It's mind-boggling how a nation is able to develop a system that forces its young to spend a large part of their life paying for the salaries of bank employees and managers, simply because they want an education. It's even more mind-boggling that these students can then get rid of this dept easiest by joining the system themselves, simply shuffling around money to make more money to pay off their dept.
And then Jamie Dimon calls Bitoin a ponzi scheme... Our entire economy is a ponzi scheme.
All of our money is created as dept, as such banks collect money on all of the money ever created. They create nothing of value for this. Why do we accept this?
Why do we accept the out of control increase in cost to get a degree? Why is it possible to get a loan for a degree that will be highly unlikely to lead to a career that will pay off the loan?
The schools seem to have way too much power here. If this was any other industry, there would be more oversight and regulation.
The easy money from lending immunizes the schools from being cost conscious because it shifts the burden to the students, who are told they'll go to heaven if they only get a college degree.
Because buying a new car/house/collegedegree with money you don’t have is easier than with money you do have.
Hell, you’re on HN. Chances are your salary comes from somebody convincing somebody that they should be given money because in just a few short years they’re gonna have like so much more money. I know mine does
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." John Steinbeck
it is mind boggling how much we allow State colleges to charge for an education. From the amount of money spent paying salaries of administration level employees, professors who turn over many classes to assistants, to high end sports programs, and finally overly indulgent facilities.
Young people are being used not to prop up the bank employee and managers but instead overly expensive faculty and facilities of college campuses, many of them are state run facilities! Better yet we don't stop there, we then roll them on the costs of supplies; namely books but it can include specific software; to just obtain their education. In many cases fees and such are added at the end to obtain certification needed to gain a license, something that should have been proven by their completion of the course load.
finally, not everyone needs a college education and not ever degree is worthy of financial aid.
Most people will not complain or even consider change as long as their basic animal needs are met.
Water, food, shelter and enough entertainment, alcohol or prescription painkillers to keep them docile enough to never question the actions of the genuinely obscenely wealthy and powerful that actually direct the course of human society for their own benefits.
If you want a change to this system you're going to need a total collapse first, which won't happen for a few decades at least (if it ever does) as the system is so geared towards maintaining itself (the status quo and every career politician produced by it) and resisting change.
A good start mibght be including three subjects in the education curriculum from childhood; Personal Financial Education, Ethics and Civics. I can guess why these things are longer part of the mandatory education systems in the west though.
That's why you end up with FPTP political systems where neither of your potential leadership candidates are even worth considering, and why financial services corporations continue to behave the same way they did prior to each and every economic crash they caused in the last century.
Of course, the burden of repairing the damage caused by the outrageously greedy and irresponsible always falls to the lowest working and middle classes.
Political philosopher Sheldon Wolin described the current system in the US as an Inverse Totalitarianism;
Because not enough people are fed up with it, or at least not fed up with it directly, in order to organise and change the system; there are many easier things to blace one's blame on, things which seem easier to change but are just as temporary and broken - like small changes in the tax level or as another commenter said school fees. Reducing school fees is merely tangential to your point, but people are convinced it's the right thing to do - because other solutions seem so helplessly out of reach that they are invisible to many such that they are not identified as problems at all.
We accept democracy in our politics, but the economy has just as much if not more influence over our lives, yet it is free from control. Adam Smith called the free market as "free" for this exact reason.
"Those borrowers had made payments after being sued over loans that were legally uncollectable, either because the statute of limitations had passed or because National Collegiate lacked the documentation needed to collect the debts in court."
This sounds a lot like what was happening during the financial crisis a decade ago. Lenders were selling mortgage loans to Wall Street to be bundled into collateralized debt obligations. After those CDOs got sold a few times, people lost track of who actually owned a particular loan. When borrowers defaulted, it was in many cases impossible to prove who was legally entitled to collect on the debt.
(A line in a spreadsheet that says John Doe owes you $500K is not very convincing evidence to a judge - you need to be able to provide a document with John Doe's signature on it.)
My son got a letter insisting he owed money on his college loan. He never had a loan. I paid for his education without any loans. He asked for documentation and they stalled. I finally had my lawyer write a letter on his behalf and, sure enough, they had made an error and were deeply sorry for our inconvenience.
