The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
There is not a single person burdened by student loan debt who
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:17 AM Author: Disgusting odious church keepsake machete Doesn't have theirself to blame for their predicament. Zero sympathy from me no matter how many sob stories you throw my way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15953871) |
 |
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:22 AM Author: geriatric lascivious milk place of business the economy is to blame. was i supposed to have a crystal ball and see that the economy was coming? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15953920) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:25 AM Author: Disgusting odious church keepsake machete You were supposed to live within your means and not overextend yourself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15953957) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:26 AM Author: geriatric lascivious milk place of business i wasn't overextended until the economy came. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15953969) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:26 AM Author: cobalt nibblets so you're ok with a rigid class system in which the lower classes rarely, if ever, have any social mobility. that's lovely. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15953977) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:27 AM Author: Burgundy disrespectful temple cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15954488) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 9:15 AM Author: Disgusting odious church keepsake machete That's the most absurd conclusion reached by anyone on the history of xoxo. How on earth did you get a single LSAT logical reasoning question correct? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15955083) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 11:29 AM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth How much did you personally save for UG and Law School? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15955625) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:42 PM Author: Disgusting odious church keepsake machete I paid for lawschool in cash. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956015) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:44 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin What was law school like in the pre-internet era? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956027) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:46 PM Author: Disgusting odious church keepsake machete Wouldn't know, class of 07 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956042) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:47 PM Author: mind-boggling brindle state Whose? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956043) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:49 PM Author: Disgusting odious church keepsake machete Mine. I worked for it prior to lawschool, saved, acted responsibly and went to a school with a reasonable tuition and graduated debt free. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956057) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:56 PM Author: mind-boggling brindle state Pre-Great Depression 2.0 was the reason there was a job that enabled you to save anything. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956093) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:12 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate Go to an in-state school and/or a school that offers a healthy scholarship and your debt load will be manageable even if you can't save prior to school. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956179) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:23 PM Author: mind-boggling brindle state Plenty of those in state schools are expensive also. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956232) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:25 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate But not MASSIVEDEBTPWNAGE expensive, right? I obviously haven't looked at all 100 or whatever state schools' tuition recently, though.
|
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:31 PM Author: mind-boggling brindle state Plenty of states give minimal funding to their universities and/ or have college presidents with an explicit policy of tuition raises. You're either stuck there or can spend years establishing residency elsewhere and they will often try to ding you if they think you moved just to come to their colleges. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956287) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:40 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate I'm not convinced establishing residency is that hard in many states with good universities, nor that there are very many universities that charge in-state tuition that would result in massive debt-pwnage.
|
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:44 PM Author: mind-boggling brindle state Well, the original point is about LS and they usually do have separate, higher tuition rates. Getting residency is also a significant investment of time and money. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956376) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:47 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate I'm even less sympathetic for law school. Any non-moron can get a pretty good law school scholarship, and you certainly don't need to go to law school to get a decent job (decent obviously being a relative term). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956392) |
|
Date: December 4th, 2010 5:28 AM Author: racy locus generalized bond (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#16717299) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2010 8:30 AM Author: bistre vigorous ticket booth "a school with a reasonable tuition"
new euphemism for shitty law school |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:44 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth Personally? Some people don't want to be 40 and then go to law school.
xoxo hth. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:48 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate "Some people don't want to be 40 and then go to law school."
They are more than welcome to take on massive debt obligations if they so choose. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:48 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth Work paid for my MBA...I would have done it myself anyway. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956406) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:58 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate That's great. I'm not saying that massive debt is a good idea, just that you need to weigh it against the benefits it provides in comparison to other options. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956470) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:01 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth It's a moving target. Debt isn't necessarily bad, but the crushing payments probably are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956492) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:04 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
If your payments are "crushing," then maybe the debt was a bad idea.
|
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:20 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth Thanks miss cleo. Tell me my future. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956624) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:18 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma This is why lenders should be partly responsible for evaluating the investment. I.e. bankruptcy.
Making a dumb investment? Don't worry, you probably won't get financing anyway. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:28 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate I agree with this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956661) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:38 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth agreed. They shouldn't have special protections.
Let them feel the pain. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:39 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma The result is that they simply won't make loans. Which is exactly what we want to happen.
Of course with Obama's overhaul, "they" is the government, so that pain is visited upon the taxpayers. End that first. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:42 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth I'm not arguing that at all. They need to stop at the source, however.
$40K to teach 120 students at a time plessy v. ferguson?
Not on my watch...or dime. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:49 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Lol so you're saying that the government basically needs to take over the administration of all higher education, setting the prices, managing costs, etc.
Rofl rofl rofl welcome to the new public education system K-20 instead of K-12.
No man. Free market. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:52 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth Lord no. Individual consumers need to make their own choices.
Where the fuck did you get that out of my previous post? |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:59 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma But when people inevitably make wrong choices, or events just conspire against them, then they are simply unable to pay. Who pays then in your scenario? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956879) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:55 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth I fucking do.
