|
asdf32 posted:Yeah it doesn't always work to analogize something to the extreme. What's the problem illustrated by that image? Poor people are in over their head more than rich people? I thunk that's well understood.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
I assume it's "people with more money have more debt" while ignoring "people with more money have less than a third of their income in debt while people with no money have their entire income in debt"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Guys, you're just supposed to look at the direction the bars are going not actually look at the numbers and think about them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yeah it doesn't always work to analogize something to the extreme. I think that maybe someone who makes $200k per year and has $50k in debt can manage that debt slightly better than someone who makes $25k a year and has $25k in debt
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
The funny thing about stuff like this is that it really reveals how similar centrist/center-left types are to "direct" right-wingers (I say "direct" because really they're all right-wingers). In both cases the thing that takes priority is "making sure that the undeserving don't benefit" (and this conveniently tends to coincide with decisions that are better for them materially, usually through preventing them from paying high taxes).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
it is nice to see that the years have not changed asdf32's bottomless reservoir of contempt for the people he needs to make his food, teach his children, and wipe his rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yeah it doesn't always work to analogize something to the extreme. What is it with libertarians and a failure to understand their own sources? Jrod did it too. He would just make postings with random sources, have no understanding of the actual text he loving posted, and become absolutely baffled when we read and rejected it. Is a fundamental failure of the libertarian the inability to properly interpret data? Are they a libertarian because they cannot process facts, or does their ideology cause them the disregard that which is in front of them? asdf32 posted:Most people can get behind various policies to help those with debt but aggressive debt forgiveness is unfair in a fundamental way (a moral judgement other than 'screw the capitalists' is unpopular I know) and will be poor divisive policy. What is this fundamental unfairness? Can you please explain?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yeah it doesn't always work to analogize something to the extreme. If it's such a problem that we decide as a matter of policy that people shouldn't be crushed under a lifetime of debt just to get an education, then what's the justification for continuing to let people be crushed under existing debt from the lack of cost control we've had up to now. E: "wealthy people get more dollars forgiven!" Raise their taxes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:What is it with libertarians and a failure to understand their own sources? Jrod did it too. He would just make postings with random sources, have no understanding of the actual text he loving posted, and become absolutely baffled when we read and rejected it. Is a fundamental failure of the libertarian the inability to properly interpret data? Are they a libertarian because they cannot process facts, or does their ideology cause them the disregard that which is in front of them? nah, asdf's not a libertarian. he's a Rational Centrist (tm). the catch is that, as you can see, the Rational Centrist (tm) is distinguishable in philosophy from the libertarian not at all. the sole difference libertarian knows that government favoring the untermenschen is the reason he is not more successful than them; the rational centrist knows that because his life is good, the people tasked with cleaning up his messes in exchange for pennies must be where they belong, and the free market must be functioning exactly as needed. sure, there's kids dying in camps in the desert for the crime of impure blood, but as asdf32 can assure you, if they didn't want to be killed their parents should have learned to code.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:What is this fundamental unfairness? Can you please explain? Other people might benefit more than him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This illustrates another problem: According to this graph, the wealthy spend more on education than anyone else, so they'd save the most out of everyone if we made college affordable. And as we all know, if a rich person benefits it's Suboptimal Policy. It follows then, that we should root for college prices to explode as high as possible to really stick it to the rich!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:What is it with libertarians and a failure to understand their own sources? Jrod did it too. He would just make postings with random sources, have no understanding of the actual text he loving posted, and become absolutely baffled when we read and rejected it. Is a fundamental failure of the libertarian the inability to properly interpret data? Are they a libertarian because they cannot process facts, or does their ideology cause them the disregard that which is in front of them? Actually reading your sources requires accepting the idea that they might be wrong, or that they might be correct and disagree with you, which means that you might be wrong. Libertarianism and centrism both thrive on never being wrong- libertarianism in an anti-status-quo way, centrism in a pro-status-quo way- while left policies thrive on having been wrong in the past and potentially still being wrong now. Lefties are thus incentivised to read their sources and either argue with them or argue for them in order to further develop their own understanding, while libertarianism and centrism are both heavily