[Excelsior]

I saw an interesting video on YouTube that got me thinking recently.

The student loan bubble has been discussed frequently in the mainstream media as of late. Some have proposed that this bubble is the next housing crisis, while others have been far more skeptical about its long term significance. Generally, it doesn't seem likely that the problem is going to be seriously addressed and/or totally dealt with anytime soon.

But could women change this?

As we all know, women make up the vast majority of students in higher education. The rapid increases in average debt burden of college graduates during the past cople of decades have been accompanied by equally rapid increases in the percentage of female students in higher education. As women have moved to dominate higher education, men have either been dropping out entirely or just seeking other means of professional progression that don't require expensive undergraduate/graduate degrees. The end result is simple: women are now holding the vast majority of that $1 Trillion+ student loan debt. The problem of the student loan bubble is, largely, a female one; men, because they've become a minority in higher education, simply aren't taking out as many loans. The whole "pay gap" issue only exacerbates this.

http://www.aauw.org/2014/07/08/women-and...loan-debt/
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/03/298800950/...e-wage-gap

Given this reality, is it not plausible that we could soon see the issue of student loan debt framed as a feminist/woman's rights problem? The logical steps are not hard to see:

"The burden of student loans rests primarily with women, who hold the majority of debt; this is inherently unequal, and it perpetuates inequality between men and women."

"Women are being punished for having countered centuries of opppression by coming to outnumber men in higher education; it is unfair that they must pay for this progress by carrying a vastly disproportionate share of the student loan debt"

"Women's progress is being harmed by their carrying a disproportionate share of student loan debt; they can't participate in the American dream (new home, house car, etc) the way men can because they are more likely to be in debt"

"Women's independence is threatened by their disproportionately high student loan burden, as the high debt encourages many women who would otherwise be independent to tie themselves to spouses (men who are likely in a better position than they are financially) who can help pay their debt. This limits female freedom and invites dangerous levels of dependence that can facilitate abuse!"

I could go on. There is plenty here for a politician to work for if he/she sees fit, and I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to predict that the masses will buy it. Remember that the women said politicians would be preaching primarily to (and whose economic fortunes the politician's policies would be primarily aimed to benefit) account for the majority of the electorate. As student loan debts have reached all time highs and the female-owned portion of said debts has also reached record levels, I could see more women in the near future (having incurred more debt than their predecessors and having grown up in a world in which far fewer men share that burden than in the past) finding sympathy with these ideas.

"Why shouldn't men carry their fair share? Women's education only benefits society, men included; it is only fair that we alleviate the undue and unjust burden placed upon women for their progress."

The consequences of this? If this issue were to become a matter of equality and gain serious traction with the more heavily indebted female electorate, I wouldn't be surprised to see it become a priority given our modern society's concern with gender egalitarianism. That could lead ultimately to some sort of resolution that either entirely eliminates of significantly relieves the burden (probably via some substantial degree of forgiveness), likely at the expense of those who didn't take on as much of it (disproportionately men). This would benefit the relatively few men who DO have substantial student loan debt, however, as they too would see some relief.

Just a thought.

[Quintus Curtius]

Good point.

Bottom line is that society will bend over backwards, forwards, and sideways to accommodate female discomfort. And they have a ready-made grab-bag of justifications that they'll use:

Debt is "holding women back"
Debt is "not her fault"
Debt is "due to income inequality"

So, they will either legislate to give them debt relief, or they will steal more from men.

[NilNisiOptimum]

Sadly, you are all too right.

And we know exactly how this will play out. Men who majored in STEM and who are able to pay back loans will be left holding the bag for women who majored in victim studies and thus cannot get a job that pays more than Starbucks.

Meanwhile, what impact will all the doom and gloom regarding debt do to the labor force? Is it possible that today's kindergarten class will see that very few jobs exist that would pay well enough to repay such debts? Would they be more likely to go the junior college route, where you can knock out half your classes for 15% of the cost?

As for the $1trillion out there right now, yes, taxpayers are screwed just like with the housing bubble.

