>>61253507 so? It's a safer loan to make. If you get a student with no credit history going to college and you don't know what major they're going to pursue, the risk is significantly higher than that of Wall Street who have the capacity to pay back loans.
Perhaps if college students stopped taking shit courses like gender studies and had backers in case they never pay their loan back then college loans could be cheaper. >People actually have to take loans to get through education. Protip: If you need loans you have wasted your childhood.
>>61253351 >If they weren't such niggers about paying them back Then why give them high interest rates in the first place In conjunction with constantly raising the cost of living and tuition rates. Yea when the cost of college alone for one year can give ne an apartment for a two year lease high interest rates on loans seems pretty retarded and defaults seems like the likely outcome. Either reduce interest rates. Regulate the economy better or reduce the cost of living and tuition fees. Better yet all of the above and you solve this problem completely
>leftists in charge of understanding basic economics >interest on loans should be determined by ideology and not economic factors
There are so many unperforming student loans from people who get useless SJW degrees and can't pay them back that the interest rate needs to be high just in order to break even let alone make a profit.
Basically successful people have to pay a high price to subsidize all the failures
The problem is that the government doesn't allow banks to deny loans to people pursuing useless degrees
>>61254027 >all I can do in this thread is ask SO WHAT and make bullshit responses that have no relevance to the discussion at hand. >muh status quo You have yet to offer an alternative, you just bitch at the people who tell you the reason why student loans have higher interest.
The loans are actual money from an actual person's pocket.
It's just not made out of thin air.
The lenders are propositioned with, "you are either 100% guaranteed to get this loan paid back by Wall Street, but there's a 1-in-10 chance that a loan you give to a college student will end up in default."
The latter will naturally require a higher interest rate because the lenders are taking a greater risk.
unless they are lucky enough to have family wealth that makes this a non-issue for them
those of us who actually care and dont think the problem is insurmountable can actually break out of the box of thought you have trapped yourselves in and see a clear path out this joke, where everyone's life improves EXCEPT those who are the parasites at the top at present.
College loans need to be default-able after a set amount of time. You have removed free market principles from the system. If banks had to take the risk they would only do loans for degrees that actually translate to a job. You are feeding shit like womens studies and bullshit art degrees. You are feeding cancer.
>>61254242 This is absolutely right. We could also open more colleges if there was less government regulation. The government can put a cap on tuition prices to force colleges to focus on quantity of students so more people can get into college cheaply. Some states already have tuition caps. There's tons of solutions the governments could do, but right now the colleges are just taking advantage of all the money government is throwing at it. And so are the students who qualify for government loans.
>>61253861 If you're certain of it you're welcomed to start your own loaning company at 0.75%. I mean all the customers will surely flock to you at that rate and all your competition will be out of business. See how well you do.
>>61253861 >>, the risk is significantly higher than that of Wall Street >so what?
Ok lets play a game. >Hello, I would like $30k per year for 4 years so I can get an education degree with no plans to pay it back for 20-30 years. Also, I have no credit history. vs >Hello, I would like a $1mil loan for my business worth $25 mil. I have been working up to a loan of this size for 10 years, I plan on paying it back within 2 years, I have an impeccable credit score, and I'm willing to offer equity in my company for this loan.
This sounds a lot like the "muh perfect european socialist countries" argument.
Can you give concrete examples instead of alluding to "better" countries?
At some point, the government having its hand in the economy is going to fuck it up completely.
Yes, I would personally love to have a 0.75% interest rate on my remaining $62,000 in student loans I'm currently paying off. But I literally got this money loaned to me with no collateral and no credit history. My lenders took a huge risk on an 18-year-old kid.
We shouldnt be keeping the 4 year model afloat. High school should be fixed to get basic math and writing down and then the 2 year model should be pushed. That way we can do cheaper community colleges for the general shit and the second two years people can have idea by then what they want. Can do trade or certificate or finish a bachelors. The 4 years schools are growing out of control.
>>61253351 This. And backing by govt. Has caused anyone to get a degree in anything and not what is currently valued in the market. Affirmative action has put people who wouldn't and shouldnt be in college otherwise in. Policies on accepting everyone and govt. Subsidised higher education is what has fucked college prices.
>>61253957 private banks dont lend to students, the government does. the vast majority of student loans are from the federal government.
government lends to students government lends to banks at .75% interest
if government can do the second they can do the first.
and wall street is a much worse bet than college students, wall street creates literally no value. in fact it destroys value massively. maybe you forget 2008. every bank executive could be in jail is obama wasn't too much of a pussy to prosecute. they're all worthless parasites.
