If the dollar collapses do we get out of student loans ?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 





I can make my profit from processing fees.


Aha. Processing fees. Tomato, tomaaahto. Interest, Processing fees. Jesus would still be upset!




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


It's as though you don't recognize that scarcity is inherent in economic theory. Scarcity dictates that a select few receive the lions share, that the masses are appeased to the extent that they don't revolt, and that the lowest rung of society gets the scraps. Thus, a theory of economics also implies a theory of moral reasoning.

I don't advocate meritocracy in its pure form (IQ + effort = merit), because if soil creates castes, the machine manufactures classes – classes to which people can be assigned by their achievement or ascribed by wealth at birth. Even if it could be demonstrated that people with lower IQs have less ability than those selected for high position, that would not mean they deserve less. Being a member of the "lucky sperm club" confers no moral right to advantage.

That's why I argue for a society based foremost on fairness.

Not once did I say students should get a better deal than the guy who was down on his luck who took out a loan with the hope that he could turn things around. My argument was that "everyone should pay their due." And my reasoning for this was simple, "Otherwise why should I? Why should admriker444? Why should anyone?"

Even a four year old would recognize I was saying, "play fair, the system depends on it."

In the spirit of fairness I argued on behalf of people with students loans who are currently trapped in a downward spiral, because there's a huge gulf between those that can declare bankruptcy and those that can't. Bankruptcy rules, whether you choose to recognize it or not, are dramatically more lenient towards businesses and individuals without student loans.

You argued that bankruptcy laws have changed. You also argued that banks treat students differently, because there is no tangible product for the bank to repossess. Yes, BAPCPA did make it harder for average citizen (not businesses mind you) to discharge their debt. However a "Chapter 13 plan often does not require repayment to general unsecured debts, such as credit cards or medical bills."

Whereas with a student loan, "before the introduction of [BAPCPA], the privately funded student loans, which were not guaranteed, had been considered as dischargeable debts, but now, even such student loans are treated as non-dischargeable." Explain this to me, why should a credit card, which can be used for cash withdrawals, be any different from a student loan?

And while you think about that let me redirect one of your questions back to you, "Why the sympathy for the high school dropout who did not understand their loan agreement (and can declare bankruptcy), but none for the poor kid who failed out of college who did not understand his loan agreement (and has no choice but to pay his loan)?"

I'm not going to presume to judge you, but I think its fair to say we all look to protect our own interests. It's why I made the salient point that "the majority of people look to benefit themselves however they can."

As for the Freakonomics case study, measuring money collected against bagels taken, though an amusing experiment is hardly conclusive. I'd counter that media piracy is a much better indicator of human nature. The thief doesn't see the person he steals from and there's little chance of legal retribution. Not only that, it’s possible for the person to delude themselves in to thinking that they haven't hurt anyone because all they did was copy a file. No one lost anything, right? Even after years of small software developers and media companies giving a face to the people deprived of their income, you know how pirates respond?

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
They scream things like, "You have the power to make this the most pirated game ever, to give corporate bastards a virtual punch in the face."

So much for people playing fair.

I'll end on this note. Since the world will continue to face scarcity, at least until someone invents a Star Trek-esque replicator, we have to deal with the fact that someone will be at the top of the economic food chain (ignoring Marxism). I don't pretend to have the solution for distribution of these resources, but at least I can throw out some possibilities and ask some hopefully incisive questions.

To what extent are we willing to pay for the mistakes of our fellow citizens? What values do we want to enshrine in our culture?

Maybe we should decide who / what we allocate our extra resources to based on explicit principles that we vote on in a democratic fashion? That way if there's no political candidate who embodies the majorities views we still have the ability to guide the purse string of our country to causes that we the people think are best for society.

Given the choice, I know what I'd vote for. I'd vote to put education at the top of the list. I think Jefferson had it right.

"To fully achieve the dream of a meritocracy, Jefferson recognized the necessity of overhauling the existing educational system. Unique to his day, he believed that the state should take up the task of schooling in order to best cultivate the most talented minds from all social classes."

A basic education is now regarded as a universal right. But after basic education, then what? If there has to be selection at some rung on the educational ladder (as there always has to be), selection should surely not be on the basis of the parents position or wealth but according to the merit of the child or youth. Scholarships don't go far enough.

