[serioussecurity]

I'm very frustrated by this perspective.

I want to live in a world full of intellectually curious, creative people who build things. I think we can best do that by giving people access to education, health care, housing, food, and physical safety.

The positive externalities of an educated populace are massive.

I think the choice is between: (1) punish people because it's fair, and live an objectively worse life because everyone around us is miserable and dysfunctional (2) tune policy to support people, and live an objectively better life because everyone around us is healthy, productive and creative.

Immiserating debt destroys lives, and destroyed lives makes all of us worse off.

[nickff]

Your position seems to lack guiding or limiting principles.

>"The positive externalities of an educated populace are massive."

Forgiving existing debt does not increase the level of education of the populace. Conditionally forgiving future debts could, though there would be collateral effects.

>"I think the choice is between: (1) punish people because it's fair, and live an objectively worse life because everyone around us is miserable and dysfunctional (2) tune policy to support people, and live an objectively better life because everyone around us is healthy, productive and creative."

Failing to forgive debt is not a punishment, it's just holding people to their obligations. It definitely does support them, but the question would be why only support people who took on debt? Why not support the people who made different decisions too?

>"Immiserating debt destroys lives, and destroyed lives makes all of us worse off."

If you just want to forgive debt, why limit it to student loans? Why not forgive healthcare debts? What about consumer debt after Christmas? How about gambling debt? All of those make people worse off.

[trs8080]

> If you just want to forgive debt, why limit it to student loans? Why not forgive healthcare debts?

Now we're on the same page! We should absolutely have universal healthcare.

> What about consumer debt after Christmas? How about gambling debt?

Religious holidays and gambling do not improve our society. An educated, healthy populace does.

[nickff]

Your points advocate forgiving prospective debts (ones taken on in the future), not existing ones (as was the case here). You also ignore the collateral effects of encouraging increased spending on education and healthcare.

[D13Fd]

> Immiserating debt destroys lives, and destroyed lives makes all of us worse off.

I agree, but it was the choice of the people who borrowed to risk destroying their own lives, and it is not remotely fair to ask the rest of us who worked hard, made hard choices, and sacrificed things we wanted to pay back the debt of those who didn't.

I worked my way through college and commuted from my parent's home so I could afford it. I also went to a much lower-tier state school where I could get a scholarship.

I would have loved to live at school and have that experience. I would have loved to go to a higher-end but more expensive school where I didn't have a merit scholarship, and to be able to go without also working. But I sacrificed those things so that I could graduate with as little debt as I could, and I worked hard to pay that debt off.

How is it fair to now tell me I have to pay off everyone else's school who chose not to give anything up?

[PragmaticPulp]

> I want to live in a world full of intellectually curious, creative people who build things. I think we can best do that by giving people access to education, health care, housing, food, and physical safety.

> The positive externalities of an educated populace are massive.

These people are already educated.

Debt payoff ideas send money to people with degrees, but they do nothing for people didn't go to college or who haven't yet graduated.

The problem needs to be solved at the source, not periodically bailed out after the fact. If you just pour more money into the system, tuition will skyrocket and people will become insensitive to the astronomical prices. Why even price compare if you just expect the government to pay it off for you later? Expenses would continue to spiral out of control at an accelerated rate.

[D13Fd]

Exactly. The lower the risk to borrowing, and the easier it is to borrow, the higher tuition prices will go.

[tonguez]

“I think we can best do that by giving people access to education, health care, housing, food, and physical safety.”

No one is “punishing” anyone. There are homeless people freezing to death who could use the money.

You are conflating life and death necessities like food and shelter with someone wanting to binge drink for 4 years while getting an underwater basketweaving degree.

Bernie did the same thing.

[xracy]

Here's the thing I love about these arguments, they choose the most BS degrees instead of arguing from a stronger case of actually societally helpful degrees that people get and still can't pay off loans with. If you want me to pretend like you have a strong case stop picking literally the stupidest degrees that no one is complaining about.

I know plenty of people who went to 4-year colleges to get Social Studies degrees, and then went on to do social work, and guess what? Social Work doesn't pay well enough to make up for that. In one case I know, literally helping the homeless people who are freezing to death. And the person had to stop doing that work cause they still couldn't pay off their loans.

[renewiltord]

Hey, me too, man. That's why it costs me $1 million per student per year to teach them how to be like that. The right thing for the government to do is to pay for their high-quality education from me. All my friends have been to Université de Rene and they are very intellectually curious and creative. I'll tell them to apply to your new government policy to forgive the loan.

You could even simplify it and just give me the money. I have like 100 students this year. Will direct debit be okay?

[dhruval]

To achieve an educated population the core problem of wildly inflated cost of college education needs to be dealt with.

Otherwise you have to repeatedly forgive the debt. The message you are sending is to consume without regard for prices or temperance as that will be rewarded in the end.

This acts as a negative externality as it erodes trust in the rule of law (many countries do operate like this, and they are terrible places to live)

[thaumasiotes]

> The positive externalities of an educated populace are massive.

What are they?

[RhysU]

If you feel so compelled, you already are welcome to donate your money for these causes.

I encourage you to spend your money supporting the ideas in which you believe.

Let us know how it goes.

[trs8080]

Fortunately, human beings have gathered into societies which allow them to act in concert and for the benefit of all members of said society.

If you'd prefer to not take part in these social structures, feel free to leave.

Let us know how it goes. Or don't.

[RhysU]

I believe that personal accountability for making the best of one's lot is key to society being maximally beneficial.

I don't see why "acting in concert" implies forcing me to pay for things in direct opposition to my heartfelt belief via the coercive levers of government. Go find likeminded bleeding hearts and have a nongovernmental ball.

Why can't debt forgiveness take the Jerry Lewis/Shriners private donation route?

Then you'll do you. I'll do me. We'll all win.

[D13Fd]

I agree with you that student loan forgiveness is unfair and wrong, but this is not a helpful response, and you know that. Why even post it?

[RhysU]

Because the GP suggests that the only options are (a) not caring or (b) taking other people's money. Clearly, that's a false dichotomy. I pointed out option (c).