When I remember applying for student loans from the government, nothing that would be considered collateral by a bank was asked for from the government. Not surprisingly, we see ever increasing NPL rates and larger nominal balances…
Though there was some stuff about having to agree to be enlisted when the draft is made, but you know… metadata drone strikes these days may not always hit the desired target… ;)
With regards to having to pay back a loan, there is always that saying about trying to extract blood from stone…
Student loans are either guaranteed by the government, or there are special rules like you cannot discharge those loans via bankruptcy. Otherwise, banks would not make such loans.
Ultimately, if the loan is not repaid, and there is no collateral nor assets to seize, it comes out of the assets of the bank.
This is still fundamentally different from counterfeiting.
>Student loans are either guaranteed by the government
>Ultimately, if the loan is not repaid, and there is no collateral nor assets to seize, it comes out of the assets of the bank
Which bank in this case (since we're talking about government student loans, not private ones…)? Federal Reserve Bank of (NY, St Louis, Cleveland, etc)? Where do they get the money from?
Increasingly more (because seriously how much does yearly tax revenues pay the bill in full?), the government getting private (other central banks/ institutions/very wealthy individuals) buyers to buy their treasury notes/bills at record breaking supply auctions with currency that originated somehow from central banks…
Although the textbook definitions of counterfeiting and debt monetization may differ, I suspect there will be those who will never even question how the two could be perceived to be similar by anyone without dismissing them as completely insane and incapable of logical thought…
And somehow in the midst of this, we loose sight on resource allocation in general…
"A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. Land-titles and taxi medallions are pronounced examples of transferable privilege. These can be revoked in certain circumstances."[0]
Who grants the "special government privilege"?
One could dare say that this "special government privilege" could be challenged by any group of actors with varying degrees of sufficient power, at any time, and/or become effectively revoked, especially when a government overextends itself in trying to execute it's influence over an economy.
Furthermore, while there are economic models in which loans are collateralized by goods of value exceeding the amount of the loan, modern American loans are generally not that way.
> Paying back that loan in the normal way is neutral, preserving the money that was created.
Actually it destroys the portion of the money that was created.
Sort of.
The bank doesn't get to keep the principal it originally created, it gets destroyed. But then they're back to having some slack against their reserve ratio, so they can immediately go recreate the money again and loan it to someone else.
Which is how banks actually create money, and inflation -- by over time increasing the net amount of outstanding loan principal across all debtors.
This is also why it's important to have the government create a certain amount of money -- it's necessary in order to allow people on net to pay down their loans without causing deflation. Or even to prevent people from having to increase their net real debt as the economy expands.
And despite all the whinging about QE, the banks are still way ahead on the "average real debt per citizen" front.
Banks don't create inflation. The proof of that is that there's net 0 inflation in the historical periods of free banking (like in the US before 1914).
> This is also why it's important to have the government create a certain amount of money
Somehow it all worked fine before the fiat money system started in 1914. A century of incredible economic growth, and no net inflation.
Any analysis of the causes of inflation need to take into account the US from 1800-1914.
> Banks don't create inflation. The proof of that is that there's net 0 inflation in the historical periods of free banking (like in the US before 1914).
The US was on the gold standard then. There is obviously not going to be any currency inflation when the currency is pegged to gold.
> Somehow it all worked fine before the fiat money system started in 1914. A century of incredible economic growth, and no net inflation.
It all went fine except for the parts that didn't. Why do you think it was suspended in 1914? That was the start of World War I, when European companies started calling in their debts from the US and wanted payment in gold rather than dollars. That reduced the value of the dollar below the value of the gold. When that happens people start going to the banks and trading dollars for gold until the dollar supply decreases and their value returns to parity with gold, only the banks didn't have enough gold for that so everything went off the rails and it had to be suspended.
After that the gold standard was re-instituted, and to keep it solvent after the stock market crash the fed had to maintain high interest rates during the Great Depression, making it longer and more severe than it would have been.
We weren't actually off the gold standard until 1971.
Though there was some stuff about having to agree to be enlisted when the draft is made, but you know… metadata drone strikes these days may not always hit the desired target… ;)
With regards to having to pay back a loan, there is always that saying about trying to extract blood from stone…