Who else? |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:16 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Then why would they care about making the right choice? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957528) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:28 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth Quit trying to make your right everyone else's.
Dear Jesus: Get off the cross.
The rest of the people need the fucking wood. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 5:57 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma By the right choice, I mean taking out a loan they will be able to repay as opposed to just abusing the system. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15958363) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:51 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin Again. It is a fucked up way to arrange society that you are proposing. The social democratic countries in Europe don't place their young people in this position.
Why should we?
What great benefits are we deriving from shifting all the risk to an 18 year old? |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:54 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth He wants to create a class system in the US that never, ever really existed.
Social register anyone? |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:59 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate WTF are you talking about? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956480) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:01 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth 1890 and the gilded age (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956495) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:04 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate Ok, so, something totally irrelevant to anything I've posted. Got it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956521) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:15 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth Try to keep up (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956588) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:29 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate Hard to keep up with irrelevant, all over the map ramblings, dooder. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956667) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:31 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth You seem to have your panties in a bunch. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956683) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:33 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate See what I mean? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956706) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:45 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth I do, but I have a different take on the conclusion you make. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956782) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:46 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate That's fine. I'll interact with the people that are making cogent posts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956787) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:49 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth Carry on then. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956805) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:59 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate "It is a fucked up way to arrange society that you are proposing."
Um, the only thing I'm proposing is that people not pay ridiculous tuition for schools that provide minimal or no advantages over cheaper schools. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:53 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin Also waiting until your 35 to go to graduate school is a bad idea because employers engage in age discrimination.
The personal responsibility meme (which really means shifting all the risk in society to individuals) on xoxo is a joke. It leads to less class mobility, a higher concentration of wealth in the top 1%. What are its benefits? |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:00 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate "What are its benefits?"
Lower tuition and less tuition/oan-funded educational bloat and debt.
|
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 11:27 AM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate I'll take "False Dichotomies" for $500, Alex. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15955616) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:28 AM Author: Adulterous drab becky There are definitely ID theft cases that burden the wrong person with debt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15953989) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 9:17 AM Author: Disgusting odious church keepsake machete Notice I'm not talking about people who involuntarily had thei I'D stolen from them (which accounts for what? .0000001% of the student loan debt if that?) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15955086) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 11:27 AM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate While not quite as strident, I'm mostly in agreement.
"Waaaah! But everyone said it was good debt! waaaaah!" |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:43 PM Author: Judgmental hairraiser internal respiration TITCPWN (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956021) |
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:18 AM Author: demanding marketing idea what about people who barely fail to meet the high standard for discharge due to disability? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15953882) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:19 AM Author: Disgusting odious church keepsake machete What? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15953890) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:29 AM Author: demanding marketing idea bankruptcy courts can discharge a debtor's student loans if he or she is disabled, but the standard for disability for this kind of discharge is almost impossible to meet. it's much harder to meet than the standard used by the social security administration, for example - a doctor has to testify that you'll never be able to work at all in any field for the rest of your life.
no one thinks about this shit when they sign up for loans. do you really have no sympathy for people who are bankrupt, disabled, and still being called by their student lenders when they can barely talk on the phone? |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:22 AM Author: cerebral ebony factory reset button "do you really have no sympathy for people who are bankrupt, disabled, and still being called by their student lenders when they can barely talk on the phone?"
why are they answering the phone? |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 11:37 AM Author: Excitant Macaca These people should have had a large enough disability insurance policy to cover their loan payments. These policies are not expensive. (Likely, they would only need a small supplement to an employer-provided disability insurance.) Case closed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15955661) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:23 AM Author: buff underhanded ladyboy I felt bad for that doctor who wound up with $500K in loans due mostly to fees and compound interest. It's not as if she was studying art history at NYU. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15953931) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:23 AM Author: Dashing Nursing Home If she had made payments instead of sticking her head in the sand it wouldnt have compounded to that extent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15954465) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:27 AM Author: hairless cruise ship stock car cool story bro (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15953982) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:27 AM Author: geriatric lascivious milk place of business cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15953986) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:25 AM Author: Crawly amethyst library well that's cute. but what's your solution to the debt bubble at large? it'd be one thing if student loan implications were confined to the loanholders themselves, but the bubble has inflated to system-threatening levels.