Notably, they didn't offer to cover my time, his time, and the expense of the lawyer. I value my time more than I value money. I consider these things theft of my time.
> After those CDOs got sold a few times, people lost track of who actually owned a particular loan. When borrowers defaulted, it was in many cases impossible to prove who was legally entitled to collect on the debt.
Sounds fishy. The borrower was paying somebody at least up until he defaulted. Would not that entity be the one entitled to try to collect? Or were loans actually in default being sold around?
My own loan was initially government issued with a reasonable interest rate, but a year after finishing uni, it was sold off to a private fund that decided to jack up the interest rate to nearly 7%! In the UK, education used to be free. Now kids are leaving 3rd grade universities with 50k GBP debt, a ridiculously high interest rate and no quality job prospects. That's a lot of pressure on young shoulders (my sibling is going through this currently, and I can see how distressing it is).
And they wonder why young people can't get on the property ladder! The ignorance on behalf of the government is astounding! I'm not sure I'd want my kids to go through that, even if it means missing out on the social experiences of university.
The UK system has the weird and politically contingent "forgiveness at retirement" element, which means that theoretically it has a lifetime cap and behaves a bit like an income tax on graduates.
The catch is it's something like a 9% income tax!
The worst thing is that the three big national parties(+) all have their fingers on this, so I'm not sure who you could rely on to fix it. And whether it might have to come with rationing to a certain fraction of the population being able to get free university.
Not to mention that education is a vital export industry which the Home Office keeps trying to destroy.
(+) The third largest party by MPs is the SNP who only stand in Scotland, where they have ruled out tuition fees
Why aren't judges fining them /their lawyers? Can I sue John Doe and demand that he pay me the money he took for his mortgage? Before filing a lawsuit, the "I bought your loan so pay me" chain should be settled in an acceptable way. Otherwise it's fraud.
I'm obviously very old compared to the target audience. I was accepted to Columbia and Texas A&M and chose Texas A&M because I had various scholarships that paid for my tuition and room/board. I had some scholarships to go to Columbia but was facing debt of ~20k/year so I choose to go to A&M instead. My life is fine but I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who take out huge loans. (I had to work after my freshman year and I didn't go out a lot etc.) Not seeking sympathy for me, just saying I don't have any desire to "forgive" the loans for anyone.
I don't know the solution but having the govt secure all loans and think about forgiving them is not going to help the next generation. Where is the incentive for univ to bring their costs down? Also, where is the incentive for people to either shop for a college they can afford, or even forgo college in favor of some other training or on the job experience?
[+] [-] teekert|8 years ago|reply
And then Jamie Dimon calls Bitoin a ponzi scheme... Our entire economy is a ponzi scheme.
All of our money is created as dept, as such banks collect money on all of the money ever created. They create nothing of value for this. Why do we accept this?
[+] [-] tomohawk|8 years ago|reply
The schools seem to have way too much power here. If this was any other industry, there would be more oversight and regulation.
The easy money from lending immunizes the schools from being cost conscious because it shifts the burden to the students, who are told they'll go to heaven if they only get a college degree.
[+] [-] Swizec|8 years ago|reply
Because buying a new car/house/collegedegree with money you don’t have is easier than with money you do have.
Hell, you’re on HN. Chances are your salary comes from somebody convincing somebody that they should be given money because in just a few short years they’re gonna have like so much more money. I know mine does
[+] [-] NiklasMort|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|8 years ago|reply
Young people are being used not to prop up the bank employee and managers but instead overly expensive faculty and facilities of college campuses, many of them are state run facilities! Better yet we don't stop there, we then roll them on the costs of supplies; namely books but it can include specific software; to just obtain their education. In many cases fees and such are added at the end to obtain certification needed to gain a license, something that should have been proven by their completion of the course load.
finally, not everyone needs a college education and not ever degree is worthy of financial aid.
[+] [-] ionised|8 years ago|reply
Water, food, shelter and enough entertainment, alcohol or prescription painkillers to keep them docile enough to never question the actions of the genuinely obscenely wealthy and powerful that actually direct the course of human society for their own benefits.