>>61254440 I can guarantee you that colleges would be more discerning about who they let in and what degrees they offered if the government made them partially responsible for the debt in the even of a student failing to pay.
Ultimately the responsibility rests on the colleges here because they allow unprepared failures of humanity to graduate.
>>61253280 Well, first off, these companies have fucking millions with some excellent credit on the side.
Normal loans don't cost as much in interest because they're willing to give up to a certain limit and the loaner has some more control over the debtor as it takes a big impact on their credit
There is almost no consequence and no collateral with student loans as many companies don't give much importance to things like medical bills and student loans. Not only that, but IIRC, the government can help with student debt
The entire system is absolutely retarded. Why the fuck has someone to pay a life-ruining amount of money for education when the nation needs more people with higher studies? And even more, it's fucking obvious that only a few have that money at that stage in their life PROVIDED by their parents. It's absolutely ridiculous.
It's like this: >i need bread from the store, but i am physically disabled, but rich >i ask my underlings to put up landmines, assassins, obstacles and other traps along the road until they reach the store >i ask my underlings to get bread from the store, walking that road >OH MY GOD SO INCOMPETENT UNDERLINGS, WHY CAN'T ANYBODY BRING ME BREAD, THEY ARE SO STUPID >apparently i am mentally challenged too, but i can't realize it
>>61254805 >>government fucks it up completely >>economy was better before any regulation >>lawless in banking is better >like..... many hundreds of years ago? >yes, there were a precious few _very_ happy people then, which is what matters
There's a world of difference between "regulation" and "trying to brute-force some good feefees."
>>61254791 sanders misunderstands a lot of economics but still has the best economic policy of any candidate. it's sad but true.
expansionist monetary policy doesn't work too well. especially when the vehicle is giving the money to wall street banks because that sector is a drag on the overall economy, they're all worthless parasites who should be in jail. government should have stimulated with fiscal policy instead.
>>61253280 Student here, degree level education is not, and should not ever be a right. You want a degree, you gotta work and pay for it. Simple. as everyone says, lending to a student is risky af so warrents a high interest rate.
>>61254991 >There's a world of difference between "regulation" and "trying to brute-force some good feefees."
yes, one fits your idea of "acceptable", merely because it is what you are used to,
and the other makes many lives better at the cost of the unfair excess of a few, which is evil as far as you are concerved, because it is change, and that is scary, and everyone who is rich deserves everything they have if they arent under indictment
>>61255018 yeah who gives a fuck who is suffering or how much because
>THEY AGREED TO IT SO THEY MADE THEIR BED AND THEY CAN DIE IT
even if there is no alternative,
>THEY HAD A CHOICE
oh right, even if the alternative is basically the same level of misery by trying to function without touching the loan system and not having the foresight to have been born rich
>>61254772 The simple fact is that we don't need more people with "higher studies" when those studies are not of value. The value of college was in the fact that it prepared you for jobs that required a ton of study in areas that were not commonly understood, and materials that were not commonly available to people in the past. Modern colleges still have some schools within them that require these, but most of the schools resources are spent on "education" that amounts to little more than babysitting for people who aren't smart enough to even find let alone attend the classes which would provide them value.
>>61255045 do you have any idea how large the fiscal policy has been in the US during Obama administration? check out how much the debt increased, now that is your fiscal policy that was funded on newly issued gov bonds.
US econ has been growing since 2010 thanks to your excessive expansionist monetary policy + healthy diverse economy + population growth Finnish economy hasn't grown since 2007. It's a lost decade.
I almost wish you elect Sanders who hopefully then crashes the US economy, with the rest of the world winning as the largest companies and richest people flee somewhere else.
>>61255231 >yes, one fits your idea of "acceptable", merely because it is what you are used to,
Do you think these principles were just pulled out of a hat? Or perhaps the hundreds of years of human existence before us sculpted it to be the most just and prosperous system there is?
I don't argue this because it's what I'm used to. I argue it because it makes sense.
>and the other makes many lives better at the cost of the unfair excess of a few, which is evil as far as you are concerved, because it is change, and that is scary, and everyone who is rich deserves everything they have if they arent under indictment
Federal student loans have interest rates of about 3-6% depending on the year and whether they're subsidized or not. This interest rate pales in comparison to the principal taken out. It's not the interest rate that gets students, it's the massive principal.
I'm not "scared of change," I'm vehemently opposed to it because it will fuck everything up.
If you have a 10% default rate on student loans and only make 0.75% on them compared to a 0% default rate on Wall Street loans, which one are you going to invest in?
