Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: I Say a Little Prayer for You!

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Mauvka said:

What makes  student loans "monopoly money" is that the market (by which I mean the schools and the lenders) get to issue as much of those loans as they want, without bearing on whether the borrowers will be able to pay back on the loan. With student loans we acknowledge that everyone should have access to higher education, then saddle people with costs that most families cannot actually afford to pay out of pocket. You'd be hard-pressed to accumulate 100k in mortgage loans, car loans, or credit cards without having to demonstrate some sort of ability to generate significant income. But you can accumulate a 6-figure non-dischargeable student loan without ever having a job, or putting up any kind of collateral.  As rational market actors, colleges can double their tuition over 10 years because the balance of those loans isn't actually linked to anything real in the market. 

The risk of bankruptcy and defaults puts a market check on other kinds of loans, and that's why they're not "monopoly money" in the same way.  The credit card won't give you a 50k credit line, when you only make 12k in income, and it will charge you enough in interest every month that for whatever balance you carry, you're paying the cost of that loan in real time.  A mortgage is linked to the value of a house, which can be resold to someone else who will pay that cost if you default on the loan.  But because students loans aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy, and the 18-year old who took out those loans may not even have learned what an "interest rate" is during their high school education, there's very little reality check on what the value of that loan should be. 

Frankly, I wish I would see more talk about allowing students loans to be discharged in bankruptcy as a cost check on the whole system.  I think Warren has mentioned this, but I haven't heard as much from the other candidates.  There is no justifiable reason for college tuition to cost as much as it does, and the loans policy is absolutely responsible for how quickly those costs have skyrocketed.

No it makes it a bad loan. It doesn't make into some kind of mystical "monopoly money".  Was the GFC due to too much "monopoly money" or bad loans?

The fact is that there is always going to be inherent risk to student loans that you won't find in other lending markets where this collateral or financial information to asses the risk of the loan.The reason is that the student's main asset (for most students at least) is his lifetime income. Also there can be an informational problem in the student lending markets because banks don't know how hard students will work and so forth. And since most students can't post collateral this means the cost of obtaining a loan is more expensive than what would be the case if informational problems did not exist.

Non of this would be such a problem if there weren't often significant barriers to entry in labor markets. But there are.

I'm not against in attempting reforms to bring down student debt levels. They are too high. But, there does need to be talk about how to reform the educations system on the supply side. And of course, I'm against any type of libertarian fantasy that there is no economic case for government involvement in higher education.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

No it makes it a bad loan. It doesn't make into some kind of mystical "monopoly money".

Perhaps it's an argument in semantics.  We used legislation to create bad loans that would never exist except for the bankruptcy provision. Calling a legislative loophole that disassociates the risk and value of a loan from its ticket price "monopoly money" brings focus to an inherent problem with how college tuition is being priced and financed. 

Quote

The fact is that there is always going to be inherent risk to student loans that you won't find in other lending markets. The reason is that the student's main asset (for most students at least) is his lifetime income.

I agree that this is an inherent problem with using a loan system to pay for education, when trying to also bring education access to individuals with low income. I wish we would recognize that the entire premise of leveraging an individual's lifetime income as collateral for their education is reminiscent of how in the 18th century people would enter into indentured servitude contracts to pay for passage to come to America. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

No it makes it a bad loan. It doesn't make into some kind of mystical "monopoly money".  Was the GFC due to too much "monopoly money" or bad loans?

The fact is that there is always going to be inherent risk to student loans that you won't find in other lending markets where this collateral or financial information to asses the risk of the loan.The reason is that the student's main asset (for most students at least) is his lifetime income. Also there can be an informational problem in the student lending markets because banks don't know how hard students will work and so forth. And since most students can't post collateral this means the cost of obtaining a loan is more expensive than what would be the case if informational problems did not exist.

Non of this would be such a problem if there weren't often significant barriers to entry in labor markets. But there are.