[Onto]

It's a very good point Excelsior, and those quotes are downright scary. Could definitely see a politician using them.

The media, and the President have been harping on the issue a lot the past few years. It really does seem like there will be some type of massive loan forgiveness in the future with the taxpayers as a whole picking up the bill.

Another step towards socialism which is a governmental expression of the feminine.

[It_is_my_time]

Women are the majority of voters in the USA and the majority of student debt holders.

Both parties are forced to pander to women, the Democrats just go further. So no matter who is in power, eventually they will tax the middle class to pay for this debt bubble. It may not be a direct tax on your income or property. It may just be by printing money and inflation. Just like Bush and Obama bailing out rich CEO's and Unions by printing money and devaluing the US Dollar. Not a true tax, but one that hurts the middle class as the cost of food and energy skyrocket.

[solo]

Excellent prediction.

I made the mistake of taking on student debt myself. However, lately I've been thinking that maybe this wasn't a mistake at all. If all the debt is going to be absorbed by the government or dealt with by printing money, it's better to be among those who benefit from that policy than to be among those who get fucked over. Also, with increased inflation on the horizon, the cost of taking on debt is potentially reduced.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but in any case I'm certainly not in a hurry to pay back the "debt". Not when the money is just gonna be used to money to fund more feminism, environmental degradation and other evil ideologies that has taken over the West. With the money you pay back, the Higher Education Industrial Complex is just going to fuck over the next generation too.

One thing I learned from my experience with university education is that it is not enough to work hard, you have to work *smart*. Meritocracy on the labor market is mostly dead anyway. You have to be shrewd in order to get ahead these days. So I have more or less completely abandoned the idea of having a "career" myself. Instead I'm working on a plan to make money location independently now and try to enjoy the decline. It involves minimalism, stalling to pay back student debt for as long as possible and let inflation do its work, paying less taxes and instead giving more money directly to charities. Among other things.

Game the system. Or it will game you.

[Paracelsus]

(10-15-2014 04:52 AM)solo Wrote:  

Excellent prediction.

I made the mistake of taking on student debt myself. However, lately I've been thinking that maybe this wasn't a mistake at all. If all the debt is going to be absorbed by the government or dealt with by printing money, it's better to be among those who benefit from that policy than to be among those who get fucked over. Also, with increased inflation on the horizon, the cost of taking on debt is potentially reduced.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but in any case I'm certainly not in a hurry to pay back the "debt". Not when the money is just gonna be used to money to fund more feminism, environmental degradation and other evil ideologies that has taken over the West. With the money you pay back, the Higher Education Industrial Complex is just going to fuck over the next generation too.

The entire rationale behind hyperinflation, the whole reason it exists and why governments have used it again and again across the course of human history, is because it is a reliable force of debt avoidance en masse. It's a way of your government implicitly defaulting on its debts rather than explicitly, but it is still saying "No, I'm not paying you back, screw you" to the entire population at large.

So long as you can keep the interest rate low enough and keep your creditor from changing the terms of the loan, hyperinflation allows you to pay off debts at insane speed. If in hyperinflationary conditions a loaf of bread costs you the same amount as the principal remaining on your house loan, for example, then getting rid of your long-term, large debts is simple.

However -- and it's a big however -- it's a question of whether or not your creditor will still accept your worthless coinage. I have no doubt at all that if hyperinflation were to hit that all manner of credit controls would immediately be phased in preventing ordinary schmoes from giving themselves a dirty round of debt forgiveness.

The only reason a government gets away with hyperinflation is the inscription on each dollar bill: "This note is tender for all debts public and private", i.e. if the government pays you in dollars you cannot say "Stuff you, I may as well wipe my ass with those things, I want to be paid in gold." However, reality eventually sets in: in every case of historical hyperinflation, the black market eventually triumphs over the government's worthless currency and it's forced to issue a new currency that people will actually trust.

[Foolsgo1d]

I got into university right before they went to £9,000 per year for tuition fee's. I asked people what they thought of it and the majority, if not all of the remarks were; "who cares". Both men and women.