Every person should have the opportunity to see how far he or she can go and work towards a college degree.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by admriker444
 





Is there any trick to getting out of this debt ?


This IS the reason we are in a financial crisis. It is the lack of personal responsibility for actions you FREELY took that are causing the problem.
People buy homes that are more than they can afford. Banks give loans to people that shouldn't get them. Then everyone wants a bailout.

Take your medicine. You/your wife freely knew what you were getting into. Do what other people have done. Get a second or third job. Send you children to community college, and let them work their way through school.

I worked my way through undergraduate and graduate school to get my degrees. Most of the students I taught in college (a state college) had jobs, and they were the better for it.

It is disgraceful to be looking for a "trick" to get out of a situation which you/your wife freely undertook. Don't expect others to pay for your/your wife's poor choices.


WTF! You people starred this? Now, if you are a radical from Iran or China than I totally understand...

1) what happens here in America if people stop going to school to become Doctors because they can't afford it? Really, do I have to flow chart this for you?
2) Do you just want the rich and not the capable to become Doctors?
3) Do you want to pay $10,000 to set your kids broken arm?

There is a solution. Lobby Congress. Get legislation passed that would help everyone.
a) if you have government loans you can reduce your monthy payments to $100 a month if you are willing to work in a clinic or public health care or for the poor or wherever the government says they need Doctors. After 10 years your loans are forgiven.
b) Those Doctors are going to be the ones "we" can afford. Those Doctors might all be apart of a "DNPL" instead of an "HMO" (Doctors Need to Pay off Loans) and a DNPL provider would be much cheaper and many employers would be able to provide much better coverage.
c) We keep capable people going to Med School and avoid waiting for 6 months before getting a Doctors appointment because for every one Doctor there are 10,000 of us trying to get in to see if this new mole of ours is skin cancer or not.

Don't compare important professional schooling with an undergrad degree that most of us understand is today's equivillent to a High school degree.

There are many other types of degrees that should be afford some Loan forgiveness plans as well. Yeah, it forces some government servitude, and maybe even socialist to some extent...but these people should have the option to either enjoy paying $2,000 month for 30 years or charging us $10,000 for a physical, or working for the man for 10 years.....Hey, doesn't the military offer something like this if you join up? ohhhh, they pay for school afterwards.

If you don't like any of these plans then ask this question.....Why is college so damn expensive!? Whom is exploiting whom?

There is more than just our highway "infra structure" that needs bailing out. We need to make sure that we have capable people coming out of and attending professional schools, or are way of life infra structure is going to crumble.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme

It's as though you don't recognize that scarcity is inherent in economic theory. Scarcity dictates that a select few receive the lions share, that the masses are appeased to the extent that they don't revolt, and that the lowest rung of society gets the scraps. Thus, a theory of economics also implies a theory of moral reasoning.


I honestly fail to see how scarcity (which you are correct is an economic principle) has anything to do with "dictating that a select few receive the lions share," and implies a theory of moral reasoning. It sounds impressive, but you need to explain how you come to that conclusion, as I myself do not. I can certainly see how FORCED scarcity, as in the case of the cartel of doctors who ensured the closure of many medical school to limit the production of additional doctors, caused a condition that ensured wealth to some few. But scarcity itself does not ensure great inequality in wealth. Scarcity relative to demand dictates price, not scarcity alone. If something is incredibly rare, and no one at all wants it, it will not be valuable or a vehicle for garnering great wealth. The cartel of doctors was successful in creating inequity in wealth because the service of doctors is in high demand. However the scarcity there was a contrived one. Not a natural one.

Controlled scarcity is a well recognized way to gain wealth. Which is why anti-trust laws were enacted.


Originally posted by Xtraeme
I don't advocate meritocracy in its pure form (IQ + effort = merit), because if soil creates castes, the machine manufactures classes – classes to which people can be assigned by their achievement or ascribed by wealth at birth.


A meritocracy would NEVER assign someone to a class by their wealth at birth. That is exactly the point of a meritocracy. To avoid a birth status=class system. A meritocracy neednt be a class system at all, what it means is that people will not be allowed to buy their way into positions of power they are not inherently qualified for by capacity to effectively carry out the duties of that position. It also means that unfavorable birth (poor parents) will not be used to withhold opportunities if the individual in question can perform effectively in positions higher than their parents were able to. It is inherently fair, in the sense that merit is based upon capacity to do a particular job. Not cronyism, not pay for play, not nepotism.



