Should Government Forgive Home Loans?

[Heyo]

How is it that so many small countries can guarantee healthcate for all, while the richest country in the world complains the cost would be prohibitive?

Many small countries don't try to rule (or police) the world and have an army just big enough to defend itself.
The richest country in the world has a bloated industrial-military complex and on top of that a very everybody-for-themselves mentality and is a tax haven for the super rich.

 

[Valjean]

I wasn't referring to illegal drug manufacturers, I was talking about the pharmacuitical companies that pushed opioids as non-addictive on doctors for decades knowing full well that they were highly addictive.

Or charge hundreds of dollars for a medication that costs them five cents to manufacture -- because they can. Because Milton Friedman says it's immoral not to maximize profits for your stockholders.

All human beings deserve to have a safe place to live. Rich people should not be deciding who lives and who dies based on whether or not they are economically profitable or morally acceptable.

Not in a culture that values money more than it values human life.

Comments like this are why the rich should never be allowed to decide who lives and who dies economically. And yet that is exactly what happens under a capitalist system.

The rich commonly feel they are entitled their riches, that they acquired them fairly and legitimately, and have no obligation to the society that enabled their acquisitions.

Conversely, they believe the poor are 'unfit' and undeserving, as evidenced by their poverty. They feel no obligation to the workers making their lifestyles possible.

 

[Wu Wei]

Little Denmark, for one, actually pays students to attend university. Maybe others do, as well. I don't know.

I believe Germany use to, not sure if they still do

 

[Valjean]

I believe Germany use to, not sure if they still do

Education is an investment in high-quality, human infrastructure. It promotes safety, security, prosperity and quality-of-life for everyone.
Moreover, it decreases crime and the need for expensive social services.

This seems, to me, a legitimate use of tax dollars.

 

[Heyo]

I believe Germany use to, not sure if they still do

No, never did either. But there is no tuition (only a students body fee which usually includes free public transport, it's a few hundred € per semester) and you can get a loan if you can't pay for your living yourself (which is usually substantial as we don't have colleges, you have to rent on the free market). That what is now a loan used to be a subsidy, so that may be what you meant, but you had to have parents who couldn't pay for your living, so basically social aid.

 

[Audie]

I wasn't referring to illegal drug manufacturers, I was talking about the pharmacuitical companies that pushed opioids as non-addictive on doctors for decades knowing full well that they were highly addictive.

All human beings deserve to have a safe place to live. Rich people should not be deciding who lives and who dies based on whether or not they are economically profitable or morally acceptable.

Not in a culture that values money more than it values human life.

Comments like this are why the rich should never be allowed to decide who lives and who dies economically. And yet that is exactly what happens under a capitalist system.

I decide who lives or dies?
It has happened.


Do you work two ( any ) jobs and donate all
you can to "save lives"?

There not a chance you've done 1% of what I have
for the poor and I have literally saved lives.

Your ideas about capitalism are nothing but a grotesque
caricature. Well, not quite nothun. Add " ignorant".

But never mind addressing your cant..

Bottom line, you don't / cannot deal with
personal responsibility.

Forcibly taking others' money and real estate,
and taking your slice is not my udea of responsible.
Or moral.

Hence we differ.

 

[Audie]

Or charge hundreds of dollars for a medication that costs them five cents to manufacture -- because they can. Because Milton Friedman says it's immoral not to maximize profits for your stockholders.

The rich commonly feel they are entitled their riches, that they acquired them fairly and legitimately, and have no obligation to the society that enabled their acquisitions.

Conversely, they believe the poor are 'unfit' and undeserving, as evidenced by their poverty. They feel no obligation to the workers making their lifestyles possible.

Where did you get your " facts" about
concerns of the rich?

 

[Revoltingest]

Modern, authoritarian, socialistic liberals?

Yes.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stevicus]

Yes.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Where's the link for modern, authoritarian, socialistic liberals? That's what I was asking.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose that's possible, though I don't know about the systems those countries use, exactly. That said, if one was worried about someone using tax dollars to persue majors on "gender studdies" or something like that, those could be out of wallet while more practical majors such as STEM could be publicly funded

As for Norway, though, the biggest criticism I see of their system is that the education gained by their public "free" system isn't as good as, say, an ivy league or more recognized schools. On the flip side, a huge amount of their population is highly educated since it's so easily attainable for anyone. That seems like a pretty sweet deal to me

I've heard that university education in countries where
it's free have worse budget issues, & lower quality at
the higher levels. This points out the 1st law of
thermodynamics....
There is no free lunch.

 

[Soandso]

Let's move Chicago, Newark and Detroit to
Norway.
See how well the system works then.

Yah, that wouldn't work. Honestly, we are too far gone for anything like that to actually happen - especially with how divided the nation is and continues to become. Not only that, but because of the way states are structured, a full on lockstep approach these kinds of changes would require would seem impossible. That's something that would be much easier for a nation that isn't comprised of mini-nations like the USA is

Besides, the student cost issue won't be fixed for the same reason why the rising disparity between cost of living and income and the astronomical medical bills that continue to grow will never be addressed In a meaningful way. If those with money and power exploit the average person as much as possible, we won't care or notice as long as we are arguing with eachother over tertiary cultural issues such as "wokeness" that those same people in power present to us

Why would those who run this nation want to seriously help the average person to become educated and become critical thinkers who might actually come to realize what's happening? A dumb population who don't ask too many questions are perfectly happy to live complacently paycheck to paycheck and are easily distracted. The machine's functioning as intended

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually a lot of developed countries do; Norway, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Greece, France, etc. however housing and food is not always for free and in many cases not the concern of the college/university at all.