incentivised to start from a belief that their unconsidered bullshit is right and that the first source that has a friendly-looking headline agrees with them, and to never risk changing that view. E: I cannot tell you how many times I've been in online slapfights, asked for a source, received one, and found that the "source" that they sent was the first one that showed up on googling vague search terms from their arguments E2: They get so mad when you start talking about how the author is a neo-nazi and that the source is an article that deliberately misinterprets a study which is available in the first link in the article and directly, explicitly refutes their point, the fact that this has happened more than once should upset me more than it does. E3: Plus you can just make poo poo up about their source to force them to actually check it and then congratulate them for reading Somfin fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Dec 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Yavuz posted:I think that maybe someone who makes $200k per year and has $50k in debt can manage that debt slightly better than someone who makes $25k a year and has $25k in debt Okay but you're also obviously a lot smarter than asdf, did you stop and consider how that makes asdf feel?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Okay but you're also obviously a lot smarter than asdf, did you stop and consider how that makes asdf feel? His feelings about what he posted don't care about the facts of what he posted
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Guys, let's not lose sight of the true enemy: Nazi gays.https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-pink-swastika-homosexuality-in-the-nazi-party/ posted:Reviewers Praise The Pink Swastika:
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
R.J. Rushdoony... Why does that name sound familiar?wikipedia posted:Rousas John Rushdoony (April 25, 1916 – February 8, 2001) was a Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian and is widely credited as being the father of Christian Reconstructionism[3] and an inspiration for the modern Christian homeschool movement.[4][5] His followers and critics have argued that his thought exerts considerable influence on the evangelical Christian right. lol oh yeah, he's one of the founders of christian dominionism. Liberty!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:R.J. Rushdoony... Why does that name sound familiar? Even the guys name sounds like a portmanteau of Rush Limbaugh and sodomy
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
Wow virgins who brag about all the times they totally scored for real honest get the death penalty? Harsh but fair
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:According to this graph, the wealthy spend more on education than anyone else, so they'd save the most out of everyone if we made college affordable. And as we all know, if a rich person benefits it's Suboptimal Policy. It means debt forgiveness gives more money on average to rich families than poor ones (and lots of money to graduate degree holders many of which have no problems paying it back). It's also fantastic for banks for for profit colleges and makes cost inflation issues worse. I'm actually curous what the limits are for you people. If I invent a policy that gives $1 to poor people for every $99 to rich people will you oppose or support it? And yes, I'll say it again. It's not fair to punish good decisions (debt avoidance or repayment). That matters but more importantly its policy that's guaranteed to be divisive. Of course this all applies to full debt repayment. Income limit schemes etc could address some of that etc possibly turning it into decent policy. No, rich people will still take out loans for fancy schools with questionable benefit. Let them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
How about debt forgiveness and nationalize all the posh schools and force them to run as a service, not a profit. Rich people getting and having money is a problem you need to solve anyway by taking the means of wealth acquisition off them, so do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It means debt forgiveness gives more money on average to rich families than poor ones (and lots of money to graduate degree holders many of which have no problems paying it back). It's also fantastic for banks for for profit colleges and makes cost inflation issues worse. On average, according to your stats, the richest households will be getting double what the poorest households do, while controlling more than seven times the income. Do you see how these numbers are wildly different in scale? Do you see how the impact on the poorest will be massively, massively higher than the impact on the richest? asdf32 posted:It's not fair to punish good decisions (debt avoidance or repayment). That matters but more importantly its policy that's guaranteed to be divisive. There's no punishment going on here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
Honestly the whole concept of debt in society is stupid, people shouldn't have debts, you should arrange society such that people are not incentivzed, required, or able to have debts. Otherwise it's like refusing to build a flight of stairs because that would be punishing the people who survived jumping off the 20 foot ledge to get to the bottom and also we can't move the thing at the bottom anywhere else either. Everyone has to do the 20 foot jump and not die, this is the only way society can work. Never mind the assholes hanging around the bottom cutting bits off the people who didn't make it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Dec 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Honestly the whole concept of debt in society is stupid, people shouldn't have debts, you should arrange society such that people are not incentivzed, required, or able to have debts. Look, the limb choppers and organ gatherers are honest tradespeople and how dare you suggest we take away their livelihoods and punish them by installing stairs? You might as well suggest that we catch the people currently plummeting to their wounds and deaths and prevent them from being injured in an exploitable way! Really, how is that fair to the folks who broke their ankles completing the fall or spent huge amounts of their money and/or time on safety devices and single-use ladders?