Originally posted by Xtraeme
Even if it could be demonstrated that people with lower IQs have less ability than those selected for high position, that would not mean they deserve less. Being a member of the "lucky sperm club" confers no moral right to advantage.

That's why I argue for a society based foremost on fairness.


First of all, YOU are the one who says that certain jobs that are currently compensated by high pay indicate that the individual holding that position has a greater value. I didnt. I remember arguing that garbage collectors and plumbers contribute as much or more to the overall health of a society as its doctors do. In essence, that the value to society of those positions are equivalent to the value provided by a doctor.

And, I remember saying that our compensation system is horribly broken. That the energy one puts in should be rewarded fairly. I did not say, ever, that those of higher IQ deserve more. You imply that with your education=value to society formula. I clearly stated that laborers are contributing value. Energy=/=IQ. Energy=energy. Be it physical effort, or mental effort.

It just so happens that in our society, those with higher IQ's are the ones who most effectively game the system. They create scarcity by locking other potentially competent practitioners out, (as in the case of the cartel of doctors) so that they can charge increasingly high prices for their services. And they promote the idea that their fees (and the scarcity itself) is a function of their value. They promote the idea that there are few doctors because only few really COULD be doctors by ability, when in fact the scarcity is created by locking most other competent practitioners out.

In the worlds most famous description of a meritocracy, Plato's Republic, safeguards are enacted to prevent this abuse. There is a negative correlation between responsibility (and the high IQ combined with impeccable character that would qualify one for that position of responsibility) and freedom to personally benefit materially from said responsibility. In his meritocracy, no one is given a higher "value" in dollar terms. In fact, his majority, the merchant classes, have the greatest personal freedom and right to property ownership. Plato recognized the old adage that "power corrupts" and his system was not designed to punish those with the highest IQ and character, it was designed in such a way that power never equaled wealth in order that there be no incentive whatsoever for those who had a craving for material things to seek to become leaders. It was a recognition that not only intelligence was required of a leader, but that impeccable character and the highest degree of justice was as well. You did not make it to the position of Philosopher King in his meritocracy by IQ alone. If you were of the character that desired personal wealth, you stayed in the merchant class where that was available to you. By your own choice, enabled by the fact that there was no personal wealth available for those in the leadership positions.



Originally posted by Xtraeme

In the spirit of fairness I argued on behalf of people with students loans who are currently trapped in a downward spiral, because there's a huge gulf between those that can declare bankruptcy and those that can't. Bankruptcy rules, whether you choose to recognize it or not, are dramatically more lenient towards businesses and individuals without student loans.


Again, those who declare bankruptcy lose things. They lose their homes, their cars, personal possessions, etc. You are right that cash taken from a line of credit and used for food is gone forever. But how many people have $250,000 worth of cash withdrawals on their credit cards?


Originally posted by Xtraeme
However a "Chapter 13 plan often does not require repayment to general unsecured debts, such as credit cards or medical bills."


You are overlooking the means test that is applied. Not everyone is allowed to discharge their medical and credit card debt. It depends on their income, and how much of that income is considered available to pay debts.



Originally posted by Xtraeme
Explain this to me, why should a credit card, which can be used for cash withdrawals, be any different from a student loan?


Because the risk to the creditor would be so great, (given that these loans are often given to the unemployed with no personal income) that no one in their right mind would make them if they were not protected from people who chose to do what Ms. Doctor and her husband would like to do. It would be a great system for a scammer if they were NOT exempt from discharge. Get a $250,000 education, before beginning work, declare chapter 7 while you still meet the means test, get rid of all your debt, make a ton of money for the rest of your life and leave the cost of your debt to be absorbed by those not scamming the system.

Medical bills are often a matter of life or death. There is recognition of this. Cosmestic surgery for instance is NOT generally discharged. A college education is not a matter of life or death. It is a personal enhancement. Credit card issuers take into account income, and your credit limits are based on your ability to repay and your history of repayment. Student loans are not, nor can they be. If they were dischargable, would they even exist? Or would they be so risky that no one would agree to make them, or if they were made at all, (like credit issued to other risky borrowers) they would carry 20% + interest rates to make them profitable?


