Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Tamas]

Seems like the general feeling is that little people are allowed to sink, while financial types are bailed out, and then allowed to prosper without any paying back.  Wall Street in general is a symbol of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor, which is why it's being protested. 

It's about time for that, IMO.  That's what Tea Party should've been about, but in a twist of tragic irony, they became the most trusted tool of the people they claim to protest about.

Well yeah, I think the key here is that what we have is not free market, not capitalism. A destructive business class is kept in power by the other aristocrats at the state's expense, and this is very toxic. I do think that it is less regulation and less state involvement is the answer though, since it is in fact regulative power which allows the politicans to keep the Wall Street cronies in power.

As for the sad stories on the site, they are only losing my sympathy with the student loan groans. I too often read that "I thought after getting this degree I would automatically get an OSSUM job". Well, that's not how the world works, good morning.

[Ideologue]

Seems like the general feeling is that little people are allowed to sink, while financial types are bailed out, and then allowed to prosper without any paying back.  Wall Street in general is a symbol of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor, which is why it's being protested. 

It's about time for that, IMO.  That's what Tea Party should've been about, but in a twist of tragic irony, they became the most trusted tool of the people they claim to protest about.

Well yeah, I think the key here is that what we have is not free market, not capitalism. A destructive business class is kept in power by the other aristocrats at the state's expense, and this is very toxic. I do think that it is less regulation and less state involvement is the answer though, since it is in fact regulative power which allows the politicans to keep the Wall Street cronies in power.

As for the sad stories on the site, they are only losing my sympathy with the student loan groans. I too often read that "I thought after getting this degree I would automatically get an OSSUM job". Well, that's not how the world works, good morning.

Then should the student loan have been offered?  Obviously there was an expectation, one either shared or exploited by the lender, that after completion of a course of study one's earning power would increase to the point where the student loan would be trivial or at least not a net (and often catastrophic) loss.

[Gups]

You're suggesting that the lender is in a better position to judge the borrower's potential future earning power than the borrower is?

[Neil]

You're suggesting that the lender is in a better position to judge the borrower's potential future earning power than the borrower is?

Of course they are.  People taking out student loans are often under 25, and thus retarded.  Also, doesn't the lender at least ask what you're studying?  If you say something like Creative Writing, Philosophy, or any of the arts or humanities, then they're just exploiting the borrower, who is unlikely to ever get a good job.

[Maximus]

In my experience in the US the only things taken into account when offering loans is income and expenses. I don't recall them ever asking for field of study, although it is handled by the university and they may have access to that information.

[Tamas]

-taking income and wealth into account should be more than enough, college-goers have little more of that than clue about the world
-I thought there is a way for some kind of personal bankrupcy declaration in the States?

[garbon]

-taking income and wealth into account should be more than enough, college-goers have little more of that than clue about the world

I'm not sure the best idea is to push everyone out of the higher education system - except those able to pay for their college experience by themselves/family.

[Ideologue]

-taking income and wealth into account should be more than enough, college-goers have little more of that than clue about the world
-I thought there is a way for some kind of personal bankrupcy declaration in the States?

Student loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy only in the event of undue hardship.  This condition is set forth by statute (exceptions to discharge), but (although it somewhat varies by federal circuit, I believe) it can satisfied only if the three prongs of the Brunner test are met--"(1) that the debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a "minimal" standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay the loans; (2) that additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans; and (3) that the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans."  This is more strict that the usual debt, and in the 4th (my) Circuit a 60 year old woman with a low-paying job, diabetes and $161,000 of debt was found not to meet it.

Prior to 1998, you'd be right though.  That's when they changed it to make student loans very difficult to discharge.

[Razgovory]

Well yeah, I think the key here is that what we have is not free market, not capitalism. A destructive business class is kept in power by the other aristocrats at the state's expense, and this is very toxic. I do think that it is less regulation and less state involvement is the answer though, since it is in fact regulative power which allows the politicans to keep the Wall Street cronies in power.

