• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Who do you plan to vote for in November?

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 93 39.6%

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 44 18.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 55 23.4%

  • I won't vote

    Votes: 43 18.3%
  • Total voters
    235
NasstyNate said:
Which means students who do not come from wealthy families will either get loans at insanely high interest rates, or, more likely, not at all. Education is not best solved in the free market.
Click to expand...

Scholarships would still be available for those with superior academic talent. And private lenders would be more likely to restrict loans to those who are more likely to be academic successes. I see nothing wrong with either of those.

It's also likely that lenders would consider field of study when deciding whether or not to make a loan, or the interest rate at which the loan will be made. Also a good thing.

Others could go to community colleges at a much lower cost, and work their way through school if necessary. If they did well academically, they would be more likely to get good loans or even scholarships to continue their educations.

The core problem is that the overpriced, extended growing up process that has become the modern college experience/expectation for too many needs to end.

Cearly, if too many people are getting college degrees that don't generate enough post-graduation income to offset the cost of that college education, then the schooling is an economic waste.

For too many, the traditional four year college has become more about ticket punching and "the college experience" than it is about increasing value to prospective employers.
 
The market would dictate it so. It's a cost/demand curve.

The same way my parents COULD afford school without high rates or being born well off(everyone that generation) to the current situation, it would have to return to the norm(no government assistance)



NasstyNate said:
How so?
Click to expand...
 
One of the best reforms to deal with college loans is include them in bankruptcy proceedings. We have a multi-century experience on how to deal with debt and US/UK system of bankruptcy works for the most part. Lenders will suddenly be a lot more discriminating about giving loans to people get degrees from U of Phoenix and the like. Should be an easy call from both sides of the political spectrum (For a full disclosure: I'm a liberal)

Edit: Obama's idea of tying loans to loan repayment also makes a lot of sense in terms of using market economics to help dictate a government policy. Of course, that constituted a government takeover of what has been a free hand out for conservatives which never made a lot of sense.
 
NasstyNate said:
How so?
Click to expand...
Because there won’t be so much free money in the market which drove up the costs of tuition in the first place. The student loan bubble is real.



I think this is one of the worse groups of candidates in my lifetime. I turn 40 this year; my concerns are budget, market and tax code.

I am still upset about paying the rate of taxes we have to pay over 250k a year, when we only make 260k. There is no incentive for me to make a dollar over 250k. None. I had to buy a travel trailer (counts as a second home) this year and finance it just to save on my taxes and get me below the tax threshold. I was offered 5% interest over 10 years and told the bank i wanted 11% for the fucking tax deduction. What else was i to do, give the government more money to waste?

15 dollar minimum wage scares the shit out of me. Inflation is already through the roof.

Oil is a complete mess, and when they finally allow the US to export after 2018 it will be worse.

We cannot sustain the current economic policies of the last 20 years.

Currently i am undecided on who will get my vote, but i promise it won’t be Clinton or Biden.
 
Pioneer10 said:
One of the best reforms to deal with college loans is include them in bankruptcy proceedings. We have a multi-century experience on how to deal with debt and US/UK system of bankruptcy works for the most part. Lenders will suddenly be a lot more discriminating about giving loans to people get degrees from U of Phoenix and the like. Should be an easy call from both sides of the political spectrum (For a full disclosure: I'm a liberal)

Edit: Obama's idea of tying loans to loan repayment also makes a lot of sense in terms of using market economics to help dictate a government policy. Of course, that constituted a government takeover of what has been a free hand out for conservatives which never made a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

I'm a conservative, and I have absolutely no problem with making student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. Although I think that should only apply to new loans written under a new bankruptcy exception, not retroactively applied to loans that were made under the old code.
 
NasstyNate said:
To those interested in the economy, both sides are not to blame. Well, they are, but one much more disproportionately so. There's actual factual data out there that shows which presidential party produces the best results in office. Take a look for yourself.
Click to expand...

Did you read the study yourself? Blinder and Watson didn't say to blame one side at all. They also didn't say it had anything to do with policy of any party. They concluded that the differences in performance were mostly outside of the president's control. They attributed the partisan gap in economic performance to factors like oil shocks, total factor productivity, foreign growth shocks...and luck. Luck, for example, would be Bubba being in the White House during the internet explosion.