Its a hidden debt. The bankers won't come after you and it is gated behind a paywall you earn over a 10 year period. If you don't pay it back after a certain time then it becomes null and void.

[Vaun]

Its rare to meet a young women these days who doesn't have enormous student loan debt. I am talking $50K+ at 25. With all this talk for the last 15 years of "women outnumber men enrolled in colleges by blah blah" who do you think this debt is affecting more? I'd like to see some data on gender breakout for the amount of student loan debt.

[Feisbook Control]

(10-15-2014 04:52 AM)solo Wrote:  

Excellent prediction.

I made the mistake of taking on student debt myself. However, lately I've been thinking that maybe this wasn't a mistake at all. If all the debt is going to be absorbed by the government or dealt with by printing money, it's better to be among those who benefit from that policy than to be among those who get fucked over. Also, with increased inflation on the horizon, the cost of taking on debt is potentially reduced.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but in any case I'm certainly not in a hurry to pay back the "debt". Not when the money is just gonna be used to money to fund more feminism, environmental degradation and other evil ideologies that has taken over the West. With the money you pay back, the Higher Education Industrial Complex is just going to fuck over the next generation too.

One thing I learned from my experience with university education is that it is not enough to work hard, you have to work *smart*. Meritocracy on the labor market is mostly dead anyway. You have to be shrewd in order to get ahead these days. So I have more or less completely abandoned the idea of having a "career" myself. Instead I'm working on a plan to make money location independently now and try to enjoy the decline. It involves minimalism, stalling to pay back student debt for as long as possible and let inflation do its work, paying less taxes and instead giving more money directly to charities. Among other things.

Game the system. Or it will game you.

The problem with your rationale is this: unless you do actually leave the U.S. and escape to somewhere sane, the last thing you want is "inflation doing its work". Why? Because although inflation would do its work on eroding your debt, it would also do its work on eroding your purchasing power and quality of life. Imagine a very simple scenario. Say, over a one year period, your student debt is halved in real terms. Now also imagine that the price of everything you consume is doubled in real terms (i.e. you can only afford half as much of it). See the problem now? The "value" of your money can't change in one isolated situation, but remain the same everywhere else.

[heavy]

Yes, I realized this a couple years ago and stopped paying down my student loan. Unfortunately I'd already paid much of it.

If I could find a way to take out a student loan and invest it in real estate I would.

[The Beast1]

(10-15-2014 07:36 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 04:52 AM)solo Wrote:  

Excellent prediction.

I made the mistake of taking on student debt myself. However, lately I've been thinking that maybe this wasn't a mistake at all. If all the debt is going to be absorbed by the government or dealt with by printing money, it's better to be among those who benefit from that policy than to be among those who get fucked over. Also, with increased inflation on the horizon, the cost of taking on debt is potentially reduced.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but in any case I'm certainly not in a hurry to pay back the "debt". Not when the money is just gonna be used to money to fund more feminism, environmental degradation and other evil ideologies that has taken over the West. With the money you pay back, the Higher Education Industrial Complex is just going to fuck over the next generation too.

One thing I learned from my experience with university education is that it is not enough to work hard, you have to work *smart*. Meritocracy on the labor market is mostly dead anyway. You have to be shrewd in order to get ahead these days. So I have more or less completely abandoned the idea of having a "career" myself. Instead I'm working on a plan to make money location independently now and try to enjoy the decline. It involves minimalism, stalling to pay back student debt for as long as possible and let inflation do its work, paying less taxes and instead giving more money directly to charities. Among other things.

Game the system. Or it will game you.

The problem with your rationale is this: unless you do actually leave the U.S. and escape to somewhere sane, the last thing you want is "inflation doing its work". Why? Because although inflation would do its work on eroding your debt, it would also do its work on eroding your purchasing power and quality of life. Imagine a very simple scenario. Say, over a one year period, your student debt is halved in real terms. Now also imagine that the price of everything you consume is doubled in real terms (i.e. you can only afford half as much of it). See the problem now? The "value" of your money can't change in one isolated situation, but remain the same everywhere else.