Like I initially said, these are actual people taking actual money out of their pockets. You are taking another person's money with a loan. You have to incentivize your lenders.
>they can "get fucked" They're not getting fucked. Someone is still taking the risk of loaning money to people with no credit history and no collateral and a lot of the time no idea what they are doing (muh womyns studie).
If they wanted a better rate they could choose not to go immediately into post-secondary education and work for a few years whilst building credit. Apply for credit cards, and paying them off regularly for example.
How would you regulate people with money into lending it with high risk without making a profit?
>>61253280 Even if they get a non stem degree, a degree that is a hobby at best i.e.history, geography, gender studies, religious studies, critical theory, woman studies; basically any social science or humanities course.
>>61256172 >yeah, ok bud >>I get a loan with no collateral and no credit history, and the lender makes money in the long run.
And now I'm making $60k a year right out of college as a STEMfag. I've got a very nice apartment, furniture, clothes, everything. And I had none of this before while growing up in a low-income, single-mother household.
It's worked for me. Wonderfully so. And that's mostly because I made good choices about my future.
I was under the impression you cant default a student loan, what a bunch of fucking shills itt.
Greek state had reliable returns, never missed a payment yet the Wall Street rating agencies ramped up greek interest from 2% to 30%. Why? To put political pressure on Greece, so that they would privatize their many state owned assets to Wall Street and implement the usual IMF reforms that maximize the profits of american investors.
In a fiat money system the interest mechanic is irrelevant. The interest mechanic serves only one purposes: to enslave and economically exploit all non-jews and all non-jewish nations.
They called the fucking 1973 french law that made national debt possible 'Loi de Rothschild' for a reason.
Not necessarily. Imposing a minimum wage above what someone is currently being paid would only result in cutting staff immediately to shore up the loss in profit.
So now you have more people unemployed.
Listen, I used to think exactly like you. But it simply doesn't work. We're treading into No True Scotsman territory where you say "well, what they have isn't *real* socialism/communism" or start laying out some facts about the other countries' economies you want to model our economy after.
>>61253280 You need to pay if you want to waste a few years of your time. If there are any college classes that should be free it would be STEM classes. You get 2 chances fail twice and you lose the class that you failed and have to wait a few years to try again. Making all classes free is stupid and there needs to be consequences for failures.
I don't care if my anecdote means nothing to you. The current system works just fine when used properly. For faggot degenerates who pick bad majors, it doesn't work so well. And the system is set up to disincentivize bad decision-making by having interest rates on student loans, thus requiring a well-paying degree/career/job to pay back.
>>61253649 So that's how financial institutions can actually function as a business. If they just passed out loans that they could never collect on they would run out of money to loan people. Bernifags are fucking toddlers.
When I have a bachelor degree in philosophy and political sciences or in sport theory and I don't understand why I have to flip burgers to feed my 3 kids and wife(with an equally useless degree) then I done fucked up.
Also, in romania cost of living as a student in a big city is (a minimum, mind you, only food and accomodation) around 200€ a month. Of course, you have to work hard and deserve a bed in university-owned dorms and receive free education by being one of the best, but if you cant be in the top 50% then you should be doing something else...
>>61256508 In those "places with a higher standard of living", the cost of education is borne not by the students but instead (principally, depending on the country) by the government - I think that that is what you're alluding to. There are a few points to make about this.
Firstly, switching to that model does nothing to address the fact that a lot of people are graduating with useless degrees that have no economic value. Everyone is stagnating or declining in terms of living standards, if you haven't noticed.
Secondly, having government (basically the country) pay for education is part of the welfare state. This means relatively high taxes (close to 50%, depending on how much you make). Some people want that, and some people don't, so I won't make and arguments for or against there.
If you want to switch to that system, I would like to hear your arguments as to why it is such a good improvement. Having lived in that system myself, I would say that we are in need of reform as well.
National debt in this perpetual form didnt exist until after WW2. It is a tool to enslave all once sovereign goyim nations to the international jew.
The right to coin, issue and tax money was once the right of kings, not the right of jewish parasites, and usury was flat out illegal and one of the main reasons why jews got kicked out of Europe in the middle ages.
I would encourage you to study up on the science of economics as opposed to wishing the world was fair. I like what you're saying, it would be nice, and I even used to believe it. But it simple doesn't work that way.
At some point you have to let go of your victim complex (the top 1% are fucking us in the ass) and start taking control over your life, fate, and destiny.
Thomas Sowell's book Basic Economics is great, and there are many small clips of him debating these issues on YouTube as well.
