- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump’s plan for student loans is solid
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:11 am to scrooster
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:11 am to scrooster
quote:
was this way when I was in college in the 70s, it was this way when my girls were in college 15-20 years ago and it’s this way now with my Son in college.
Your story is almost identical to mine. You’re right, it’s bullshite. And somebody is very wealthy because of it.
0
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:12 am to Taxing Authority
Fundamentally false.
If an education costs $50,000, and an individual gains $45,000 worth of benefits from that education, it is not a worthwhile investment for the individual. But if there are $15,000 worth of positive externalities involved, it would become a worthwhile investment to subsidize that student to the tune of $10,000. Then the student would gain $5,000 from obtaining the education and there would be an additional societal benefit of $5,000 more.
Obviously a simplified example, but just meant to dispute this “If “society” has a benefit to an individuals education it can only occur if the individuals benefit first“ nonsense.
Again, it’s positive externality 101.
And for the record, I am agreeing with the assertion that simply dumping huge sums of money on useless degrees has not and does not work. But I have been arguing across this entire thread that government can play an active role in improving education markets. Can, not always does. They can’t just throw money at every student, but they should have an active role in subsidizing valuable, externality generating degrees.
If an education costs $50,000, and an individual gains $45,000 worth of benefits from that education, it is not a worthwhile investment for the individual. But if there are $15,000 worth of positive externalities involved, it would become a worthwhile investment to subsidize that student to the tune of $10,000. Then the student would gain $5,000 from obtaining the education and there would be an additional societal benefit of $5,000 more.
Obviously a simplified example, but just meant to dispute this “If “society” has a benefit to an individuals education it can only occur if the individuals benefit first“ nonsense.
Again, it’s positive externality 101.
And for the record, I am agreeing with the assertion that simply dumping huge sums of money on useless degrees has not and does not work. But I have been arguing across this entire thread that government can play an active role in improving education markets. Can, not always does. They can’t just throw money at every student, but they should have an active role in subsidizing valuable, externality generating degrees.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:13 am to funnystuff
quote:I *think* he was referring to things like “lazy rivers” and ornate facilities we see being built on campuses today as being unnecessary. His “hyperbole” was probably too soft, if anything.
But poster I was responding to said the only thing needed for education was a chalkboard and some desks. That’s 1950s style shite, and grossly outdated.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:14 am to funnystuff
quote:
But if there are $15,000 worth of positive externalities involved, it would become a worthwhile investment to subsidize that student to the tune of $10,000.
The subsidy drives up the cost of the education, and so you’re back to where you started.
This post was edited on 5/12/19 at 10:14 am
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:15 am to Taxing Authority
Which adds moral hazard. Not removes it.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:15 am to funnystuff
quote:This is nothing more than a variation of the broken window fallacy.
If an education costs $50,000, and an individual gains $45,000 worth of benefits from that education, it is not a worthwhile investment for the individual. But if there are $15,000 worth of positive externalities involved, it would become a worthwhile investment to subsidize that student to the tune of $10,000. Then the student would gain $5,000 from obtaining the education and there would be an additional societal benefit of $5,000 more.
This post was edited on 5/12/19 at 10:16 am
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:16 am to weagle99
They should be; basic finance and money management should absolutely be a part of every high school curriculum.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:18 am to weagle99
quote:nobody is forced to eat food either, but it makes survival a lot easier.
Why does the government have to do anything?
Nobody is forced to take out loans and go to college.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:18 am to weagle99
quote:
Why does the government have to do anything?
Nobody is forced to take out loans and go to college.
The problem is that government involvement is a significant reason that college is so expensive and has expanded well beyond practical education system.
Government is chiefly responsible for the high student debt and overly saturated job market. Government should shoulder at least some responsibility to alleviate the issues caused by its actions IMHO.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:18 am to funnystuff
quote:Nope. Unless we enact debtor prisons using OPM reduces risk to the individual.
Which adds moral hazard. Not removes it.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:18 am to Taxing Authority
I *think* that’s a strong assumption to make
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:18 am to funnystuff
quote:
That’s 1950s style shite, and grossly outdated.
The art of teaching has not changed in millennia.
Technology just ends up being a distraction in non technical majors, and draws focus away from the bigger issues - class size, the quality of the professors, and the material they’re presenting.
We can keep wasting our money on iPads for everyone, but it won’t make our children better thinkers.
The quality of a university education in this country has declined dramatically over the last century. This is one of the reasons why.
This post was edited on 5/12/19 at 10:20 am
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:23 am to Centinel
quote:
frick. No.
Its in the plan
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:24 am to Taxing Authority
Again, reducing risk to the individual is exactly the thing that adds moral hazard. Why do you refuse to see that? Reread the definition of moral hazard carefully
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:25 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Why should non-borrowers shoulder the burden for borrowers mistakes?
Because they helped elect the officials who created the problem
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:27 am to Taxing Authority
Proof he was not simply referring to lazy rivers and ornate facilities:
quote:You’re projecting
The art of teaching has not changed in millennia. Technology just ends up being a distraction in non technical majors, and draws focus away from the bigger issues - class size, the quality of the professors, and the material they’re presenting. We can keep wasting our money on iPads for everyone, but it won’t make our children better thinkers. The quality of a university education in this country has declined dramatically over the last century. This is one of the reasons why.
This post was edited on 5/12/19 at 10:29 am
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:36 am to funnystuff
quote:it’s a textbook example.
No, it’s not
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:38 am to funnystuff
quote:I honestly don’t know how to help you.
Again, reducing risk to the individual is exactly the thing that adds moral hazard.
Posted on 5/12/19 at 10:39 am to Taxing Authority
Just more evidence you don’t understand the buzzwords you are using
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News