As much as the banksters would love to inflate all of this mess away, there are powers to be that would stand to loss from such an event. I wouldn't be surprised if we have a coup of some sort at that point. A hyperinflationary event would set the stage for a revolution and the police would only be able to keep control in major cities. The military industrial complex doesn't always see eye to eye with the financial industry. There would be a coup before bread costs 350$ a loaf.

From the looks of it though, it seems that they're trying to lock away the cash into t-bonds. Though, I don't think investors are that stupid as to go running to those again.

The government can report these student loans as "assets" on their balance sheets because it's impossible to discharge them. I wouldn't be surprised if the government forgives the debtors by making a non-voting class of citizens. Complete conjecture here.

Follow the gold and then when difficult decisions need to be made, follow the guns.

[DannyAlberta]

looks like we are already there:

http://shfwire.com/node/8983

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24...08484.html

my two cents:

the us government is contributing significantly to student debt loads by guaranteeing all student loans in the event of default. this has driven the cost of university education in the usa up beyond all reason (my country is only a decade or so behind).

couple that with the fact that women continue to double down on liberal arts and other useless degrees and they end up with no earning potential to service a $50k plus debt after four years.

finally, there is little appetite in north america today to take any personal responsibility for bad personal financial choices. it is always someone else's fault, especially amongst the liberal/radical feminist and sjw crowd.

it all adds up to an eventual tax payer bail out for people with useless degrees and high debt-loads, which will be disproportionately borne by the productive members of society. how charming.

[Constitution45]

It goes against the natural law of cause and affect, will the large amounts of subsidies introduced to get women into the workforce, really produce anything substantial in the long run. Its a poor investment, and its not simply the case of encouraging women to get into the workforce. There is now a sense of stigma and shame surrounding those who chose to go through the family route when they are in their 20s.

[Basil Ransom]

Women don't exactly dominate higher education. Much of this "dominance" is at shitty junior and four year colleges. If you rounded up all the top colleges (private, public, LACs, engineering schools), you'd see that the sex ratios are even, or a lot closer to it.

[iop890]

(10-15-2014 08:00 AM)heavy Wrote:  

If I could find a way to take out a student loan and invest it in real estate I would.

I don't recommend it, but it would be easy to enroll in classes somewhere and then take out more loans. They offer way more than is necessary for tuition.

I get offered over $25k per year(more if I take summer classes) in loans that I turn down. I only accept a small fraction of them.





I haven't personally done this, but for anyone who wants to game the system:

1. Find a university with the right rules about study abroad. (one that doesn't limit you to one or two semesters, and grades classes abroad on a credit/no credit basis.)

2. Enroll and tell them you want to study abroad and that you'll find the program yourself.

3. Apply to a cheap but respectable university abroad in a cheap country. (Kasetsart in Bangkok for example)

4. Tuition should be much cheaper there (I saved $3000 per semester at Kasetsart, which more than paid for my flights.), but the government will still offer you the same amount of loans they would give you in the US, because you're still technically enrolled in an American uni, accept them.

5. Since the classes are credit/no credit, you can fail and retake them indefinitely without getting a failing grade on your transcript, it's like not getting a high enough score on a CLEP test, it doesn't penalize you, you just take it again. The Thai university won't say anything because you're paying them and they get to say they have a American student.

6. Enjoy your $25k a year in poosy paradise for doing nothing.

Alternatively, actually go to class and earn a few degrees you can put to use when the government inevitably figures out what you're doing and you get cut off.


There's got to be some major flaw in this, but I can't find it. Finding the right American uni might be tough, but I think it's possible.

[The Beast1]

(10-15-2014 12:21 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 08:00 AM)heavy Wrote:  

If I could find a way to take out a student loan and invest it in real estate I would.

I don't recommend it, but it would be easy to enroll in classes somewhere and then take out more loans. They offer way more than is necessary for tuition.

I get offered over $25k per year(more if I take summer classes) in loans that I turn down. I only accept a small fraction of them.