As to forgiving homer loans....being totally mercenary....YES...because then mine would be gone.... being less self-centered and more level headed....No, because I think it would be a major hit to the Economy. ..and just cost taxpayers more and more and more

"Free" is a tricky term. Is the same level of higher
education free or even available?

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

At U of Mich I met many students from around the
world. They came here to pay the big bucks
(almost $1,000 / year for grad school) instead
of going to countries where it would be free.

When something is free, you often get what you pay for.

 

[Soandso]

I've heard that university education in countries where
it's free have worse budget issues, & lower quality at
the higher levels. This points out the 1st law of
thermodynamics....
There is no free lunch.

True, but a subjectively "worse" higher education is better than NO or lesser education considering paying for rent, bills, and school on your own without the help of dear old dad is nearly impossible in this day and age, and that gap is widening. Oh, also don't have kids or get sick or injured

You're right that there's no free lunch, but like I said before, it's less about the education being "free" and more about it being "covered" by taxes. That's where the cost comes in, as uncomfortable as higher taxes are to pay

By the way, I know people with masters who are still paying them off when they are in their 40s and 50s and even 60s... That aint right

 

[Revoltingest]

I mean, obviously, there’s competition: you need to apply to higher education and be admitted, either via good grades, or -if you’re a mature student- by submitting proof of work-experience and scoring well on applicable entry tests. But if you get that far, there are several countries with no tuition fees for higher education. It’s a good thing - for sure.

Humbly,
Hermit

What of the quality of a "free" education?

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

How limited is availability?

The left chants "Free university education!",
but how is payment for it vs resource
allocation handled? Are taxes raised?
Can one get a PhD in a useless field at
great expense to the school & taxpayers?

 

[Wu Wei]

"Free" is a tricky term. Is the same level of higher
education free or even available?

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

At U of Mich I met many students from around the
world. They came here to pay the big bucks
(almost $1,000 / year for grad school) instead
of going to countries where it would be free.

When something is free, you often get what you pay for.

I'm not debating that, only saying many are free..... you had no such parameters applied to your first post....therefore I have fulfilled my obligations the conversation.....nuff said

Now be happy this is a regular thread and not one of those other ones or I'd be talking about pie right about now

 

[Orbit]

What of the quality of a "free" education?

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

How limited is availability?

The left chants "Free university education!",
but how is payment for it vs resource
allocation handled? Are taxes raised?
Can one get a PhD in a useless field at
great expense to the school & taxpayers?

Don't we admire past civilizations for their greatness in areas like philosophy (uselesss?), art (useless?), and literature (useless?)? I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of these fields as useless to a civilization.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do the 'benefits' need to be financial?
Isn't the purpose of a university education to increase one's appreciation of the world?
Schools teaching remunerative skills like medicine, computer science, or auto mechanics are not universities, they're trade schools.

It students don't benefit financially enuf to pay the
taxes cover the cost of their education, then this
imposes a burden upon the rest of society.

Where's the link for modern, authoritarian, socialistic liberals? That's what I was asking.

No link needed to contrast modern liberals vs classical liberals.
The former...
More economic regulation, bigger government,
more speech regulation, more of a police state,
more foreign adventurism (ie, policing the world),
massive intrusive social programs, group identity
tends to supersede individual rights.

The latter....
Smaller government, less regulation, more free
speech, minding our own business around the
world, supremacy of the individual.

 

[Revoltingest]

True, but a subjectively "worse" higher education is better than NO or lesser education considering paying for rent, bills, and school on your own without the help of dear old dad is nearly impossible in this day and age, and that gap is widening. Oh, also don't have kids or get sick or injured

I see it as providing free education to a certain level.
Thereafter, the individual pays. This would be
especially so for "hobby" fields, eg, art, philosophy,
which won't provide earning power to justify the
cost to taxpayers.

You're right that there's no free lunch, but like I said before, it's less about the education being "free" and more about it being "covered" by taxes. That's where the cost comes in, as uncomfortable as higher taxes are to pay

By the way, I know people with masters who are still paying them off when they are in their 40s and 50s and even 60s... That aint right

Those people should've considered the wisdom of
borrowing so much money when they had so little
earning potential to pay it back.
If their education isn't worth as much as they paid,
then they should've learned plumbing.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not debating that, only saying many are free..... you had no such parameters applied to your first post....therefore I have fulfilled my obligations the conversation.....nuff said

Now be happy this is a regular thread and not one of those other ones or I'd be talking about pie right about now

To describe an education system with the
single word "free", doesn't address the
problems created when it's given away
with no perceived cost.
Someone must pay, & there is pressure
to keep costs down. "Free" doesn't tell
us about the problems that we know
will arise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No!

Well then. Hell no! That does not sound very forgiving to me.