Originally posted by Xtraeme
And while you think about that let me redirect one of your questions back to you, "Why the sympathy for the high school dropout who did not understand their loan agreement (and can declare bankruptcy), but none for the poor kid who failed out of college who did not understand his loan agreement (and has no choice but to pay his loan)?"


I argued what I did because of your prejudice against the uneducated. I am not prejudiced against the educated. I believe all people should repay their debts. Uneducated or educated. My argument is NOT that people without educations should be given more leeway to have their debts forgiven. If I have any prejudice at all it is that loans taken in desperation, to physically survive, such as those for food and life saving medical treatment, should be forgiven more readily than those taken for personal enhancement.


Originally posted by Xtraeme
I'd counter that media piracy is a much better indicator of human nature.


Fine, present the data on the percentage of the population who steals media. I would be interested to see what percentage of people actually do.

People do act in their own self interest. Some of us recognize that society is in our best interests. We cooperate with one another because we know that a primate alone is a dead primate. Humans are social animals, and all of our "advantages" for survival are because we cooperate. Those who are "all about ME" are mistaken about what is in their self interest. And if left on their own, they wouldnt survive. The only way that kind of self interest works at all is by exploiting the cooperative.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by whoshotJR
 


If they can give away 4 trillion dollars to the banking industry, they can help everyone else out. Oh, but I forgot, it's ok to give money out left and right to the rich.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
You can take a loan worth $250,000 dollars, or you can do what I do. And pay for my wife's medical schooling with "Cash". Sure its taken many years, but if nothing goes wrong. At the end of this year, she will graduate, and owe nothing.

Most of this board probably has more then I do, drives "Newer" cars, and has a "life". I Don't.

For a lot of people, a doctor complaining about costs$. Is like the owner of AIG complaining he can't buy another yaught. Sure he\she owes a lot of money, but a lot of people (on this board) would be simply happy to have a job with their chosen career. Or to simply have a degree. Hence some of the self indignation seen on this board.

It all a matter of perspective, and self discipline.

BTW- Move to India, There are in such a desperate need for Phys that they are paying student loans off for Doctors from other countries.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
hmmm...I'm not so sure the OP received fair value for the loan, especially when the interest is added in. Obviously, our compensation system is broken. Our educational system is broken worse, I think: students are required to pay far too much for far too little, especially in medical schools.

A more reasonable approach would be to view educational expenses as you would a capital investment in a company and allow deductions for depreciation, since a professional education of any sort rapidly goes out of date. Student loans should be treated no differently than business loans. With most business loans, you can't repossess the business either, because if it goes bankrupt, there's usually very little left of value.

But the fundamental question is why should one set of humans be favored over another set based on the type of economic enterprise they engage in? Whether I am investing in me as a professional or me as a business, I'm the same person with statistically similar futures.

A still more fundamental question is why isn't the education free? I know, TAANSTAAFL...

But....if the US were viewed as a single corporate entity in which every single citizen owned one share of federal stock and one share of state stock, issued at birth and those shares paid dividends like Alaska pays its citizens, by the time they reached college age, students should have enough saved to either pay for an education or start a business without having to go into debt.

I mean, really, just what is the tangible return on investment for our taxes?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


I agree that ideally education would be free. And ideally, cartels of professionals would not be acting to limit the supply of needed professionals simply to keep their wages higher.

We could probably pay for the cost of educating people with the money saved in health care costs alone if that were the case.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Yeah people are raging the OP as some Welsh...

I too have no ability to pay my student loans even though I do well, I don't have enough left over.

Thing is, the system is broken

For starters a College education or equiv is not something you can live in the information age without, college should be free... A person pays taxes off their income FOREVER until they die... the return value is there for the Govt, it already exists, so why charge for the school... doubling or better of a persons income makes them a small fortune so the aspect of school being costly is demonstrably moronic.

Can't and Will Not are 2 different things, I'm sure she'd keep dropping 2 G a month IF she had it to drop, right now the money isn't there unless your truely rich for anyone really...

Economic Chaos?

Not letting go of debts will only cause more... people need to be upwardly mobile for the economy to work, yeah, the Govt gets this persons 2 G a month, but then stores and business people do not... some form of debt relief that allows them credit should be passed...