I haven't personally done this, but for anyone who wants to game the system:

1. Find a university with the right rules about study abroad. (one that doesn't limit you to one or two semesters, and grades classes abroad on a credit/no credit basis.)

2. Enroll and tell them you want to study abroad and that you'll find the program yourself.

3. Apply to a cheap but respectable university abroad in a cheap country. (Kasetsart in Bangkok for example)

4. Tuition should be much cheaper there (I saved $3000 per semester at Kasetsart, which more than paid for my flights.), but the government will still offer you the same amount of loans they would give you in the US, because you're still technically enrolled in an American uni, accept them.

5. Since the classes are credit/no credit, you can fail and retake them indefinitely without getting a failing grade on your transcript, it's like not getting a high enough score on a CLEP test, it doesn't penalize you, you just take it again. The Thai university won't say anything because you're paying them and they get to say they have a American student.

6. Enjoy your $25k a year in poosy paradise for doing nothing.

Alternatively, actually go to class and earn a few degrees you can put to use when the government inevitably figures out what you're doing and you get cut off.


There's got to be some major flaw in this, but I can't find it. Finding the right American uni might be tough, but I think it's possible.

You might be able to get away with this for intro level classes, but you're still going to have to complete the higher level classes back at your home university. Most colleges will only accept 100 level classes only as transfer credits which is what you're going to have getting the credits from a foreign university.

It would make more sense to enroll at some degree mill like the University of Phoenix and never complete the classes. Although, you might be able to take out f*ck all student loans, pay for the classes really cheaply, and then use the left overs to pay down the debt.

[solo]

(10-15-2014 07:36 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 04:52 AM)solo Wrote:  

Excellent prediction.

I made the mistake of taking on student debt myself. However, lately I've been thinking that maybe this wasn't a mistake at all. If all the debt is going to be absorbed by the government or dealt with by printing money, it's better to be among those who benefit from that policy than to be among those who get fucked over. Also, with increased inflation on the horizon, the cost of taking on debt is potentially reduced.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but in any case I'm certainly not in a hurry to pay back the "debt". Not when the money is just gonna be used to money to fund more feminism, environmental degradation and other evil ideologies that has taken over the West. With the money you pay back, the Higher Education Industrial Complex is just going to fuck over the next generation too.

One thing I learned from my experience with university education is that it is not enough to work hard, you have to work *smart*. Meritocracy on the labor market is mostly dead anyway. You have to be shrewd in order to get ahead these days. So I have more or less completely abandoned the idea of having a "career" myself. Instead I'm working on a plan to make money location independently now and try to enjoy the decline. It involves minimalism, stalling to pay back student debt for as long as possible and let inflation do its work, paying less taxes and instead giving more money directly to charities. Among other things.

Game the system. Or it will game you.

The problem with your rationale is this: unless you do actually leave the U.S. and escape to somewhere sane, the last thing you want is "inflation doing its work". Why? Because although inflation would do its work on eroding your debt, it would also do its work on eroding your purchasing power and quality of life. Imagine a very simple scenario. Say, over a one year period, your student debt is halved in real terms. Now also imagine that the price of everything you consume is doubled in real terms (i.e. you can only afford half as much of it). See the problem now? The "value" of your money can't change in one isolated situation, but remain the same everywhere else.

You're quite right, and that's why I am aiming to spend a large part of the year away from my home country (which is not the US by the way). Also, unless I'm mistaken here, for it to work the interest rate needs to be lower than the inflation rate (obviously).

If/when the USD and European currencies tank, I guess another requirement would be to earn your salary in another, relatively more valuable currency.

[vinman]

She got a $225,000 payday for a speech, and CONDEMNED student loan debt. Think about how ridiculous that sounds.