"Trying to explain the partisan growth gap
Confronted with such stark partisan differences, a macroeconomist naturally wonders whether the explanation could be that fiscal policy was, on average, more expansionary under Democrats. We assess this possibility in a variety of ways and come up with the same answer: no. What about monetary policy, despite the Federal Reserve’s vaunted independence from politics? The answer here is that, if anything, monetary policy was more pro-growth under Republican presidents.4

If the partisan gap cannot be explained by differential monetary and fiscal policy, what does explain it? And do these explanatory factors suggest it was good luck or good policy? We searched over a wide variety of factors, mostly entered in the form of econometric ‘shocks’, that is, as residuals from regressions that include the variable’s own lags and the current and lagged values of GDP growth. Four showed econometric promise:5

  1. Oil price shocks;
  2. Total factor productivity (TFP) shocks, adjusted to remove cyclical influences;
  3. Foreign (that is, European) growth shocks;
  4. Shocks to consumer expectations of future economic conditions."
 
How is inflation thru the roof?

Never understood this from the goldbugs. First it was food prices, then it was oil as somehow proof of inflation. Trusting volatile commodity prices is fool's gold (pardon the pun). Both the CPI which includes services and MIT project which doesn't has shown too low inflation

http://bpp.mit.edu/usa/
 
RonG said:
Because there wont be so much free money in the market which drove up the costs of tuition in the first place. The student loan bubble is real.
Click to expand...
Do you have any support that free money is driving up the cost of tuition? Because I don't think the data supports that assertion.
 
NasstyNate said:
Humor me. With data.
Click to expand...

Before I go to that effort....

is it your contention that a national decrease in the ability of prospective students to pay for college would not result either in 2) many colleges attempting to reduce costs/prices to maintain enrollment; and/or 2) a higher percentage of college students choosing cheaper community colleges over more expensive options?
 
Last edited:
Maximus said:
Did you read the study yourself? Blinder and Watson didn't say to blame one side at all. They also didn't say it had anything to do with policy of any party. They concluded that the differences in performance were mostly outside of the president's control. They attributed the partisan gap in economic performance to factors like oil shocks, total factor productivity, foreign growth shocks...and luck. Luck, for example, would be Bubba being in the White House during the internet explosion.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they said to blame one side. I said one side consistently outperforms the other. Do you disagree?

So Democrats just happen to be consistently lucky over a half century? What are the odds of that? I think we make our own luck by being a more reasonable part of the world community under Democratic presidents.
 
NasstyNate said:
Do you have any support that free money is driving up the cost of tuition? Because I don't think the data supports that assertion.
Click to expand...

This isn't to hard to understand.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-tuition-rising-blame-student-loans-fed-says

The costs of college tuition and fees have outpaced inflation for decades.

The surging cost of U.S. college tuition has an unlikely culprit: the generosity of the government’s student-aid program, a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York said.

Increases in federal loans, meant to help students cope with rising costs, are quickly eaten up by schools in higher prices, wrote David O. Lucca, Karen Shen and Taylor Nadauld.

Private colleges raise their tuition 65 cents for every dollar increase in federal subsidized loans and 55 cents for Pell grants given to low-income students, according to the report. College tuition has outstripped U.S. inflation for decades.

“The subsidized loan effect on tuition is most pronounced for expensive, private institutions that are somewhat, but not among the most, selective,” they wrote in a paper released this month.

The premise, raised in 1987 by former Education Secretary William Bennett, is more pronounced today as the sticker price of college has increased to $65,000 annually at some private schools. About two-thirds of undergraduates take out loans to fund their education. Outstanding student debt is now more than $1.36 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve Bank. Government loans account for the bulk, almost $1.2 trillion.

The government has made significant changes to the loan program since it began in 1965, such as giving parents access to federal loans and increasing annual borrowing limits for undergraduates.

Students took out $120 billion in education loans in 2012, up from $53 billion in 2001, with 90 percent of the borrowings backed by the government, according to the paper.

Tuition rose 46 percent in the period on average, “resembling the twin house price and mortgage balance booms,” Lucca and Shen of the Federal Reserve and Nadauld of Brigham Young University, said in the report.
Click to expand...

More sources:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/aaronb...-tuition-but-doesnt-raise-enrollment-n2025794

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/do_student_loans_result_in_tui.php?page=all

Just google there is more than enough data to support the following quote:

Federal student aid policies do not cause college price inflation, but there is little doubt that they help make it possible.
 
By free money i was mostly being sarcastic about the student loans that aren't being paid back and never will be. I am not implying or stating that grants ect don't have a place in education.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
Before I go to that effort....

is it your contention that a national decrease in the ability of prospective students to pay for college would not result in many colleges attempting to reduce costs/prices to maintain enrollment?
Click to expand...
I think the problem is much more complex than a simple cost curve, mostly due to concerns about access for all, which does not fit within a simple economic supply/demand model. My contention in your scenario would be that lesser schools (those attended by lower achieving students) and private institutions without substantial endowments would face the largest challenges and would see many closures. Tuition at mid to upper tier schools would be unaffected.

But please, take the effort. I'll consider and respond in good faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top