It's like all these evictions, from the crisis.... who's buying the houses

Sure on PAPER they have the value of the Home, kind of worthless if homeless people riot... in a worse case scenario but just as worthless if it is never purchased again...

Gotta rewrite the loans sometimes, things change and economy needs to have Adaptability for long term survival and our lacks it...

Relief, for student laons right now, would overall do the economy good

Allot of people can't buy homes because of them, allot of people won't get a stimulus check... and you know what, People are a better resource than trying to collect X amount of debt

It's called a sacrifice in martial arts

The act of taking a shot in the face, in order to come around and break an arm and win a fight...

student loans are worth X

allot less than the spending and tax earning of unburdened people..to buy homes, shop and live and pay taxes... if in these times, the debt is too great you have to loose it...

People fear a US Bankruptcy so much?

Why?

Because Foreigners Fear it...

But Bankruptcy was here and in most places is a basic human right... it happens, no one should be punished for financial stupidity EVER

If we BK the nation and restructure... Just like any business it should be okay, but the rest of the world would burn...

The US would be just fine... so in essence we are slaves to foreign banks anyway.

people are rebelling now that it's hitting home

In the end, if life gets miserable enough you don't repay... BK

and well,

If the world doesn't like it, then... come get it. It's not like the enslavement of America wasn't intentional or malicious even if we did elect these buffoons.

My kids don't have to pay their grandparents debts, it's mental

It's time the GOVT face the reality that we ..Us the USA are wealthy as heck, that we got involved in global affairs and it cost us allot of money and...

it's chap 7 time regardless of the global economic consequences, I can't be enslaved for others mistakes... there is a reason the USA doesn't have FREE education and health care

It's war, all over the world, mostly this Century fights we we were asked to attend...

There is just as much debt in the last 50 years the USA has let go for other nations

and even try and add up the aid that has poured out of the US

whatever our recent times and leaders

as a person, if the USA needs to BK after a bad time... we are, no different than any other country...

2 G a month to be a doctor over 30 years?

How the Frack can we Save Lives and have doctors at that price...

1 Doctor... One LIFE is worth 1 billion bucks in my books.

and what ... this won't happen to the world anyway? or worse?

If we CONTINUE to produce morons because no one can afford school?

No, for the sake of the WORLD... the USA needs to declare bankruptcy

and these loans need to be gone a continent ... being 1st or 3rd world depends on it...

A world in which the USA keeps sliding is Much worse than a world in which we Implode in violence or explode outwardly because the people continue to become dumber and dumber...

Student Loans was a bad enslaving prohibitive Idea and no one of us knew in school how tough things would be, we just wanted to go to school...

They need to relieve people of these debts, even if it means chapter 7 ofr the USA now

a demolition works best Controlled... saves allot of lives and property damage
Stupid people in charge of 7,000 nukes is bad... everyone being stupid would be allot worse...

Doctors are an investment not a Loan... it's a system that has become very sick, get the shot gun Ma Old Yeller got's the Rabies



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 





WTF! You people starred this? Now, if you are a radical from Iran or China than I totally understand...

Wow, that's an intelligent remark! Calm down, if you are going to discuss here. Abbreviated cursing, name calling and rage do not indicate any sign of intelligence.




1) what happens here in America if people stop going to school to become Doctors because they can't afford it? Really, do I have to flow chart this for you? 2) Do you just want the rich and not the capable to become Doctors? 3) Do you want to pay $10,000 to set your kids broken arm?


Well, there still seem to be doctors that are graduating, and they are not all rich. Maybe, just maybe, they are willing to sacrifice what needed to be done, to become doctors.
Yes, an education is expensive, and medical school is expensive, as is getting a doctorate. I came from an economically lower class family, and as stated before, I paid for my own education. In addition, there are medical schools outside the US that are much more reasonable.
Education is an investment. If you invest little, little will be returned. If you invest a great deal wisely, it is because you feel the return will make your investment worthwhile.