Quote:

Hillary Clinton Condemns Soaring Student Debt During $225K University Speech


The UNLV’s Board of Regents voted in June of this year to raise undergraduate tuition costs by 17% over the next four years. The vote was met with objection from students who pointed out that tuition costs have nearly tripled over the last ten years and that the costs are rising faster than the rate of inflation. UNLV students later requested that Clinton donate the money back to the UNLV Foundation, which provides scholarships to students.

http://benswann.com/hillary-clinton-cond...ty-speech/

[DannyAlberta]

^yes, nice of her to bill the students indirectly for more than most people make in a year while condemning the university for fleecing the students so badly. progressives are not required to be anything other than hypocrites in western society. and no one will ever call them on it save small corners of the interwebz.

"do as i say, not as i do!"

"that will be $5 for that pearl of wisdom please"

[Ensam]

(10-15-2014 09:32 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Women don't exactly dominate higher education. Much of this "dominance" is at shitty junior and four year colleges. If you rounded up all the top colleges (private, public, LACs, engineering schools), you'd see that the sex ratios are even, or a lot closer to it.

The shitty junior and four year colleges are precisely where most of the troublesome student debt is being racked up.

Graduating from Berkeley with 30k in debt will probably keep you from buying a house or a car for a few years but it's not going to ruin your life. Taking 5 years to graduate from a "two" year technical college with a certificate in cosmetology and 100k in debt is likely going to be very difficult to pay back.

[Anthony A. King]

I agree with everything you said.

It'll go down like this:

Women hold an unequal, disproportionate amount of debt the government will then forgive the loans made by them and bailout them out by paying taxpayer money to pay off the private loan debts-made by banks. Then there will be new arguments to be like Europe and have free-universal college education all payed for by a new tax (probably a "bachelor" tax, VAT, Sales tax, flat tax etc.) or by higher taxes in general.

They'll say this is fair for everyone and we'll have even more worthless degreed women coming out of college ruined as fuck.

Also this is yet another reason why not to get in an LTR with over-educated women because they hold enormous amounts of college debt in addition to their credit card debt and car loans. Their just one big sinking pile of debt looking for a lifeboat and either a Beta, the Government, or both will be that lifeboat.

[Hedonistic Traveler]

Personally I think the whole thing is bullshit, the government shouldn't be backing private loans to begin with. That's not the part the media talks about though which is unfortunate. Once shit hits the fan I don't think voters will be willing to step up and pay, especially with a shrinking middle class.

As far as debt forgiveness goes, it won't happen in the US. I know that Australia forgives everything after ten years, but that's not our style. Honestly I'm thankful for that. I worked hard to keep my spending down in school, I don't want to bail out morons who lack foresight, you'll just be doing it again in the future. And the argument that they are just kids is weak too. At 18 you can get married, go to war, get the death penalty. You should be capable of financial planning too.

Also here an interesting article I saw earlier this year on this.

NPR- Student Debt Weighs Down Women More

NPR, a liberal site, goes to bat for a 27-year-old with $75,000 in debt over a hospitality degree. Even making $75,000 a year isn't enough, as she has to pay car payments, credit card bills, and student loans. Thankfully the top comment calls her out, letting her know that she has a "spending problem" not an income problem.

That's really the issue with these people today, at least in my view. I know so many 23 and 24-year olds who are convinced they deserve to live the same lifestyle of their parents. Their level of entitlement is off the fucking charts. No one wants to put in hard work, and they're all incapable of delaying gratification.

This article does mention that the whole $.77 thing is now the $.93 thing, but I feel like that will never catch on.

Also, does anyone have numbers on the average debt for college grads by gender? I know that 70% of students graduate with debt, averaging $30k each, but I can't find gender information. I saw a passing reference that men and women graduate with roughly equal debt, but no citation. I know that single women average more debt than single men, but I'm not sure how early that starts.

Also fuck all the millennials who blame the boomers for all of this. If you're going to play that game wouldn't it just be the Boomers' parents fault? It's like a fucking Russian doll blame-game thing going on.

[Feisbook Control]

(10-15-2014 08:28 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 07:36 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 04:52 AM)solo Wrote:  

Excellent prediction.

