[drcode]

In order to invoke the "not a zero sum" defense you have to also give a rational argument as to who specifically should hand over their money to pay for this and why their interests have less societal benefit, so that the sum of the transaction does indeed end up positive. Additionally, you have to explain why debt forgiveness does not lead to a "negative sum" scenario due to moral hazard.

[darkerside]

You're begging the question. I don't follow the assumption that anyone's interests have less societal benefit. Let's go with one example, taxpayers bail out student debt in tandem with some legislation that prevents moral hazard from being an issue. If that bailout prevents value destruction through economic collapse, or frees graduates to pursue vocations appropriate for their degree that could generate larger economic returns in the long run, there you have a rising tide lifting all boats. That scenario is loaded with assumptions, but my only aim is to open your mind to the possibility of a net win, not to describe an implementation.

And for the record, I get the feeling you've assumed that I support debt forgiveness. I don't, and the moral hazard involved does bother me. But I won't let that stop me from considering strong arguments in favor of it.

[thatjsguy]

So who was losing 20 years ago when you could pay for school with a summer job?

[seanmcdirmid]

It was the state tax payers (they were funding universities more aggressively), but we also didn’t have many fancy perks on campus back then (so kind of students also).

But who was really losing 20 years ago were underemployed administrators. There were much fewer of those cushy non-teaching non-research admin jobs.