EDIT: Here is an interesting interview from Asher Edelman about the velocity of money and Bernie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xSVzdUNqo
Tradesmen can be forgiven for not understanding macroeconomic policy though, which is why it isn't their role to set it, just as I don't ask an economist to weld a pipeline together. I can still respect the roles of both practitioners regardless.
Like it or not those tradesmen get to vote. You're gonna need to do a job selling your bailout than "the money will bounce around our economy" (which is a valid claim IMO).
Two wrongs don't make a right.
> Tradesmen can be forgiven for not understanding macroeconomic policy though
Well that's very classist of you. I've seen a whole mess of folks with fancy credentials that are about as useful as a pair of tits on a hog.
You know what I saw when I went to university? Professors willfully lowering the bar to cater to unmotived, unprepared students because tuition dollars. Fix that and then we can talk about free education, until then you're just pouring gasoline onto a dumpster fire.
I wouldn't have a welder or other tradesperson perform neurosurgery on me, nor argue as my defense attorney in court. Why would I expect them any more qualified to set economic policy? That's not classism, that's common sense and reason. What is more astounding is that someone could be of the opinion that as person not educated in economics should have the ability to set such policy.
An intelligent, rational human being evaluates a decision and delegates the responsibility to a domain expert when they have ascertained that the domain knowledge and experience they have falls outside of what is required to make said decision. Any other course of action isn't just irrational, but possibly dangerous ("unknown unknowns", "you don't know what you don't know").
Well that's moving the goalposts. You'd made it out like a tradesman couldn't understand economic policy to begin with, that's a different contention.
I sincerely doubt it takes a university education to understand that more money changing hands is a good sign of a healthy economy. They do still teach civics and economics in high school.
It also doesn't take a degree to know that giving money to someone, or in this case something, with no incentive to act right is a bad thing.
And it entirely makes sense to expunge debt that shouldn’t have existed because of broken public policy and an ignorant electorate that withdrew public funding from higher education, necessitating the need for education loans. I understand it might be difficult for some to understand this concept, which is why you push forward despite the opinion of those people.
There can be multiple bad ideas at one time. Wasting money is wasting money.
Friend of mine got a free ride to MIT courtesy of wealthy grandparents on his mothers side.
Another friends single mother was on welfare, as a reasult he got a bunch of grants which paid for everything. He was lucky because he managed to get his BSEE before Reagan made sure kids like him got screwed good and hard.
One can argue that that people currently suffering under high levels of student debt were given a raw deal already.
Life is so very unfair already. That it's 'bad' to make things more fair for one set of people but not another is a weak argument in my opinion.
it currently is not, which is just asinine; it's modern indentured servitude by any other name (naive 18y/o signs up after getting hustled, etc.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Aid_and_Fiscal_Respons...
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/which-households-hold-most-...
Which means a student loan cancellation would help the middle class the most since student debt would be a higher percentage of their income and the bottom 75% hold 66% (the majority) of the debt.
> Most student debt is owed by people who are already in the top quartile of wealth
I interpreted most to mean majority. It's clear the middle quartiles holds the majority of the debt not the top.
Why can't you just support policies that help other people without worrying about yourself?
Is 'I had it bad so everyone else should, too' really where you want to live?
I don't care that I'd still have to pay, I want my country to be better. To be a bit melodramatic, yours and my ancestors sacrificed a lot to be where we are now. I'm just glad the only thing I'm likely going to need to sacrifice is some extra tax.
If you had just paid off your student loans by diligently saving and the Labour party said they'll forgive the debt of your classmates who partied it up and never paid back their loans would you feel the same?
In some respects, it would actually work in a similar way though. In their statement, they said that they'd forgive the student debt of those currently studying, but not those who had already finished (like me). For this I can safely say that I'd still be incredibly happy.
By the way, I'm not trying to paint American's in a negative light. I'm a big fan of America, but it is a difference as far as I can tell, although which line of thinking is right is incredibly hard to say.
The US is more individualistic than the UK, but we're not entirely heartless bastards.
Why not just tax less and let people make their own decisions with how the money they've earned is spent. Every time you create a new tax it's one less choice (freedom) someone has in their life.
That being said, it's hard to blame the individual going to university if there career requires that and it's also a fact that a tradesman is probably going to be earning a lot more than a student for at least the period of time they're studying.
I also believe (like I said before) that allowing people financial help to study improves the whole country, especially being that every family can afford to send their children so for myself I can justify this extra tax.
Your point hasn't swayed me, but it has made me consider the 'other side' at least so thank you.
Same here in the US, but you're right, it's an honorable job and nothing wrong with it.
> allowing people financial help to study improves the whole country, especially being that every family can afford to send their children
In the US we already have that as a system. See: FAFSA/Pell Grants. Those with low incomes already do receive free/subsidized college education.
These "new" proposals say that _everyone_ regardless of income can get free money for college. So in that way it's really just a giveaway for the middle/upper class. Considering that, the argument that it will help the poor doesn't hold water for me.
> Your point hasn't swayed me, but it has made me consider the 'other side' at least so thank you.
Same here, appreciate debating with someone respectfully even if opinions are different.
A) money IS debt. The money in your savings account, that you are so responsible with, is money that originated as a bank loan, or government debt.
B) If everyone is responsible, then you end up with the paradox of thrift where you get a deflation spiral and economy tanks.
So thank those who are being "irresponsible" for your savings, because without them you would have no income.
If you want to know more about how money works, read the great resource provided by the Bank of England.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m...
Or watch this great video by David Graeber,
Why is what I do with my own money any of your or the government's business?
> money IS debt. The money in your savings account, that you are so responsible with, is money that originated as a bank loan, or government debt.
You're going to need to explain a bit more here. Arguing that money that was _formerly_ debt is still debt when in my possession is gonna take some strong convincing :)
Let's say I pay for my education in cash directly to the university, without taking any private or public sector loans. Would that cause a "deflation spiral" as you put it? It's just bypassing a middleman that is unnecessary if I had saved that cash over time to be able to pay for the goods/service I'm receiving (in this case: an education). So, yes, while money may be government debt, I don't see how avoiding private/public loans would have negative economic impacts overall on society.
Because it makes society better off, that's why.
You shouldn't have to, that's absurd! They can buy their own car :)
> Why should I pay for firefighters even though my house has a very low risk of burning down?
To protect the life and property of the entire community. This gets down to the point of being a necessity to protect a large group of people vs an individuals choices affecting _only_ themselves.
> Why should I pay for a rehab clinic even though I'm not an addict?
Debatable whether you should have to pay for this or not. But I would prioritize someone's life when it's on the line over a nicety like a college education. You can survive without a college education, just like you can survive without a subsidized Tesla.
It's not that at all. It's "I didn't live high on the hog in college, so why should I pay you to?"
So many garbage people that can't see the forest for the trees. Think of how many more customers with disposable income you could have (if you wanted to start a business) if so many people in this country weren't deep in debt.
Bet it was lower than what the government charges kids that are trying to make a better life for themselves and contribute to a productive society.
Human garbage.
16%?
its also important to remember that a bunch of banks were forced to take bailouts against their own wishes, as either a precautionary measure, or possibly as marketing spin to make it look like everyone was in equal trouble. https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/main/list/stress_tes... Some banks literally didnt have a choice, the government said "you are taking this money."