now what? |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 9:13 AM Author: Multi-colored Laser Beams Range no interest on loans that are federally guaranteed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15955080) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 9:14 AM Author: Disgusting odious church keepsake machete Hold deadbeats feet to the fire. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15955082) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 11:17 AM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin blood from a stone (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15955571) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:43 PM Author: Crawly amethyst library *obtains wage garnishment order against unemployed dude*
*waits for it...*
*waits for it...*
*waits for it...* |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:47 PM Author: Disgusting odious church keepsake machete Eventually he'll be employed and have to pay back loans and interest. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956049) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:07 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin * gets 15 dollar an hour job* * has 3 dollars garnished by govt* * spends no money beyond rent* * Guy Noir wonders why American economy can't grow* |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:34 PM Author: greedy locale *3 dollars goes to loan provider*
*loan provider pays employees* |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:43 PM Author: Crusty exciting den *loan provider employees go to starbucks and buy $7 coffee from original debtor/starbucks manager* *starbucks gives original debtor a raise to $16/hr* *$3.20 goes to loan provider* |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:45 PM Author: greedy locale YAY CAPITALSISM (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956382) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 11:30 AM Author: contagious tripping toilet seat stead This is retarded. Plenty of T14 kids at non-HYS schools have massive debt and got shut out b/c of ITE. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15955630) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:45 PM Author: big wagecucks chapel assessing risk should be part of a comprehensive life plan. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956036) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 7:55 PM Author: peach house-broken persian gaping Top economists didn't see ITE coming but we were supposed to fully plan for it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15959067) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:46 PM Author: Disgusting odious church keepsake machete So what? No one put a gun to their head and said "sign here". They took out the loans, they owe the obligations, end of story.
Or tell you what, I'll agree to that taxpayers should foot the bill for student loan debt if they agree to pay off my mortgage. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:47 PM Author: Crawly amethyst library people with no money generally can't pay for jack shit. that's why we're in this mess to begin with. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956044) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:50 PM Author: Disgusting odious church keepsake machete That doesn't mean we have to foot the bill. ITE won't last forever and they'll have to scrimp and save until they're debt free (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956066) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:51 PM Author: Crawly amethyst library lol; good luck with that. that'll work about as well as telling all the underwater mortgage holders to just suck it up and eat shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956075) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:56 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma LOL dude, SOMEONE is going to foot the bill and it's not the individuals. These loans are pure shit and would never have been made in the first place if the government didn't command it.
I say let people declare bankruptcy and STOP making loans. Free market reign FTW. Higher ed financing becomes very difficult to get. Colleges declare bankruptcy, downsize or close altogether, faggot professors have to go find something productive to do. All of this is replaced with cheap trade schools and vocational training programs. People work more and go to school less and easily cash flow all their schooling, or get financing because it's a reasonable investment. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:13 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate I don't see how those two sentences are related. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956183) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:45 PM Author: Garnet wonderful station This is dumb (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956032) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:16 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin + 1.
I'll leave aside ITE.
People respond to the rules of society. The American economy has been structured that the dominant method of getting on a decent career track* is taking out significant loans to fund an education. It is a horrible system that places young people in the position of either avoiding the best career tracks due to risk avoidance or entering a winner take all system.
* by decent I'm not talking xoxo standards, rather starting salaries of 50k. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:18 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate "The American economy has been structured that the dominant method of getting on a decent career track* is taking out significant loans to fund an education."
I don't think that's true. Getting an education: yes. Significant loans: that obviously depends on what "significant" means, but I don't think massive loans are the dominant means of getting a good job. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:24 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Yeah, the massive loans are a relatively recent phenomenon. The obsession with education is a bit more long-standing, and it has a few problems itself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956242) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:27 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate IMO, the biggest problem has been people's willingness to spend whatever some school is asking, without any critical consideration regarding whether it's worth it in comparison to other schools.
Is the "feel" of that private liberal arts college really worth an extra $20,000/yr in comparison to your in-state university? |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:42 PM Author: motley parlor Assessing your risk and making a critical comparison to other schools is difficult because the schools are actively and perniciously misrepresenting their employment data. For example, Tulane law school says that 100% of the class of 2009 is employed with an average salary of $97k. All we have to go on are the bullshit numbers they cook up to feed US News. Now, we know that those numbers are bullshit, in part because of low reporting, but where is a prospective student supposed to go to get the real numbers? Are they supposed to trust a few anonymous assholes on the internet? If anything, I'd like to see the govt require that any school that accepts federal student loans provide accurate employment data for all its programs. Of course, schools would shit a brick if this were to happen. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:46 PM Author: mind-boggling brindle state Tie federal funding to price controls on tuition. That'll be a shit sandwich I'd pay to watch them eat. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956386) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:48 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin I agree completely with your last paragraph. It is absolute insanity that the average prospective student is better off reading fucking XOXO than checking "official" employment statistics.
I hope this is one area were conservatives/libertarians can find common cause with lefties. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:19 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Better yet, no federal funding at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956621) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:57 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate "Assessing your risk and making a critical comparison to other schools is difficult because the schools are actively and perniciously misrepresenting their employment data."
yeah, I agree with that, but it's not hard to assess one key variable: cost.
"Tulane law school says that 100% of the class of 2009 is employed" Well, no it doesn't.
"we know that those numbers are bullshit, in part because of low reporting, but where is a prospective student supposed to go to get the real numbers? Are they supposed to trust a few anonymous assholes on the internet?"
Not sure, but if you're seriously considering investing $100,000 in tuition alone, I say do some thorough research and at least consider the anonymous assholes online.