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Most people can get behind various policies to help those with debt but aggressive debt forgiveness is unfair in a fundamental way (a moral judgement other than 'screw the capitalists' is unpopular I know) and will be poor divisive policy. Student loans already break many of the rules of debt by being fundamentally inescapable. There's no purpose to guaranteeing that the debt will be maintained forever aside from assuring the financial security for lenders (or rather, the new owners of the debt after the loans are sold off as their own financial commodity). Loans are fundamentally gambles, and if they can't be defaulted on, they become a form of slavery. Functionally, there have already been federal programs created to forgive debt student loans after long periods of time and fairly arcane requirements, but through a combination of legal ambiguity in trying to keep debt forgiveness circumstantial and intentionally fraudulent management by the current administration, nothing has come out of it. If something is going to be done about this debt that has gone out of control, it's going to have to be direct. No fooling around with trying to maintain the integrity of a predatory industry. Debt forgiveness has all the economic benefits of tax breaks but without defunding important programs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It means debt forgiveness gives more money on average to rich families than poor ones (and lots of money to graduate degree holders many of which have no problems paying it back) This is why I don't think you understand your own sources. You need to read the numbers on this graph: People with 0-27k of income have 26k of debt. That's, at best, a debt at 100% of their yearly income. At best. They could be making nothing and still have 26k of debt. Meanwhile, top earners at a minimum 176k a year only have 46k of debt, about 25% of their income. So, while income has jumped up AT LEAST 600%, debt hasn't even doubled. This disproportionately hurts the poor. asdf32 posted:It's also fantastic for banks for for profit colleges and makes cost inflation issues worse. For profit colleges could not exist in a system that offered free college, you'd have to be a real idiot to want to pay. There would also be no cost inflation. asdf32 posted:I'm actually curous what the limits are for you people. If I invent a policy that gives $1 to poor people for every $99 to rich people will you oppose or support it? WTF? asdf32 posted:And yes, I'll say it again. It's not fair to punish good decisions (debt avoidance or repayment). That matters but more importantly its policy that's guaranteed to be divisive. Of course this all applies to full debt repayment. Income limit schemes etc could address some of that etc possibly turning it into decent policy. Cancelling debts does not punish someone who has already paid them, in fact it does not affect them at all. At. All.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:WTF? asdf's really going out of his way to earn that redtext
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
Somfin posted:asdf's really going out of his way to earn that redtext I don't even know what it means. Like, is that a good example we are supposed to agree with? a complication that is supposed to trip up our reasoning? what is he appealing to? a limit to what? are we supposed to be happy that everyone is getting money, or incensed that one group is getting 99 times more? is he still appealing to the graph he didn't read?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Most importantly the question isn't whether people with 25k should get 25k while people with 200k get 50k, it's actually whether they should get 1 dollar and 99 dollars respectively. Because that's a real thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
Also remember that you can't get out of education debt through having no money, unlike basically every other kind of debt. This distinction is fine, according to asdf32, because it's part of the grand unchanging logical status quo, and not a transparent patch to keep three different systems that are all intent on hurting the poor as much as possible from eating each other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:For profit colleges could not exist in a system that offered free college, you'd have to be a real idiot to want to pay. There would also be no cost inflation. My country offers free higher education and yet there are for profit schools.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Same here actually, turns out rich people are morons and as a result, keep appointing each other to high office based on whether they can afford to go to the expensive sex abuse schools rather than any sort of actual merit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
One of the political benefits to universal programs is that they're universal, they're not just programs for the poors. The vast majority of people in the country, outside of a few super-wealthy assholes, can get some benefit from a stable monthly check in their old age or a universal healthcare program, as opposed to some kludged-up means-tested nonsense. It's part of why Social Security and Medicare have proven so resilient against conservative attacks: because even an upper middle class retiree can appreciate not having to pay out the rear end for healthcare. And it's part of why Medicaid got block-granted and ripped to poo poo - because "oh that's only for the poors, we need to make sure that they really deserve it".