>Firstly, switching to that model does nothing to address the fact that a lot of people are graduating with useless degrees that have no economic value.
value is subjective
>pay for education is part of the welfare state.
>This means relatively high taxes
their value for their tax dollar is so far above that of the USA that its mind boggling
> Some people want that,
most would prefer it, as it improves everyone's lives, everyone except very very few, those being those who are the top parasites as in the USA
>I would like to hear your arguments as to why it is such a good improvement.
standard of living is highest in those nations where wealth AND power are both most evenly distributed
this ends with result of us being able to live more and struggle less,
free, or mostly free, of those people at the top who function as metaphorical cancers on society, principally with wealth, where you have the alternative of living under a bridge, or making them wealthier
this is where the impasse lies
2 different classes: those who support the system as it is, "the richest have done nothing wrong, they deserve what they have because they earned it"
>>61253507 They are a bank not a charity. Sorry if wall street investments have a better ROI than some random cat lady major. Also the college bubble is about to pop, 6 years ago it was hard to get a non federal loan for school just try now.
>>61257781 >You can't measure the value of college education purely in terms of job outcomes, >You can't measure the value of something that other taxpayers pay for by how much it helps pay taxes ok. >>61257807 >"leftists" usually do no they don't
Possible ways to avoid crippling student debt >Study hard and earn a scholarship >Military route and take advantage of GI bill >Get a degree which will actually get you a paying job >Trade/vocational school >Save money
>>61258134 >public good Of what? Do you ever stop to think that maybe at some point, someone sold you a lie that everyone needs to be educated? Maybe it was, I dunno, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MAKING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OFF OF THE TUITION AND WHO OWN THE ENTIRE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN USA? Maybe? Just maybe?
The idea behind taking a loan for anything is that the improvements made by having the extra money will provide a better return after the project is done. In this case, it means gaining knowledge to enter a job that pays more for having the degree.
There are a few problems with the current system in that, students going through high school don't really learn about other paths that don't require a 4-year degree. There is also the fact that 4-year degrees are slowly becoming useless to employers, who are constantly asking for years of experience for entry-level positions, while internships to give that experience become harder to obtain.
Another is that being laden with debt coming out of college really hinders someone's ability to have the freedom to participate in the local economy. But this also boils down to avoiding taking out a loan in the first place and there's a number of solutions to that.
>>61257408 >science of economics Lol, economics is the most overated "science". It's the same as sociology. The difference is that sociology can predict stuff. "muh economics" failed to predict, well, everything. Also, there are so many economic theories, many of them well founded and logic.
I see so many cuckservatives here saying "study economics". Wich one, thomas sowell?
>>61258290 Okay, I think I see where you're coming from now. The difficulty though is that every society has some measure of "value", from advanced ones like our own to nomadic hunter-gatherers, and this measure of "value" normally relates to survival - to hunter-gatherers it is food and shelter, and to us it is money which provides us all that and more.
Even if your system were implemented, you would still have to in some way apportion people so that enough would study in fields that are necessary for the maintenance of civilisation. Currently, our system does this by punishing those who take out large loans in subjects that do not earn monetary rewards. In my engineering classes most people are there not because they love the field but because it is a reasonably safe guarantee of a decent middle-class salary. How would your proposals convince people to voluntarily contribute towards society in the absence of the economic coercion used in ours?
Usury should be illegal anyway. Simple fees would support the bank without high interest on loans
Plus colleges should just charge a small percentage on graduates income for a select njmber of years post graduation (if they get a bad job obviously the college doesn't deserve to get a lot of money back)
>>61258729 >spend large amounts of resources to gain something >that something has little return >you literally cannot achieve anything anything and wind up homeless >yes but do u feeeeeeeel successful maaaaaaaaan?
Like if two teams play eachother and one gets slaughtered. "good effort guys! Just think youre a winner :)"
>>61253649 The best thing to do is look at it from the perspective of the one giving the loan. Remember, first, you can't deny people or charge different rates because that's discriminatory. You can either offer the loan or not offer it.
Now, nine people come into your office looking to take your money in hopes that they can give it back later. This is not coming out of your pocket, but it is coming out of the 401k and the social security, so while it won't hurt you now no matter what you spend, you definitly want it back in some kind of timeframe.
So these nine people come into the office, asking for the loan. Five people say they are going to go to college, get the degree, and use their higher wage to pay you back. One guy says his wage is probably going to be 70,000 starting, and another two are making 50k, so no problem with that. One guy says that, okay, he starts low, but his pay will ramp up over time, so he's going to have to start with low payments but he'll surely have it all back in fifteen years (ten after he graduates). One guy tells you that his major either makes bank or breaks it. It takes years, but over time he has a decent shot at being a millionaire. Like 10%. That's pretty good. He'll definitely pay you back in full when he gets there.