"If anything, I'd like to see the govt require that any school that accepts federal student loans provide accurate employment data for all its programs."
Word |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:23 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin Not sure, but if you're seriously considering investing $100,000 in tuition alone, I say do some thorough research and at least consider the anonymous assholes online.
Part of the problem is the prospective students families as well. It isn't just school numbers but parents who instill the message that education pays. It is pretty foolish to expect that most conscientious young people, will have the strength to ignore school numbers and their parents advice because of comments on a message board known for N-threading. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:30 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate I don't think xoxo is the *only* source of information online.
I agree that there is a message sent by many that any type of educational debt is "good debt." I expect that message will change as people feel the pain of massive debt. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:12 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma I agree that is the biggest problem in a way. But the additional problem is the availability of unlimited credit through the federal government for any education whatsoever. Individuals are making dumb decisions about debt, but it's not their money they are spending. So of course they are making dumb decisions. With things like IBR, people are even more likely to make bad decisions.
The person who ultimately needs to undertake the critical consideration of the investment is the person whose money is being spent. In our sad state of affairs, that person is the taxpayer. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:51 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma The sob story I would tell you is the one about our economy and the way that this shit impacts smart decisionmakers like you and me who end up paying four times as much for our education as we should have because of all the idiocy.
I could not care less about the individual dipshit saddled with too much debt. I'm just mad that (a) we as taxpayers WILL be bailing out these faggots through IBR etc. (b) I had to pay WAY more for my education than I should have been able to because of all the fucktards willing to pay anything, and ABLE to pay anything thanks to the govt. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:14 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate titcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956186) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2010 10:37 AM Author: mildly autistic wrinkle titcp (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#16889316) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:48 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site As one of those sad losers with tons of debt, I agree with you. Nobody is ever forced to take on debt. It was a decision I made, almost a gamble, and I lost. That's life and shit happens. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956397) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:52 PM Author: Wine immigrant TTT and poor growing up. TTT and poor going down. DIE FAGGOT (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956421) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:53 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site If that's my lot in life, so be it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956430) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:57 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site It's ridiculous that anyone would say taking out a ton of loans for college is the only way to get ahead in our society.
Are you seriously going to say that the person who takes out 100k to attend NYU UG to major in History is going to get "ahead" over someone who goes to community college for 2 years, transfers to UCLA, majors in Engineering, and graduates with little to no debt?
Law school is the same thing. Everybody that posts on this board probably had a chance to go to a lower ranked school with a substantial scholarship. You didn't take it because you would rather take out 160k in student loans so you have a better chance at BIGLAW. It was a gamble some won and some lost. If you lost, don't be crying since that's the decision you made |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:02 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate word (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956505) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:06 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin It isn't crying, people who complain about debtor bailouts do far more whining about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, rather it is about a desire for reform to build a better system for future students.
We don't have to arrange society on the current gamble structure that we use now. It was set up to benefit lenders and Universities, at the expense of students.
Allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy would solve a lot of problems in hiring education and not just LS. Tuition would go down. Students would be pushed into productive majors. TTT would be forced to shut down.
|
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:09 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate To be fair, a lot of it is just whining. I'm in total agreement that we should reform higher education funding, but I think part of that is allowing people to feel the pain of poor loan/school choices. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956554) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:16 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin Two Things.
1. I don't think the let's inflict a lot of pain on this generation because it will cause the next generation to make better choices will work. Students have carried all the risk of student loans for a decade and yet we still see tuition sky-rocketing. As long as the best career tracks require rich parents or debt*, students have no choice but to take on the debt if they want a reasonable chance at a decent life.
2. Your argument about feeling pain is just a argument against bankruptcy in general. One of the major reasons we allow bankruptcy in other areas is because we don't lives to be a never ending pain because of a bad mistake. Are you against bankruptcy in general?
* I know we disagree on this point. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:33 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate I don't think we're in much disagreement re: point 2. I don't think student loans need to be treated substantially differently in bankruptcy than all other loans.
We are in disagreement on point 1. Social messages take a long time to change, and the phenomenon of lots of people getting lots of loans to spend lots of money at private colleges is relatively recent.
Also, the best career tracks can be acheived through public institutions and scholarships. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:18 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth They need to stop including scholarships for poor people into the cost of people that pay full freight.
I'm looking at you WUSTL |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:12 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site Simple solution is to get the gov't out of the student loans business. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956579) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:19 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin Actually it worked fine the first decade when we allowed students to declare bankruptcy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956617) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:20 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site I was including that in the idea of getting them out of the student loan business.
No gov't guarantees on loans, and allow student loans to be discharged.
|
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:35 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Cr. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956722) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:35 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Lol no, you don't have the government on one hand saying here you can spend as much as you want for anything, and then on the other hand allow everyone to discharge it.
Private parties making student loans only when they think it is profitable, considering that bankruptcy is an option. That's the way to do it.