There is a solution. Lobby Congress. Get legislation passed that would help everyone. a) if you have government loans you can reduce your monthy payments to $100 a month if you are willing to work in a clinic or public health care or for the poor or wherever the government says they need Doctors. After 10 years your loans are forgiven. b) Those Doctors are going to be the ones "we" can afford. Those Doctors might all be apart of a "DNPL" instead of an "HMO" (Doctors Need to Pay off Loans) and a DNPL provider would be much cheaper and many employers would be able to provide much better coverage. c) We keep capable people going to Med School and avoid waiting for 6 months before getting a Doctors appointment because for every one Doctor there are 10,000 of us trying to get in to see if this new mole of ours is skin cancer or not.


I see, more socialism. Who is going to pay for this "forgiveness" program? We, as taxpayers will be paying for it. So one way or another, we will pay. In fact, what you suggest is not very different from what the Soviet Union did. Yes, candidates to be a doctor could go to medical school, but when they got out, they made about the same as a steam pipe fitter. If that is what you want for America, then you will truly like Obama and his crew. Of course, once that happens, unless you plan on closing our borders and forbidding emigration, as the USSR did, those doctors will quickly leave for greener pastures.


charging us $10,000 for a physical


Now you have lost all respect. When people start exaggerating, then debate is useless. Most physicals today are around $100.00.




If you don't like any of these plans then ask this question.....Why is college so damn expensive!? Whom is exploiting whom?


This question proves your complete lack of understanding when it comes to higher level educational costs, and medical school. The equipment and supplies that are necessary to educate a doctor far exceed in cost those for just about any other field.

Before you post nonsense, perhaps you should do some research and answer some of your own questions. I will not waste any more time, because you have not earned my respect.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by ProfEmeritus]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR
If the dollar does a complete collapse getting our of your loans is the least of your worries. Your wife knew what she signed up for yet she still signed the dotted line and that debt is hers.


Indeed, if the dollar completely collapses I firmly believe the United States will near instantly go to hell, it will be like the game Fallout minus the nuclear aftermath. Factions will form.. there will be Raiders.. A loan to a collapsed government will be the least of your worries.. worry about what your going to do when a carload of savages drives through your yard, kills your animals, kills your family and steals your stuff, shoots you in the chest and leaves you for dead or kidnaps you as a sex slave or something..



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by admriker444


It really pisses me off that the goverment gives out trillions to banks but the average citizen cant get out of student loan debt.


It really pisses me off that somebody would borrow a quarter of a million dollars and think that they shouldn't have to pay it back.
You are no better than the banks if that's what kind of integrity you have.


The banks # doesn't stink, their execs made money hand over fist in fees ripping off investors and taxpayers, and don't have to pay for their losses. Those execs walked away with billions in bonuses and paid themselves bonuses with bailout money.

Completely different then the average american debt slave. They are no where near equal. $250K for an education is insane, and is a result of the Feds inflationary policy.

Americans and people all over the world need to get it through their heads collectively:

USURY IS WRONG, AND COMPOUND INTEREST IS UNEARNED TAKING!!!

THEY PRINT THE MONEY OUT OF WORTHLESS PAPER FOR GODS SAKES, AND SUCK YOUR LIFE, AND LABOR OUT OF YOU, SO SOME FAT CAT BANKING FAMILY CAN LIVE HIGH ON THE HOG!!!

WAKE THE HELL UP PEOPLE!!!



[edit on 5-2-2009 by seker2k]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I would suggest you be thankful your wife has a trade that will be valuable in our rather bleak near future. Because we are screwed.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Law School always sounded nice...but I come from a family where the only support money wise I can get is maybe a laptop for school, and an extended stay at home deal.

I predict with the current economy a 40-50k student loan debt. I will try to pay it off ASAP.

Then my car.

Then my house.

One lesson I hope we learn from the credit problem the US is facing is that the next generation (mine) manages their money responsibly. If anything, may that be something we learn from this crap.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
OP presents a valid alternative to the stimulus bill...
"Forgiving Student Loan Debt Would Stimulate Economy"

And here's a petition that will be sent to President Obama promoting this cause.

You can sign the petition here:

www.thepetitionsite.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by msnevil
 


There is a reason for that shortage and this was confirmed to me by several Asian-American doctors. Physicians in India make little money and it generally is a profession for people who are educated enough to go to college but not to engineering school which is a much more prestigious career. The less capable doctors are "encouraged" to go abroad. From several very bad experiences, it is generally true.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist
 


Yep. I am about $7000 in credit card debt with no forseeable way to catch up and have decided to just let it go. It's permanently cured my interest in spending ANY money.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 



Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I honestly fail to see how scarcity (which you are correct is an economic principle) has anything to do with "dictating that a select few receive the lions share, ..."