And then there's the other four. Three of these guys are going to take your money, spend it all, and then drop out. Two will pay it off over the next 30 years (college plus 25). One plans to die with the debt, says he won't give you a penny. The fourth guy looks you in the eye and says "i'm going to run into a building and die at 22. You won't get a penny."
So, them's the breaks. You got your nine guys. Three pay back in a 'decent' timeframe (ten years). One will pay you back in fifteen. Two will still be paying in 30, long after you retire and need the money back. One will pay you back 10% of the time. Two will never pay you a thing.
Why the fuck do you expect them to give you only .75% interest?
>>61258608 >Everyone doesnt *need* to be educated but society would be better if everyone were educated... So where do we get all the staff to teach the hundreds of millions of people? Let's say for the sake of the argument we need to educate only 100,000,000 Americans(Note that the number is currently closer to 30 million, even at our current tuition rate.) Lets also keep a 28:1 student:professor ratio, and each student has 5 classes — a typical curriculum.
We would need 17.8 million professors to educate a third of USA. The average professor salary is $98,974 according to the US Department of Labor. Do you know what that is?(I know you don't) It's 1.767 trillion US dollars just to pay for the salary of the professors to teach them. No other expenses, not a single fucking one. Just professor tuition. That's more than half of our entire 2015 federal budget.
You know how many persons killed themselves in my country because of the crysis? Half of my country debt was acquired after 2008, was lower then the average of EU. And then the germans came here and called us big spenders and lazy.
If i could, i would hang all the fucking wall street guys, bankers in my country, politicians and thei families in public square. I would not even spare the fucking janitors.
>>61259206 One of the reasons for having high interest rates is to make money off all the loans that don't default to cover for the money you lose on the loans that do default. High interest rates on defaulting loans doesn't make you your money back - fleecing the other guys who do pay up does.
>>61256820 >bachelor degree in philosophy and political sciences or in sport theory Why are these considered useless? They have value. The market would be completely saturated if everyone got a STEM and business degree. You should be thanking other for not going after these jobs as well.
The 0.75% rate she is talking is the fed discount rate: http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/discountrate.htm
It's a liquidity facility, not really a loan. Think of a bank with a lot of assets, but needing actual cash. They use this facility to get cash. It is generally fully collateralized. In fact, it's usually more than 100% collateralized because there is a haircut. So, to borrow 100 dollars, they have to put for 120 dollars worth of high-quality (low-risk) assets (generally, government bills or bonds) as collateral.
And it's overnight. You borrow money for 24 hours (which you can renew every night if you want).
Comparing that with loaning money to students, for many years, at the same rate is completely retarded.
>>61260514 >What interest rate should they levy on those one hundred million loans? >loans they want free college, anon. Not loans. There's no paying back the 1.5 trillion, and it gets taken every year.
How is it that faggots don't understand the concept of collateral? Return reliablibilty? Or any sort of risk management when it comes to loans? I don't really understand the stock market or trading that well, but risk management and shit like that seems like something even simplest mind should be able to understand.
>>61260369 And where did she said the 0.75% was the fed discount rate?
Even then the low rate gives banks a huge leeway and flexibility in doing business(whose profits is kept for themselves). I don't how is Warren being retarded by wanting to give students some sort of leeway and flexibility
Your government has to borrow money from investors, local and international. Are you following me so far?
Now, those investors have many opportunities of course. They can lend to glorious AAA-rated Australia for example. Or the US. Or Germany. Or France. Or, indeed, to Portugal.
But the risk is different in each case. And the interest rate offered is going to reflect both that risk as well as the competitive environment (because, again, Portugal is not the only one to borrow money).
Fast forward to 2008. Yes, there was a global crisis. But that's irrelevant as far as Portugal is concerned. It was not *directly* affected by subprime mortgages, right? The shock could have been anything else not directly related to finance (e.g. a big earthquake in California, a large-scale terrorist attack like 9/11, a currency crisis in Asia or whatever).
But what happened is that interest rates rised for everyone. Including Portugal. Which means that, from there, it was way more expensive for you to borrow.
Which is of course a problem because you were running a deficit, so you *had* to borrow.
It's all your fault basically. You should have elected sensible politicians being careful with your finances.
Elizabeth warren writes a law school casebook on secured credit and yet can't understand why a school loan would have a high interest rate? This woman is just a leftist demagogue. There is no way she believes even a fraction of what she says.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.