Hint: there won't be a lot of student loans. Universities will have to downsize and people will have to cashflow education. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:08 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth The middle class bearing the burden. Not every state has a UCLA level school (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956547) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:09 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site Lol, fuck UCLA.
Substitute UCLA with "[Insert State] State" and my argument still holds. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:15 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth Nope. How many states even have a T50 public undergrad?
Fuck yourself. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:17 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site Lol, let's talk real world, instead of XOXO master man world, where the only way to get ahead in society is to go to HYP undergrad and then HBS or YLS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956600) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:19 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth I did HBS, but I went to Chicago for undergrad. Want to talk about it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956616) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:21 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site Lol, exactly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956629) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:23 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth Chicago is not HYP. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956640) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:17 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin So basically you think the elite schools should only be for rich kids or non-rich kids who take a "gamble" in your words.
That is great for social mobility, which is already crappy in the US compared to other developed countries. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:19 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site Look above, I already addressed this.
You are living in XOXO wonder world where HYP are the only schools that count |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:26 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth Nobody said that...but many don't have good options on the cheap end. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956653) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:27 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin Not at all, I'm just living in the real world.
There is a significant relationship between school quality and career earnings. Your solution for people born poor/middle class is that they just accept having a far less likelihood of getting good jobs.
The end result of your program will be less social mobility and a weaker meritocracy. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:28 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site There is an even larger relationship between major and career earnings.
If you really think majoring in Art History at UC Berkeley will give you a better career with higher earning potential than majoring in Computer Science from Ole Miss, than so be it, preach on. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:29 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth He's a Rockefeller. He'll fund us for school...I'm sure of it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956672) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:38 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate "There is a significant relationship between school quality and career earnings."
Not when adjusting for pre-college grades/test scores.
Dude A with 4.0/1400 is likely to earn the same as Dude B with same stats, regardless of college. Looking for the link to a study.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003355302320935089:
"Using the College and Beyond data set and National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972, we find that students who attended more selective colleges earned about the same as students of seemingly comparable ability who attended less selective schools. "
|
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:52 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma 180 for recalling and producing this study at the right moment.
This gets to the heart of the matter -- higher education doesn't do shit. It adds no value. Sometimes it is worthwhile to go to a good school and pay more, but that's only because of the signaling function, e.g. the prestige of law schools. That signaling function is purely incidental and has nothing to do with all the costs of higher education. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:06 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate I disagree that higher education adds nothing, but I agree that the main (perhaps only, in some cases) benefit of elite schools is signalling. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956943) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:02 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Yeah, I'm exaggerating a bit for emphasis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957394) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:53 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site LOL PWN3d (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956840) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:38 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma The elite schools should be for those who are the most qualified. Necessarily, the most qualified will not be those with the most money. If a school wants to charge so much money that most people can't afford it, then they won't have the most qualified students and won't be the most elite. It will just be like a country club or something. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956740) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:42 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate I don't think anybody is saying elite schools should not offer scholarships to deserving students. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956767) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:46 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site That's my point. Surprising that a board filled with HYP master men wouldn't know that the elite Ivies and other elite universities like Stanford offer very generous scholarships for students with meagre family incomes.
If you are talented enough to get in one of these elite schools,chances are your loan burden won't be that high.
What I have a problem with are students who aren't good enough to get into this level of school, but want to pay full freight for a semi-elite private school instead of attending a public school |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:48 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate word
People need to accept the risks/costs of such idiocy (which might properly include bankruptcy) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:01 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth What public schools are we talking about? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956897) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:19 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth ! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957558) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:31 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Dude. I agree but the real issue is that all of that law school should have cost like 10k. Read a couple books, take a few exams, get a certificate that says what school you went to and how you did.
Law school doesn't teach you much that is useful. It's mainly just a signaling function for how smart you are (LSAT). That should not cost so much. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:35 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth You aren't paying just for you. That's the problem. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956719) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:35 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site Yea, but this thread isn't about how much law school should cost, it's about having some personal responsibility for your decision to take out massive loans.
Listen, I might have some sympathy for a dumb high schooler who chooses to take out a lot of loans to attend college (some, not much).
But if a 22 year old with an alleged college education can't figure out that maybe taking out a 160k loan for a TTT is a bad idea, and then once they can't get a job decide to blame "the system" or "ITE", then what can I say |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:40 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth This wasn't a problem 5 years ago and we taught people through the 80's and 90's that greed was good.
How are you going to correct this misconception? |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:44 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site I don't get your point. What wasn't a problem 5 years ago? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956779) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:49 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth That wasn't a problem 5 years ago. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956809) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:45 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate Of course it was a problem 5 years ago, it just takes awhile for the consequences of such problems to manifest. That's like saying runaway housing prices weren't a problem 5 years ago.
"How are you going to correct this misconception?"