If you want a change to this system you're going to need a total collapse first, which won't happen for a few decades at least (if it ever does) as the system is so geared towards maintaining itself (the status quo and every career politician produced by it) and resisting change.
A good start mibght be including three subjects in the education curriculum from childhood; Personal Financial Education, Ethics and Civics. I can guess why these things are longer part of the mandatory education systems in the west though.
That's why you end up with FPTP political systems where neither of your potential leadership candidates are even worth considering, and why financial services corporations continue to behave the same way they did prior to each and every economic crash they caused in the last century.
Of course, the burden of repairing the damage caused by the outrageously greedy and irresponsible always falls to the lowest working and middle classes.
Political philosopher Sheldon Wolin described the current system in the US as an Inverse Totalitarianism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You could extend that to the UK too probably.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ue_|8 years ago|reply
Because not enough people are fed up with it, or at least not fed up with it directly, in order to organise and change the system; there are many easier things to blace one's blame on, things which seem easier to change but are just as temporary and broken - like small changes in the tax level or as another commenter said school fees. Reducing school fees is merely tangential to your point, but people are convinced it's the right thing to do - because other solutions seem so helplessly out of reach that they are invisible to many such that they are not identified as problems at all.
We accept democracy in our politics, but the economy has just as much if not more influence over our lives, yet it is free from control. Adam Smith called the free market as "free" for this exact reason.
[+] [-] greenyoda|8 years ago|reply
This sounds a lot like what was happening during the financial crisis a decade ago. Lenders were selling mortgage loans to Wall Street to be bundled into collateralized debt obligations. After those CDOs got sold a few times, people lost track of who actually owned a particular loan. When borrowers defaulted, it was in many cases impossible to prove who was legally entitled to collect on the debt.
(A line in a spreadsheet that says John Doe owes you $500K is not very convincing evidence to a judge - you need to be able to provide a document with John Doe's signature on it.)
[+] [-] KGIII|8 years ago|reply
Notably, they didn't offer to cover my time, his time, and the expense of the lawyer. I value my time more than I value money. I consider these things theft of my time.
[+] [-] ams6110|8 years ago|reply
Sounds fishy. The borrower was paying somebody at least up until he defaulted. Would not that entity be the one entitled to try to collect? Or were loans actually in default being sold around?
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mirimir|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roarktoohey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] osrec|8 years ago|reply
My own loan was initially government issued with a reasonable interest rate, but a year after finishing uni, it was sold off to a private fund that decided to jack up the interest rate to nearly 7%! In the UK, education used to be free. Now kids are leaving 3rd grade universities with 50k GBP debt, a ridiculously high interest rate and no quality job prospects. That's a lot of pressure on young shoulders (my sibling is going through this currently, and I can see how distressing it is).
And they wonder why young people can't get on the property ladder! The ignorance on behalf of the government is astounding! I'm not sure I'd want my kids to go through that, even if it means missing out on the social experiences of university.
[+] [-] pjc50|8 years ago|reply
The catch is it's something like a 9% income tax!
The worst thing is that the three big national parties(+) all have their fingers on this, so I'm not sure who you could rely on to fix it. And whether it might have to come with rationing to a certain fraction of the population being able to get free university.
Not to mention that education is a vital export industry which the Home Office keeps trying to destroy.
(+) The third largest party by MPs is the SNP who only stand in Scotland, where they have ruled out tuition fees
[+] [-] tryingagainbro|8 years ago|reply
Why aren't judges fining them /their lawyers? Can I sue John Doe and demand that he pay me the money he took for his mortgage? Before filing a lawsuit, the "I bought your loan so pay me" chain should be settled in an acceptable way. Otherwise it's fraud.
[+] [-] colejohnson66|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgs1370|8 years ago|reply
I don't know the solution but having the govt secure all loans and think about forgiving them is not going to help the next generation. Where is the incentive for univ to bring their costs down? Also, where is the incentive for people to either shop for a college they can afford, or even forgo college in favor of some other training or on the job experience?