I made the mistake of taking on student debt myself. However, lately I've been thinking that maybe this wasn't a mistake at all. If all the debt is going to be absorbed by the government or dealt with by printing money, it's better to be among those who benefit from that policy than to be among those who get fucked over. Also, with increased inflation on the horizon, the cost of taking on debt is potentially reduced.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but in any case I'm certainly not in a hurry to pay back the "debt". Not when the money is just gonna be used to money to fund more feminism, environmental degradation and other evil ideologies that has taken over the West. With the money you pay back, the Higher Education Industrial Complex is just going to fuck over the next generation too.

One thing I learned from my experience with university education is that it is not enough to work hard, you have to work *smart*. Meritocracy on the labor market is mostly dead anyway. You have to be shrewd in order to get ahead these days. So I have more or less completely abandoned the idea of having a "career" myself. Instead I'm working on a plan to make money location independently now and try to enjoy the decline. It involves minimalism, stalling to pay back student debt for as long as possible and let inflation do its work, paying less taxes and instead giving more money directly to charities. Among other things.

Game the system. Or it will game you.

The problem with your rationale is this: unless you do actually leave the U.S. and escape to somewhere sane, the last thing you want is "inflation doing its work". Why? Because although inflation would do its work on eroding your debt, it would also do its work on eroding your purchasing power and quality of life. Imagine a very simple scenario. Say, over a one year period, your student debt is halved in real terms. Now also imagine that the price of everything you consume is doubled in real terms (i.e. you can only afford half as much of it). See the problem now? The "value" of your money can't change in one isolated situation, but remain the same everywhere else.

As much as the banksters would love to inflate all of this mess away, there are powers to be that would stand to loss from such an event. I wouldn't be surprised if we have a coup of some sort at that point. A hyperinflationary event would set the stage for a revolution and the police would only be able to keep control in major cities. The military industrial complex doesn't always see eye to eye with the financial industry. There would be a coup before bread costs 350$ a loaf.

You could well be right on this. The government is not a unified force, and there are plenty within it (not just in the military) who dislike the financial sector. It could very well be that come the next financial crisis, Wall Street gets thrown under the bus so the rest of the establishment can (try to) save its own skin. You're not the first to suggest this possibility by any means, and I think the general populace would be silly enough to go along with it.

As for inflation itself, it's not just that the bankers are trying to inflate the debt away. The government needs the printing presses as much as the bankers. Even if the government threw the bankers under the bus during the next financial crisis, they'd still have the rather inconvenient problem of out of control spending, approximately 50% of the population being a net drain on government finances, etc. Once the bankers were scapegoated, who then? Of course, even if they could possibly find another scapegoat (some section of the middle class?), then it would be less successful because those people would either have less money or they'd have panicked and moved a lot of their wealth offshore or underground after seeing what happened to the bankers. They might not have had any sympathies for the bankers, but at some level, they might have had an understanding that they might be next and taken appropriate counter-measures. I have a friend who grew up in Argentina. His parents had a business. In those days (there probably still are), there were all sorts of informal networks for moving money out of the country, and anyone with half a brain had his money offshore. That, no doubt, further hobbled Argentina because there was a lot of capital that wasn't being deployed within the country to get it out of its mess.

There's also another issue with inflation, namely that it doesn't have to be Zimbabwe or Weimar Republic style hyperinflation to be really pernicious. Inflation of 7% halves purchasing power in a decade. If sites such as Shadowstats are to be believed, then the U.S. is currently not far off that figure anyway. That kind of inflation level is the kind that boils the frog. People know that things are not quite right, but it's not so dramatic that they're ready to take up pitchforks and torches, at least not immediately. That's a U.S. as Argentina rather than U.S. as Zimbabwe style scenario, i.e. a long, sorry decline. It's still not good.

Quote:

From the looks of it though, it seems that they're trying to lock away the cash into t-bonds. Though, I don't think investors are that stupid as to go running to those again.

I agree. You can fleece the sheep indefinitely, but you can only skin it once.

Quote:

The government can report these student loans as "assets" on their balance sheets because it's impossible to discharge them. I wouldn't be surprised if the government forgives the debtors by making a non-voting class of citizens. Complete conjecture here.