The sqeals of pain from crushing debt are starting to be heard. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:50 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth So you are now blaming an entire generation for following the edicts of generations past? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956818) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:08 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956787 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956956) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:18 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth non-responsive...as usual. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957547) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:06 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Without having sympathy, I realize that people CANNOT pay these shit loans. It's just not possible. That's why we have an entire system of bankruptcy that is built upon sound economics. Do you think bankruptcy law is founded on sympathy or something? Please go take a bankruptcy class.
Bring back private student loans, bankruptcy, and the free market. Then the shit loans mostly won't be made in the first place. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:10 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon It would be charitable to call the OP unconvincing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956557) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:40 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole The OP is right. When you borrow money, whether to invest in physical capital to start a business or human capital to improve your earning power, you have to weigh the costs of borrowing and lost income against how much you expect to make. Some people get it right some people get it wrong. Deal with it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956753) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:42 PM Author: Up-to-no-good site CR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956768) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:42 PM Author: Aphrodisiac jew cumskin and the people who get it wrong are allowed to declare bankruptcy. Oh wait. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956770) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:44 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole Bankruptcy is an idiotic policy that encourages excessive risk taking and raises borrowing costs for everyone. The right move is to eliminate bankruptcy, not to extend it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956780) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:51 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon This is dumb. Bankruptcy guards against predatory lending practices and provides valuable market signals to borrowers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956824) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:55 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole No it doesn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956853) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:55 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon huh? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956858) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:58 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole No it doesn't. Bankruptcy doesn't protect against predatory lending and it doesn't send valuable signals. Do you have trouble understanding English? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956876) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:00 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon Obvious flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956896) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:03 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole Yeah, you're obviously flame. You throw out some stupid buzz phrase like "sends valuable signals" and then expect me to address it when it doesn't even make any sense? Why don't you make an ARGUMENT without appeal to buzz words and I will respond. To make it really fucking clear, WHAT SIGNALS DOES BANKRUPTCY SEND FAGGOT? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956914) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:11 PM Author: talented market yeah, u mad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956971) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:25 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon Joe wants to start business X. He seeks a loan to start the business. If the obligation is not contingent on the survival of the business (e.g., it is secured by Joe's mansion, which has a FMV of $10m and no mortgage), the availability/pricing of the loan will tell Joe little about the lender's assessment of the risk of the business. On the other hand, if the obligation does not survive the failure of the business, the availability/pricing of the loan will provide Joe with information on the lender's assessment of the risk of the business. For example, if the price of credit is low, he will know that lenders generally think that the business is likely to be profitable and is not particularly risky.
Now consider how this might work in the context of student loans. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:01 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole Your hypothetical presupposes that entrepreneurs look to borrowing costs as an indicator of their planned venture's viability. First, this doesn't happen. And second, if it did happen, the signal wouldn't have any value because your banker will never know even close to as much about your business as you will. Since your hypo rests on nonsensical presuppositions, the rest if garbage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957386) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:06 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon Unlike you, I'm not making wild empirical claims. My point is both simple and true. Dischargability provides market signals to borrowers. In the case of student loans, this is especially valuable because lenders are better equipped to assess the value of, say, a touro law school degree, than are borrowers. In other cases, the information may be less valuable, but it is still available. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957444) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:13 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole No it doesn't. Most business lending is non-recourse so your points are moot. Consumer loans in almost all cases have no value to society, so if we get a lot less of those as a result of eliminating bankruptcy, so be it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957496) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:14 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Nah we'd get more of them without bankruptcy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957515) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:17 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon "No it doesn't"? What is that even in response to?
And what the fuck are you talking about? If you eliminate the discharge of consumer loans in bankruptcy, you will increase the availability of consumer credit. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:31 PM Author: demanding marketing idea The predatory lending point is even simpler. When there's a risk that borrowers who are unable to pay their debts on time will be excused from the debts, lenders don't set outrageous credit terms. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957142) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:51 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole So your argument is that bankruptcy lowers borrowing costs. Since this is universally held false, I don't need to address it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957299) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:01 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon I think his point is that it will generally make creditors more inclined to work with borrowers when things start to go south.
My point was a bit different. If you don't have dischargability, in some situations, lenders may knowingly entice individuals to pursue negative ROI investments to generate more business. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:09 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole If someone can't pay they can't pay. Doing away with bankruptcy won't change that. It still won't be in the interests of a bank to lend to someone who can't pay. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957462) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:10 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Yes, it will change that. They will pay more with BK than without, because a business can survive and a person has a reason to actually try. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957475) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:14 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole There would still be non-recourse lending without bankruptcy. You seem to miss this point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957512) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:20 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma That changes nothing. Go educate yourself about the economics of bankruptcy.
