoided, but I would guess the answer, based on what you have said here, is "No." The question, "Do you think that society should provide our next generation with the tools that are required to succeed? " (If I wanted to make it a strawman, as in your accusatory questions, I would say, "Why do you want future generations to fail?")

Given that tuition is raising faster than inflation, and that there are fewer and fewer opportunities for those without a college diploma to get ahead, this is a problem that will only get worse. How bad are you willing to let things get before you will allow it to be addressed as more than a problem for the individual students to deal with?

Personally I think that if we allow our future generations to have fewer opportunities and resources than we do, then that is the definition of the failure of civilization.