In economics scarcity is a condition that exists when current resources are inadequate to provide for all of peoples wants. As supply decreases and demand increases, costs increase. Therefore those with the deepest pockets have access to scarcer resources than those with less. Hence, inherent in scarcity, and therefore economics, is a nominalist class system.

This economic definition of scarcity is deeply rooted in the Sartrean ontological view of scarcity. Quoting Elizabeth Bowman and Robert Stone's summary of a 1965 Cornell lecture on "Satre's Morality and History,"


Life in the biological sense can either be an imperative, a value, or a good, depending on the social class of the agent. For the unfavored, life is a fundamental exigency, an imperative. For the middle class, it is a value to be produced and reproduced. For the privileged, it is a good that is automatically preserved by the labor of others and, as such, is a means for realizing other supposedly more worthy norms.


This explanation for how we behave at a very fundamental level translates very neatly in to socio-economic strata: those that have access to everything they desire; those that compete for the remainder; and others who get little to nothing.



...and implies a theory of moral reasoning. It sounds impressive, but you need to explain how you come to that conclusion, as I myself do not.


Put another way when demand is sufficiently high and a resource, R, approaches 0 the money involved to acquire the resource conversely approaches the ceiling, M_c. Meaning if there are 3 people in the world, 1 seller (P_0), and 2 buyers each with equal sums of cash (P_1 = P_2), money would no longer determine who gets the resource as there would no longer be a monetary inequality. (ie/ R = M_c; and, M_c = P_1 = P_2). The person receiving the item would either be randomly drawn in a lottery, selected due to favoritism, picked based on a majority vote, or given the item based on the moral-code of the community; to wit, modes of moral reasoning.

To go one step further lets say the resource is a single unit of food during a famine. A few methods to rationalize who to allocate the meal to is to choose the person best likely to keep the group alive, the person who hunts / forages, or the person who most needs sustenance.

Introduce a fourth person (P_3) and two of the three can now increase their odds to acquire the resource by using their greater purchasing power to collectively buy the item. (P_1 + P_2 > P_3) or (P_2 + P_3 > P_1), et cetera. Thus in effect two people out-purchase another not because they're individually more capable or deserving but because they came up with a way to game the system.

This predicates a moral dilemma. Should an unregulated monetary system replace actual human value judgments on issues that affect the entire group? Thus economics, especially as it relates to scarcity, implies a theory of moral reasoning or at the very least provides an excuse to circumvent and ignore moral reasoning.


It also suggest that if two people ally themselves, as in the above example, that they'll almost always hold the majority position and therefore acquire any sufficiently scarce resource. Again clearly scarcity implies a class system and therefore a mode of, hopefully, sound moral judgment to determine who falls where in the structure.

As described by Leach, "In a class system social status and economic security go together." (Leach 1960: 6)



Originally posted by Xtraeme
I don't advocate meritocracy in its pure form (IQ + effort = merit), because if soil creates castes, the machine manufactures classes – classes to which people can be assigned by their achievement or ascribed by wealth at birth.

A meritocracy would NEVER assign someone to a class by their wealth at birth. ... It is inherently fair, in the sense that merit is based upon capacity to do a particular job.


I'll wax less poetic as it seems to confuse rather than clarify.


I was trying to illustrate that in the here-and-now of the 21st century "wealth at birth," still largely determines social status. In switching to a pure meritocracy we would exchange one class system for another. One where those who are the smartest and strongest percolate to the top; a lower tier of people who are middling in talent; and a bottom tier of those who, whether through personal fault or because of genetic disposition, find themselves licking the boot-heels of the upper echelons of society.

When I said "the machine manufactures classes" I meant that we as humans fall in to social classes because as a group we collectively, though perhaps unconsciously, promote societal stratification. I suspect this is in no small part due to the marriage of scarcity with a mode of moral reasoning – particularly cultural value-systems. For example in the past humanity strongly believed in theocracy. Thus our ancestors lavished monies on religious authorities and places of worship. Later humanity chose to believe that certain people were blessed by deities or felt that certain individuals were greater than the common man. So the proletariat gave an inordinate amount of public wealth to kings and queens. Now we have a society that votes people in to position based on popularism. Thusly we throw money at celebrities and politicians.