FYI - I'm a libertarian/conservative. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:25 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole Yes it does. Idiot above is arguing that bankruptcy is necessary because when people personally guarantee their business debts the rate doesn't reflect business risk and that the business man needs that info to make good business decisions. If this sounds retarded, I agree. One reason being that most business loans are non-recourse. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957613) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:26 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Yes that sounds retarded. But your posts don't sound much better. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957625) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:14 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon If someone makes a terrible investment, goes broke in year 1, and then manages to turn things around in year 5, dischargability makes a big difference. Non-dischargability essentially allows lenders to secure their claims with all future earnings. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957509) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:16 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole There's no doubt that some people benefit from bankruptcy. Some people benefit from armed robbery too. The issue is not whether some people are better off but whether everyone is better off overall. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957531) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:18 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon I think this whole discussion has gone over your head. You don't seem to understand the stakes here. We're talking about economic efficiency, not fairness. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957554) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:23 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole You are talking about fairness. I'm talking about economic efficiency. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957599) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:04 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma lol wrong. It lowers borrowing costs because dumb loans aren't made in the first place.
also http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957310 |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:22 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole Whatever the economic risk of the loan may be, there is the added risk that the borrower might just say fuck it and declare bankruptcy. For any given loan this increases borrowing costs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957585) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:28 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Wrong again. Bankruptcy does no good to people who don't need it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957638) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:34 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole Not everyone who uses bankruptcy needs bankruptcy. There is certainly some group who just want to "walk away," even if they could make things work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957686) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 5:59 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma They may try to use bankruptcy, but they generally won't be able to. If they are able to, it won't help them much and lenders will make out pretty good. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15958385) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:02 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole If there are benefits to bankruptcy, private parties can opt into agreements that allow for discharge or reorg in a bankruptcy like arbitration process. If only one part benefits, it can pay the other party whatever this is worth. In other words, if there are benefits to an arrangement that outweigh the costs, the parties will arrive at that arrangement without the government's help. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15958408) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:34 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Yep. And when parties inevitably fail to do that, then there is bankruptcy law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15958665) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:38 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole Which leads to market distortions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15958690) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:40 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Which are outweighed by the repairing of market failures.
(But honestly when it comes to personal bankruptcy as it exists today, you're probably right to some extent. We may need some reform in that area). |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:50 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon This is fascinating and would be entirely convincing if there were no information asymmetries and transaction costs were zero. Sadly we don't live in fairy land. IRL, people depend on market signals to determine the value of goods. Unfortunately, as a result of federal student loan policies and nondischargability, students are deprived of market signals with respect to the value of educations. Instead they are given highly misleading employment statistics by schools and (particularly in the case of UG educations) profoundly misguided common wisdom. It is therefore a mistake to apply principles of rugged individualism here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956817) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:54 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole Given that the federal reserve artificially manipulates interest rates and creates inflation which distorts price relationships, you could say that all information wrt the economy is imperfect. Using your piss poor logic...??? I don't know...everyone should get bailed out of everything? Ding faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956847) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:57 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon Wait, this is a flame right? Blind, idiotic passion a la Glen Beck. I see what you're doing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956869) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:00 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole No, your point was that imperfect information justifies a bailout. Be consistent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956888) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:02 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon This is a very effective flame. I will give you that. It's very difficult to resist the temptation to respond to the constant barrage of idiocy in your posts. But I will try. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956911) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:10 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole You'll try to sound smart while clearly just being some borderline retarded faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956963) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:11 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma The lender also has to assess their investment when making a loan. If their investment fails, too bad. Deal with it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956974) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:14 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole I agree with you 100%. What is your point? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957003) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:27 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Hint: that means bankruptcy. Go learn about bankruptcy somewhere. The point of it is not to be nice and give people a free pass, nor is that a practical result (people still have to pay back stuff in bankruptcy). Rather, bankruptcy is based on sound economics that say it's better for everyone if the debtor can work out a reduced payment plan. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957106) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:30 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole Please explain the sound economics to me then. I've pointed to two problems: excessive risk taking and higher borrowing costs for all borrowers. What benefits do you point to? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957131) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:33 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate Wait, how have you shown excessive risk taking? Greater risk taking is not necessarily excessive or suboptimal risk taking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957159) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:38 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole It's excessive relative to the level of risk taking we would see without a government mandated discharge apparatus. In other words, it's excessive in relation to the true market equilibrium. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957191) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:40 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate You're saying it is "greater" not "excessive." Risk taking benefits society. Unless you can explain why greater risk taking (in comparison to your "true market equilibrium") is a bad thing, then it's not really "excessive." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957202) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:44 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole More of anything benefits society, all else equal. The problem is that all else is not equal. More of one thing means less of something else. Obviously this is recognized or else discharging loans would be even easier to encourage even moar risk taking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957247) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:46 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate "More of anything benefits society, all else equal"
Um...no.
