• AmidFuror@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    Someone has to pay. Whether that is distributed to many or a few, a lot of people lose a little or a few people lose a lot. Someone has to lose something for someone else to gain it in this scenario.

    • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Ok, how about people with more money they could possibly spend multiple lifetimes??? How about we tax billionaires so everyday citizens can have a decent education without being indebted for the rest of their god damn lives!?

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

      If that’s the case, why is college so much cheaper in other countries? Why is it just the U.S. where education cost has skyrocketed?

      • AmidFuror@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        No one is suggesting the colleges lose the money. They already got it. So what does their gouging have to do with it? Even if they had to pay off the loans, it would hurt them. Maybe they deserve to be hurt, but giving back money you thought was yours still hurts anyway.

        What a bunch of bizarre responses.

        • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          What does their gouging have to do with it?

          Everything. The point you seem to be missing is that college doesn’t actually cost as much as U.S. institutions are charging. They’re robbing people blind, and that needs to stop.

      • capital_sniff@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Because Reagan opened the flood gates on raising the cost of higher education. Then the boomer generation, well known for pulling the ladder up behind themselves, saw this and ran with it. Also they aren’t the ones going to school anymore. Combine that with the general hatred for education and science republicans have and we have super expensive schools.

        My last two years of college had over 10% tuition increases to pay for a new stadium…

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      Someone has to pay.

      Actually, no: it’s an investment that pays off in term of expansion of the whole economy. Literally everyone is wealthier at the end than they would’ve been for not doing it, so in net terms nobody had to pay anything.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Based on your upvote/downvote ratio it looks like basic economics is not very popular.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      You need better sources before arriving at a conclusion on this one. This is a topic that has been discussed at great lengths by people from nonprofits and activist organizations on many podcasts. I’m sure their info exists in written form if you look for it.

      • AmidFuror@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        The money came from banks and went to the colleges via the students. If you take the money from the colleges, they will be “hurt.” They will lose something they had before. If you take it from the banks, the same. If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere. If you raise taxes, then the money is reaped from whomever has their taxes raised. If you print the money, then everyone pays a little through inflation.

        Someone gets hurt. I already said the hurt could be distributed. It could also be levied on people with vast resources who would notice it the least.

        Can you summarize the podcasts and writings that suggest no one loses money when a loan is forgiven?

        Separately, why is a clear statement of fact controversial? You don’t have to believe that loan forgiveness hurts no one to think it’s a good policy to put in place. So why the weird reaction?

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          5 months ago

          If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere.

          Not true in the US (and a few other countries). The US has economic sovereignty. This means that the federal government primarily owes it’s debt to itself, and only a very small percentage is owed to other countries. The fed also relies on a fiat currency, meaning that money has value because the federal government says it does. These 2 facts mean that the only limit to US spending is the amount of labor and resources available to the government at any given moment (please note that this is not true for state/local government). Haven’t you ever wondered why we have unlimited funds for the military but it’s austerity for everything else? It’s because conservatives in government want to hide these facts to continue pushing their agenda.

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          I understand your point but there are many other things that factors at play besides where the loans originated. For example interest rates are appalling on many of these loans. These are arbitrary factors that don’t hurt the lenders. They can still make a profit.