I'm not against in attempting reforms to bring down student debt levels. They are too high. But, there does need to be talk about how to reform the educations system on the supply side. And of course, I'm against any type of libertarian fantasy that there is no economic case for government involvement in higher education.

I’m curious why there is so little being said or done about the insanely high cost of higher education today.  What I paid for a bachelor’s degree in total is what many py for a year in a state school.  I graduated from undergrad in 1993.

That is nuts and unjustifiable, in my earnest opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mauvka said:

I agree that this is an inherent problem with using a loan system to pay for education, when trying to also bring education access to individuals with low income. I wish we would recognize that the entire premise of leveraging an individual's lifetime income as collateral for their education is reminiscent of how in the 18th century people would enter into indentured servitude contracts to pay for passage to come to America. 

Since our current systems does impose cost, it maybe wiser to give outright grants of money rather than loans.

But even if we have a grant based system, we still need to find a way to contain the costs.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m curious why there is so little being said or done about the insanely high cost of higher education today.  What I paid for a bachelor’s degree in total is what many py for a year in a state school.  I graduated from undergrad in 1993.

That is nuts and unjustifiable, in my earnest opinion.

Scott I agree. As I noted, the real cost education have been rising since the 1970s. And we do need to find ways to bend the supply curve. While I think its vital everyone has the opportunity to get a good education, we could be more efficient about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Political scientist Rachel Bitecofer believes there is actually no such thing as a swing voter; the majority of the electorate have made up their mind before the election, and the thing which really determines election outcomes is who turns up to vote: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

Anyone think she's onto something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Political scientist Rachel Bitecofer believes there is actually no such thing as a swing voter; the majority of the electorate have made up their mind before the election, and the thing which really determines election outcomes is who turns up to vote: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

Anyone think she's onto something?

That same article was discussed up thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Anyone think she's onto something?

Like Scot said, it was discussed at the beginning of this thread - see here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That same article was discussed up thread.

 

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

Like Scot said, it was discussed at the beginning of this thread - see here.

Oops, my bad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2020 at 10:49 PM, Ormond said:

Wow, I am sorry but I profoundly disagree. I do not see where this is "illogical" or "a joke" at all. 

MInimizing the potential for violence always seems logical to me.  I do not see how forcing him out a bit more slowly through cutting off water, etc., is at all the same thing as sending a message that "this sort of thing" is going to be allowed.  

If Trump is defeated and refuses to leave office, there’s a damn good chance there’s already a lot of violence occurring. Removing him would be essential to ending that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an irrational distrust of polls taken after Iowa but before NH based on flashbacks to 2008.  That being said, the polling for NH appears very consistent right now (one huge caveat - and a rational reason to be so suspicious of such polls - there's still a very large percentage that's undecided).  Sanders in a solid first, Buttigieg in a solid second, then Warren/Biden/Klobuchar hovering around the low teens.  If something close to that result holds, Biden has SC to lean on, but what about Warren?  If she doesn't confound expectations tomorrow night, I'm starting to think it's quite possible she drops out in a week or so.  And I would not be surprised if she endorses Bernie while doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If Trump is defeated and refuses to leave office, there’s a damn good chance there’s already a lot of violence occurring. Removing him would be essential to ending that.

I think Ormond is correct to look at the individualized circumstances before action is taken.  If violence hasn't arrisen in the wake of Trump refusing to accept his electoral defeat, or demanding a third term, using non-violent methods to remove him from the White House may be essential to prevent further violence in the wake of his expulsion from the White House.  

That said, I agree with you that it is likely that violence is already occuring if he's refusing to leave the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been hearing a lot of how Warren and Sanders are splitting the progressive vote, but I wonder how accurate that is.  Like, how many Warren supporters have Sanders as their second or even third choice?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Since our current systems does impose cost, it maybe wiser to give outright grants of money rather than loans.

But even if we have a grant based system, we still need to find a way to contain the costs.

