Quote:

In that case BOTH SIDES get fucked -- the lender AND the student -- but since both were willing participants that is equitable.

Quote:

This is one instance in which the mere entry into the racket was the crime; trying to parse out equitable results in accordance with traditional bankrupty law is just going to be an unholy mess all the way around.
-----
Excuse me but the Constitution explicitly charges the government with PRECISELY that -- a uniform bankruptcy code.

Concur: gov't full exit educational lending.
Concur: gov't exists to establish Uniform Code.
Concur: existing lenders and students are going to be hosed.

Posit: Present national contemplation of wholesale debt forgiveness is ONLY possible because 2000-2022 era 18 year-olds AS A CLASS are contractually incompetent WRT 5- to 6-figure lending.

Along the lines of your thesis that society cannot tolerate more than a few % of citizenry not going along with a prescribed behavior, this education lending falls into the same class. That is, normal litigation and prosecution is designed for the exception, not the main: most people abide, the few break laws/contracts. In this instance, it is mainstream. Entire swaths of society are involved. That's the definition of breakdown. Higher education is broken, period.

Get gov't out, let the industries (lending and higher ed) collapse. Regular law will prevent their resurrection--"regular", meaning no special carve-outs. If carve-outs exist, then new law to remove those tweaks would apply, as would presumably be the case for Options 1 and 2.

No dog in this fight. Couldn't care less about the past; it's done and baked in. Going forward, though, if the citizenry wants to have a decent--not perfect--shot at viability of higher education, then removal of the government involvement in any regard apart from "regular" law is the baseline.

Redress, though, is going to be a cluster, to the degree it is attempted.