As for the sad stories on the site, they are only losing my sympathy with the student loan groans. I too often read that "I thought after getting this degree I would automatically get an OSSUM job". Well, that's not how the world works, good morning.

I do not agree with you, but if I came from a Socialist hellhole I'd probably be like that as well.  What confuses me is that Marty is pro-Socialist.

[Ideologue]

Anyway, Tam, I can see your point re: student loans.  I don't think it rises quite to the level of disdain that should be reserved for people who bought houses they couldn't afford though.  College and more advanced education are sold as a solid investment, and to an extent as the principal if not quite the sole method of social mobility in the United States.

But, yes, lending institutions should know the risks better than the borrower.  That's why they're a lending institution.  In addition to simply having the raw capital, they presumably have some expertise and should not engage in behavior with a great likelihood of failure.'

Of course, government guarantorship removes most of the disincentives from engaging in failure-prone behavior, doesn't it?  It's like having all the lack of accountability of communism with none of the planning.  The hilarious part is, I suspect, that SL lenders are mainly reaping interest payments from their down-on-their-luck/economically useless borrowers, while in many cases the government still winds up paying the principal because people eventually satisfy the dischargability requirements, or die.

[Tamas]

Well this is certainly not an easy issue. We had a quite generous number of state-funded seats in higher education in the last two decades and it has caused a big degradation in the value of the diplomas.

But also, a strict class system is not good, and the state CAN view higher education as a solid investment in it's own future. So why not stuff like state student loans, with say, only inflation as interest? The students would not get something they falsely regard as free education (and because of this end up wasting those years and taxpayers money, degrading the worth of the papers of those who actually went to college to study), and the road into higher education would be open for poor people as well.

[Tamas]

Well yeah, I think the key here is that what we have is not free market, not capitalism. A destructive business class is kept in power by the other aristocrats at the state's expense, and this is very toxic. I do think that it is less regulation and less state involvement is the answer though, since it is in fact regulative power which allows the politicans to keep the Wall Street cronies in power.

As for the sad stories on the site, they are only losing my sympathy with the student loan groans. I too often read that "I thought after getting this degree I would automatically get an OSSUM job". Well, that's not how the world works, good morning.

I do not agree with you, but if I came from a Socialist hellhole I'd probably be like that as well.  What confuses me is that Marty is pro-Socialist.

that's because

a) Marty is aristocracy now. the welfare state exists to guarantee the upper class' position
b) living in a 60 years old, dying welfare state is not the only reason for my take on this

[Maximus]

Of course, government guarantorship removes most of the disincentives from engaging in failure-prone behavior, doesn't it?  It's like having all the lack of accountability of communism with none of the planning.  The hilarious part is, I suspect, that SL lenders are mainly reaping interest payments from their down-on-their-luck/economically useless borrowers, while in many cases the government still winds up paying the principal because people eventually satisfy the dischargability requirements, or die.

Indeed, I doubt the Stafford Loan lenders put any expertise into the approval process for individual applicants. From what I understand they are basically buying government guaranteed debt from the Department of Education.

[crazy canuck]

College and more advanced education are sold as a solid investment, and to an extent as the principal if not quite the sole method of social mobility in the United States.

People with a high school education generally earn more than people who didnt finish high school. People with a post secondary degree generally earn more than people with a high school diploma.  There are however no guarrantees.  It is possible for an individual to be highly educated but completely unemployable and it is possible for someone who has little education to become very successful.

Education is the main method of social mobility.  That and hard work.  One might try to rely on being one of those lucky few who are in the right place at the right time and somehow strike it rich without the benefit of an education  - or rely on the lottery...

The problem I see with your reasoning is that you seem to think that a degree should grant you financial security.  The degree is just the beginning.  The rest is what you do with the degree.  That is up to you. No University can guarrantee that you will use the benefit you have obtained wisely.

[garbon]

The problem I see with your reasoning is that you seem to think that a degree should grant you financial security.  The degree is just the beginning.  The rest is what you do with the degree.  That is up to you. No University can guarrantee that you will use the benefit you have obtained wisely.

This.