The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
Fact: There is no immunity or protection against The Law of Scoreboards.
Did you know: What the media does NOT want you to read is at
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)
Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie
User Info Student Loan 'Forgiveness'?; entered at 2022-05-01 14:36:16
Posts: 186606
Registered: 2007-06-26
@Evergreen -
If the "policing" entities for student lending set about to prequalify students based upon their demonstrated ability to understand the concept and the obligation and explain their intended career prospects, then you'd have a competent-enough adult ready for signing such a contract. The fact that nothing like this exists is evidence that this fraud is by design and widely accepted by the industry. There should be room here for class actions--and successful ones at that. Talk about predatory lending...

And? If you can make the argument bring the lawsuit.

There is no quibble with getting government out of the business of lending. There IS quibble with allowing the government to be a broker or arbiter of remedies. 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.

Either you didn't read it or you don't give a fuck when YOUR PET CAUSE has it in the way. If the latter you're no better than the colleges, and you should get the same treatment.
Option 3 is arguably the only solution. #2 being opt-in would cause all hell, because the education process is not much different than physical conditioning: once your trainer has run you through the process, the gain is in the bag. In the case of education, the degree is the nut, but the knowledge is variably valuable, making a strategic default valuable to the student in certain instances.

So what? The demand for the perfect is the enemy of the good.

In a huge percentage of these "professions" these are licensed and a degree is a requirement. If the credits and degree are revoked so is the license. Poof -- there goes the bar card, the MD, the PE, etc.

Does this solve ALL the problems? No, but it stops a HUGE percentage of the strategic defaults. You don't have to stop them ALL, you just have to make it unprofitable and it won't happen very often, never mind it going into the underwriting decision on a forward basis for loans.
If industry fraud vitiates the contract, then the student is arguably a victim, in which case there is cause for redress. Seizure of degrees is contractual remedy, but the contract is void. Whence the redress? The kid is out four years of his life plus expenses. Who pays? Government (taxpayer)? This goes all to hell no matter which way it's cut.

Then sue. The kid has no degree because he didn't pay but the university owes him for the years of his life that he was rooked out of.

That's what due process of law IS.

On the other hand if in fact the "kid" (really an adult) entered into the agreement voluntarily, knew damn well there was no market for what he or she learned at the time or failed to do ANY sort of diligence (that is, they weren't misled, they took Gender Studies KNOWING there was no other job than teaching Gender Studies!) then THEY were willing co-conspirators in the scheme and in that case they get NOTHING. They can either pay the loans as agreed or go bankrupt and toss 'em, but if they do the latter they have no degree and no credits. They're owed nothing for their four or six or whatever years because they willingly engaged in the scheme.

That's the POINT of bankruptcy -- you willingly engaged, you were wrong, the other side had superior information (simply on volume) and gave you the loan anyway so you throw off the debt, they lose the money and you lose whatever property you allegedly "bought" but didn't pay for.

In this case, the credential AND CREDIT for the time in school.

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

2022-05-01 14:36:16