Also, looks like you don't have an answer to my question. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:53 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole I think it's fairly obvious I didn't mean stuff like murder and toxic waste when I said "more of anything." I was talking about economic goods, like health care and houses and stuff. And I did answer your question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957323) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:20 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate Why is more risk taking (funded by loans) and less of "something else" a bad thing? You did not answer this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957575) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:27 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole Because I'm of the belief that the market is the best allocator of goods. You're free to disagree with that, but then you must justify why the current subsidies toward risk taking are the right amount. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957628) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:28 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate That's a great "belief," but not an explanation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957644) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:35 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole Okay, so you're in favor of a planned economy now. YFWGI (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957690) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:40 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate Your failure to explain your belief system is not correlated to my beliefs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957729) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:47 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole If the market is not the best allocator of resources than what is? Is there an objective way to determine the allocation or is it subjective? If the latter, whose subjective valuation do we use? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957786) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:53 PM Author: Poppy garrison "Risk taking benefits society." No. Risk is a bad thing. Market pricing demonstrates this clearly. However, some actions that involve risk benefit society for other reasons, like their potential rewards. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 5:40 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate "some actions that involve risk benefit society"
This is what I meant. I thought that was obvious from the loan context.
"Risk taking" neither inherently benefits nor is inherently detrimental. It depends on what the risk is and what the potential reward is. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:44 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon Allocative efficiency is one obvious benefit. When lenders internalize investment risks, they are more likely to channel credit to the investments that are most likely to produce high risk adjusted returns.
As noted above, the information this provides to borrowers can also be beneficial, particularly when lenders are better able to assess the value of a given investment. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:52 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma In a business context, a business may be worth more as a whole than as a bunch of parts. Classic example is a railroad. Should all the creditors go about ripping their share of railroad ties out of the ground? Of course not. You just wasted all the labor of construction. But without bankruptcy, three problems would destroy the value:
-creditor race to obtain judgment and collect -hold-out free rider problem where nobody wants to settle unless everyone does -debt overhang problem where additional financing can't be obtained where necessary to keep business functioning
Bankruptcy address all those problems. In the personal context all of these rationales apply in some form but the picture looks a little different. As a baseline example, if a person gets into too much debt at some point it's just not worth trying to pay it off. Better to just live on welfare or move out of the country. In that case the creditors get nothing. Better to have an arrangement made so they can at least get something. more: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Bankruptcy.html
In the end what you said above is wrong. BK leads to a better level of risk-taking and cheaper borrowing for everyone. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:07 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole You list these things as problems but I don't see any problem. "Society" doesn't have some right to a firm's value. If the senior creditor decides he wants to liquidate, too bad for the junior creditors. If there's really value there the junior creditors will buy the senior creditor's interest. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957451) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:08 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma It's a problem because the firm dies and all the creditors actually get less money. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957460) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:10 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole That's a problem for the creditors and if they want to avoid it all they have to do is act rationally. I'm sure if bankruptcy were eliminated all the now unemployed bankruptcy attorneys would find work advising on restructuring. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957480) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:25 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Nope. In that case the rational thing would be to be the first one to the courthouse to get a judgment. Even if it destroys the business and a 100 million in value, that first creditor would have their 1 million so they don't care. Everyone else is fucked and value is destroyed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957615) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:30 PM Author: massive tanning salon prole I'm pretty sure that the market would provide some solutions. Here are some ideas: The larger more secured creditors could require the business to add language to any future credit agreements requiring creditors to make demand upon the larger creditors prior to seeking judicial intervention. What a great idea...oh yeah, this is already done. Problem solved. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957655) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:41 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate "I'm pretty sure that the market would provide some solutions"
Just do us all a favor and only post this from now on. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:05 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Nah ding man. BK laws have been around for centuries. I don't think any economist disagrees with the core principles. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15958439) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:48 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma 1. Stop all federal funding/financing of higher education.
2. Allow bankruptcy just like regular consumer debt.
Problem solved. (Everything will undergo major changes and restructuring, but it will all be better in the long run). |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:52 PM Author: apoplectic pit quadroon Pretty much credited. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956830) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:57 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth AA will die (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956868) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:02 PM Author: Appetizing Dilemma Not really. Tons of private actors currently practice AA despite its costs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15956905) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:29 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth What about the low cost option and public schools? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957124) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:24 PM Author: peach house-broken persian gaping Winner. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957610) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:35 PM Author: Floppy Trump Supporter op is retarded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957168) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:40 PM Author: adventurous purple sneaky criminal karate (sephardim) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957204) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:20 PM Author: Fuchsia curious scourge upon the earth A blind squirrel found a nut...and his name was IronMonkey! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15957574) |
|
Date: September 6th, 2010 1:26 AM Author: Territorial diverse resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15975623) |
|
Date: September 6th, 2010 1:35 AM Author: Federal step-uncle's house How are you going to make up those missed mortgage payments man (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#15975708) |
|
Date: December 23rd, 2010 11:06 PM Author: dark boistinker Subject: YOU ARE A PIRATE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsJyfN0ICU (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#16887158) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2010 12:42 PM Author: magical institution dysfunction Subject: The typical XOXO'er is more like this kind of pirate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaWU1CmrJNc (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#16889775) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2010 12:43 PM Author: irradiated office "theirself"??? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413205&forum_id=2#16889780) |