A per-student grant given to the school, not to the student, like we do with elementary education. The schools would not be allowed to bill any mandatory fees of attendance to the students. That should put a constraint on the costs very quickly, as any raises in tuition would have to be negotiated with the state govts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite amusing to me that my tongue-in-cheek, somewhat smartass reply to Kal on if Trump physically refuses to leave the WH has generated this much discussion...

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Like, how many Warren supporters have Sanders as their second or even third choice?  

Morning Consult has a quick and accessible way to track this.  According to their most recent update (I think), 35% have Sanders as their second choice, 22% have Biden, with Buttigieg and Klobuchar at 10% each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's quite amusing to me that my tongue-in-cheek, somewhat smartass reply to Kal on if Trump physically refuses to leave the WH has generated this much discussion...

Morning Consult has a quick and accessible way to track this.  According to their most recent update (I think), 35% have Sanders as their second choice, 22% have Biden, with Buttigieg and Klobuchar at 10% each.

Thanks for the link.

Why wouldn't Warren wait around till Super Tuesday?  Lack of cash and low chance of coming back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

We've been hearing a lot of how Warren and Sanders are splitting the progressive vote, but I wonder how accurate that is.  Like, how many Warren supporters have Sanders as their second or even third choice?  

I think the data isn't clear--in the summer and fall, it was widely reported that they had very different voters who didn't have much crossover, but when Warren started sinking in the polls, Sanders definitely became a front runner. I don't know how much of a base they're splitting, but it feels like there is some truth to this belief.

If it is true, the media narrative that Warren promoting M4A tanked her has to be wrong. It's her walking back on it (if her supporters went to Bernie) that hurt her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies if I’m missing something obvious, but regarding Sanders supposed unique viability, it looks likes a large majority of dems prefer the non-sanders lane, including those morning consult results above.   Even with assigning half of Warren’s support to Sanders per those linked numbers, I’m looking at something like Sanders at 35% with the Biden-Bloomberg-Buttigieg-Klobuchar-Steyer-1/2 Warren lane at like 61% or something.   
 

I’m struggling to see Sanders able to secure a majority of support within the party, and only able to win the nom if the liberal-moderates keep cannibalizing themselves to yield him a plurality.   Am I wrong to be worried about sending a candidate who couldn’t even secure majority party support?  I know the counter example is Trump, but dems don’t behave the same way as republicans about these things.  Am I looking at this from the wrong framework or something?

Edited by butterbumps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Why wouldn't Warren wait around till Super Tuesday?  Lack of cash and low chance of coming back?

Strategically, I think it'd work better for her to get out ASAP - that generally will lend you good will with everybody (which she'll probably want as she still has a political future) and if she doesn't perform in NH there's not much point to waiting til Super Tuesday.  This is just what I would do if I were her though, not like I'm basing this on any actual information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Apologies if I’m missing something obvious, but regarding Sanders supposed unique viability, it looks likes a large majority of dems prefer the non-sanders lane, including those morning consult results above.   Even with assigning half of Warren’s support to Sanders per those linked numbers, I’m looking at something like Sanders at 35 with the Biden-Bloomberg-Buttigieg-Klobuchar-Steyer-1/2 Warren at like 61 or something.   
 

I’m struggling to see Sanders able to secure a majority of support within the party, and only able to win the nom if the liberal-moderates keep cannibalizing themselves to yield him a plurality.   Am I wrong to be worried about sending a candidate who couldn’t even secure majority party support?  I know the counter example is Trump, but dems don’t behave the same way as republicans about these things.  Am I looking at this from the wrong framework or something?

The thing is that none of the other candidates have what your asking for either.  If you look at the head to head against Trump Sanders is right there with Bloomberg and Biden.  And he has the highest favorability with Dem primary voters.

Eta: Sanders is the most popular 2nd choice for Biden supporters, although Bloomberg and Warren are very close too.  Even if Biden implodes it's not like they're all running to Buttigieg or Bloomberg.

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×