Like any class-based system where social class is strictly defined, a meritocracy can just as easily be a dystopia as it can a utopia (ie/ read Michael Young's, Rise of the Meritocracy).

This is why I've been trying to convey the importance of how economics, not just politics, underpins societal striation.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   

I am still annoyed at at least part of your point. You seem to be saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that some people, those who train for jobs that "have significant social benefits" should be given leeway to act in ways those who work "insignificant jobs" should not. It is classist.


So yes my ideology is classist because all systems, meritocracy's included, fundamentally inherit the class structure as it's embedded in the very notion of scarcity.

In my opinion the only way to make things truly fair is to come to grips with this notion, to explicitly state cultural priorities, and finally confront the group(s) that will suffer under the selected belief structure.



And, it in no way ensures that people who act honestly and responsibly are given a fair shake.


This is why I said I don't buy in to the notion of a pure meritocracy. As in every society there will be people at the bottom of the food chain that still deserve basic human decency despite not fitting in to the perfect design of society's goals. In the case of a meritocracy, excellence being the ultimate goal-post, not all people should be treated in accordance with the value they contribute back to society.

I suppose the best way to express my philosophy is to say I advocate a socialized-meritocracy.



You seem to be thinking that education and a certain job title makes you more valuable, and apparently should offer you a get out of debt free option that the uneducated does not get.


As I said above I think we should vote how we design our class system by allowing the citizens of society to determine how to allocate excess government revenue.

Yes I do feel those who are willing to go in to fields that have a greater social benefit should be rewarded and given more leniency. For the record I'm a game programmer. I don't think game programmers add much, if any, societal value. Thus I would put myself at the very bottom of the benefit pool. City planners, law enforcers, doctors, lawyers, ecologists, teachers, plumbers, sanitation engineers, etc., all of these people fill a much more integral role in my mind and therefore should be catered to, yes, disproportionately.

As a secondary means of rewarding good societal conduct I'd advocate allocating the remaining excess resource to citizenry who don't have a criminal record and those who participate in social roles, like, town hall meetings, fire-department boosters, etc.

Anyways, what I find intriguing is you don't sound like you want a meritocracy at all, rather it sounds like you want communism. For instance,



Originally posted by Xtraeme
Even if it could be demonstrated that people with lower IQs have less ability than those selected for high position, that would not mean they deserve less. Being a member of the "lucky sperm club" confers no moral right to advantage.

That's why I argue for a society based foremost on fairness.

First of all, YOU are the one who says that certain jobs that are currently compensated by high pay indicate that the individual holding that position has a greater value. I didnt. I remember arguing that garbage collectors and plumbers contribute as much or more to the overall health of a society as its doctors do. In essence, that the value to society of those positions are equivalent to the value provided by a doctor.


To say a garbage collector's value to society is equal to that of a doctor is either disingenuous or utterly lacking in self-evidence. This kind of assertion is specious at best because even if there were no garbage collectors I could easily travel to a dump-yard and dispose of my own trash.

A doctor and a garbage-man are only equivalent in a world with no scarcity.

Even in a utopian meritocracy – how do you create a world that gives all things to all people equally, based on energy put in to the system, and then justify asking the qualified few to commit an inordinate amount of their time on earth to perform a more demanding job (if only because less people are available to do it) while giving equal compensation to the man who disposes societies garbage?


And, I remember saying that our compensation system is horribly broken. That the energy one puts in should be rewarded fairly. I did not say, ever, that those of higher IQ deserve more. You imply that with your education=value to society formula. I clearly stated that laborers are contributing value. Energy=/=IQ. Energy=energy. Be it physical effort, or mental effort.


I see IQ as a composite of (education + natural smarts), where education represents a persons time and energy spent studying. IQ + effort is qualitatively greater because IQ doesn't simply compliment the value of the energy or effort put in to a unit of work it amplifies it. So in terms of output the formula is (IQ * effort).

Physical labor is without question of huge social importance, but we still establish pricing and valuation based off scarcity as it relates to demand, with a small nod to cost of initial investment.

So I guess the real question here is, in your mind, what does a fair compensation system look like?

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Xtraeme]





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join