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:And yes, I'll say it again. It's not fair to punish good decisions (debt avoidance or repayment). That matters but more importantly its policy that's guaranteed to be divisive. Of course this all applies to full debt repayment. Income limit schemes etc could address some of that etc possibly turning it into decent policy. agreed, refund all payments on student loans since 1980 so that the people who have been paying on loans for a long time also receive the same benefits as someone who graduated last year it is genuinely unfair that someone could have been predated upon by the student loan industry including the feds for decades and ultimately come out of it tens of thousands of dollars poorer than someone whose turn to be predated upon just started when the debt cancellation takes effect. the solution isn't to give up on debt cancellation but to cancel their debts retroactively and refund them. we should, as a society, collectively pretend that student debt never existed in the first place by trying to restore people into the financial position they would have had if the debt hadn't existed, as best as that can be done Jazerus fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Dec 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It means debt forgiveness gives more money on average to rich families than poor ones (and lots of money to graduate degree holders many of which have no problems paying it back). It's also fantastic for banks for for profit colleges and makes cost inflation issues worse. If you actually cared about this you'd be suggesting means testing, not telling everyone to throw their hands in the air and do nothing Also, most student loan debt is actually owned by the US government. Banks don't benefit from the government declaring that the $1T+ in federal student loan debt that it holds is being canceled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It means debt forgiveness gives more money on average to rich families than poor ones (and lots of money to graduate degree holders many of which have no problems paying it back). It's also fantastic for banks for for profit colleges and makes cost inflation issues worse. quote:I'm actually curous what the limits are for you people. If I invent a policy that gives $1 to poor people for every $99 to rich people will you oppose or support it? If those dollars get poor people out of debt, but a doctor gets to buy his Audi 5 years early, it would be insane to say "gently caress you and die poors, it's more important to mildly inconvenience a plastic surgeon" quote:And yes, I'll say it again. It's not fair to punish good decisions (debt avoidance or repayment). quote:That matters but more importantly its policy that's guaranteed to be divisive. Of course this all applies to full debt repayment. Income limit schemes etc could address some of that etc possibly turning it into decent policy. Means testing is bad policy, it just adds an unnecessary level of bureaucratic duplication and red tape, when we already have a system to make the rich pay for public goods in whatever proportion we want, it's called the progressive income tax. The rich use highways too, should we turn them all into toll roads and charge $1 a mile, but if you submit your 1040 and fill out the Federal Application for Highway Aid you can qualify for a grant next year to be paid to the highway authority on your behalf blah blah blah Should we fence off Central Park and charge $50 a day to get in, but you can submit you and your parents' W-2's to get subsidized admission based on a formula calculated from your Modified Gross Adjusted Income VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Dec 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Same applies to college costs. We should jack up degrees to $1 million then, really soak the rich. The presence of paid options in areas and industries with free options should suggest to smarty smart folks that people will still pay for poo poo even if there's one available for free, sometimes purely so that they can have the more exclusive version of it Somehow this doesn't occur to folks Jazerus posted:agreed, refund all payments on student loans since 1980 so that the people who have been paying on loans for a long time also receive the same benefits as someone who graduated last year And if the choice is forced, then the choice should always be "pain relief for those in pain" rather than "pain continuation to appease those whose pain has ceased" Somfin fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Dec 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
https://mises.org/wire/when-communists-abolished-weekend posted:The decline of the weekend comes from the decline of religiosity, and the fact many Americans would rather work more — so as to buy more goods and services — than enjoy leisure time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
If they built the world trade center out of "would rather" it would have bounced the planes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:My country offers free higher education and yet there are for profit schools. Stuff like Trump University and University of Phoenix?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Debt forgiveness does not pay off the debt, it cancels it. A bank says "you owe me $80,000" and the government says "not anymore". The bank is never paid. This is really bad for banks. Lol no. No real life plan is deleting $500 billion in privately held loans. It's also highly unlikely that loans go away completely unless government decides to pay up front for anyone to go to any school. Depending on the details a policy that subsidizes loans will give us more of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 01:29
|
|