Follow the gold and then when difficult decisions need to be made, follow the guns.

You could be right about creating a non-voting class of citizens, but I think it would be quite a hard sell without serious guns to back it up. Who would stand to lose the most by a non-voting class of citizen being created? Basically, women and minorities, and therefore, the Democrats. There'd also be white knights from (white, conservative) men who believe in liberal democracy and universal suffrage. You're basically talking about winding the clock back on progressivism. Whilst I would like to see that, it's not going to come about without a coup and/ore serious civil unrest, in which case it's going to be fascism, rather than a return to a limited republic.

[Paracelsus]

(10-16-2014 12:22 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 08:28 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 07:36 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 04:52 AM)solo Wrote:  

Excellent prediction.

I made the mistake of taking on student debt myself. However, lately I've been thinking that maybe this wasn't a mistake at all. If all the debt is going to be absorbed by the government or dealt with by printing money, it's better to be among those who benefit from that policy than to be among those who get fucked over. Also, with increased inflation on the horizon, the cost of taking on debt is potentially reduced.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but in any case I'm certainly not in a hurry to pay back the "debt". Not when the money is just gonna be used to money to fund more feminism, environmental degradation and other evil ideologies that has taken over the West. With the money you pay back, the Higher Education Industrial Complex is just going to fuck over the next generation too.

One thing I learned from my experience with university education is that it is not enough to work hard, you have to work *smart*. Meritocracy on the labor market is mostly dead anyway. You have to be shrewd in order to get ahead these days. So I have more or less completely abandoned the idea of having a "career" myself. Instead I'm working on a plan to make money location independently now and try to enjoy the decline. It involves minimalism, stalling to pay back student debt for as long as possible and let inflation do its work, paying less taxes and instead giving more money directly to charities. Among other things.

Game the system. Or it will game you.

The problem with your rationale is this: unless you do actually leave the U.S. and escape to somewhere sane, the last thing you want is "inflation doing its work". Why? Because although inflation would do its work on eroding your debt, it would also do its work on eroding your purchasing power and quality of life. Imagine a very simple scenario. Say, over a one year period, your student debt is halved in real terms. Now also imagine that the price of everything you consume is doubled in real terms (i.e. you can only afford half as much of it). See the problem now? The "value" of your money can't change in one isolated situation, but remain the same everywhere else.

As much as the banksters would love to inflate all of this mess away, there are powers to be that would stand to loss from such an event. I wouldn't be surprised if we have a coup of some sort at that point. A hyperinflationary event would set the stage for a revolution and the police would only be able to keep control in major cities. The military industrial complex doesn't always see eye to eye with the financial industry. There would be a coup before bread costs 350$ a loaf.

You could well be right on this. The government is not a unified force, and there are plenty within it (not just in the military) who dislike the financial sector. It could very well be that come the next financial crisis, Wall Street gets thrown under the bus so the rest of the establishment can (try to) save its own skin. You're not the first to suggest this possibility by any means, and I think the general populace would be silly enough to go along with it.

As for inflation itself, it's not just that the bankers are trying to inflate the debt away. The government needs the printing presses as much as the bankers.

The only thought I had here was that it's never really a bank that wants massive, runaway inflation. Ultimately banks operate on the margin between loans out versus deposits in: runaway inflation is a double killer because you can neither work out the correct rate of interest to charge and the deposits in your bank in the same currency grow ever more worthless as time goes on. If hyperinflationary conditions, if as a bank you for a single day stop tracking the real interest rate and the real value of the currency in your vaults, you're dead. Hyperinflation kills the real value of a debt owed to a bank, which is why banks hate it and why in hyperinflationary conditions credit basically does not exist.

The prime, direct beneficiaries of hyperinflation are always government, mainly because their monopoly on legal tender means only they can benefit from being able to inflate their debts away. Time and again, back to Constantine's halving the precious metal content of his coins, governments always rack up too much debt and inflate their currency in order to pay for it. I say "pay for it" advisedly, because as said inflating your currency is still a default on the real value of your debt, it's just a subtler way of defaulting.