• some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    You need better sources before arriving at a conclusion on this one. This is a topic that has been discussed at great lengths by people from nonprofits and activist organizations on many podcasts. I’m sure their info exists in written form if you look for it.

    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      The money came from banks and went to the colleges via the students. If you take the money from the colleges, they will be “hurt.” They will lose something they had before. If you take it from the banks, the same. If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere. If you raise taxes, then the money is reaped from whomever has their taxes raised. If you print the money, then everyone pays a little through inflation.

      Someone gets hurt. I already said the hurt could be distributed. It could also be levied on people with vast resources who would notice it the least.

      Can you summarize the podcasts and writings that suggest no one loses money when a loan is forgiven?

      Separately, why is a clear statement of fact controversial? You don’t have to believe that loan forgiveness hurts no one to think it’s a good policy to put in place. So why the weird reaction?

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I understand your point but there are many other things that factors at play besides where the loans originated. For example interest rates are appalling on many of these loans. These are arbitrary factors that don’t hurt the lenders. They can still make a profit.

        • AmidFuror@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Your contribution to my understanding so far has been zero. There are some podcasts on pedagogy. You should look into it.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere.

        Not true in the US (and a few other countries). The US has economic sovereignty. This means that the federal government primarily owes it’s debt to itself, and only a very small percentage is owed to other countries. The fed also relies on a fiat currency, meaning that money has value because the federal government says it does. These 2 facts mean that the only limit to US spending is the amount of labor and resources available to the government at any given moment (please note that this is not true for state/local government). Haven’t you ever wondered why we have unlimited funds for the military but it’s austerity for everything else? It’s because conservatives in government want to hide these facts to continue pushing their agenda.