Mortgage Lenders Bad, Student Loans Good

[NightFox]

When my children were born, I vowed that they would NEVER walks the halls of a p-school. They never did.

I did not want them turning out like you. A statist loving dunce.

I've got my daughter in private school and I've vowed that she'll never step into a public school.

I mean no offense but what does this have to do with the increase in college tuition?

Loaning people money so they can go to college means more people will go to college (whether they graduate or learn anything useful is another argument) therefore prices will go up

Since there are lines of people still trying to get into college I don't see how demand increases should drive price.

Demand increases always drive price

Correction, demand increases without commensurate increases in supply will drive up prices; of course price increases in a free market will have the effect of driving down demand and thus stabilizing prices inline with supply; however in education government intervention has completely short circuited the mechanism.by manipulating the price mechanism (i.e. offloading part or all of the costs onto other people).

The whole system that's currently in place is insane as well as immoral.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As usual, WRONG. This OP is one more example of hackery and bias by the creator of the Idiot-Gram genre.

Where does that fall in the Dewey Decimal system?

It can be found under the authors name, all Idiot-grams are fictions.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Frank, why do you think spiraling college costs and the associated crippling student loans are good? All the liberals are saying just the opposite.

And yet your policies keep making it even worse

 

[Norman]

In the 2+2=5 Bizzaroland of Liberals we learn that having adult sign on for more home they can afford is evil and merits the death penalty but having young people just starting out in the world taking on more debt than they need to buy a starter home is, well, you tell me

Predatory lending is any lending practice that imposes unfair or abusive loan terms on a borrower. It is also any practice that convinces a borrower to accept unfair terms through deceptive, coercive, exploitative or unscrupulous actions for a loan that a borrower doesn't need, doesn't want or can't afford.

Obama is a Predatory Lender, right?

As usual, WRONG. This OP is one more example of hackery and bias by the creator of the Idiot-Gram genre. Of course it may appeal to like minded bigots, racists, the biddable and the brainwashed.

Risking an attack for the use of an appeal to authority we need to consider the words of Thomas Jefferson who, in a letter to Elbridge Gerry on Jan. 26, 1799 wrote, "Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies".

Everyone with a clear head and an open mind knows that the culpable party for the crash of housing in America was not the Republican Party Leaders nor the Democratic Party Leaders but brokers - those individuals in institutions not bound by the ethos of a fiduciary who brokered deals sure to fail and sold them in bundles to other less savvy.

Thus I must once again remind the reader that CrusaderFrank is member of the right wing fringe within Trolls We Is Together (TWIST). The goal of TWISTers is too spin every negative event a creation of Communists, who hide in our society pretending to be Democrats, progressives, liberals, and Republicans in name only. The sad thing about this is many who echo such obvious lies actually believe them, echo them and exacerbate an already divided nation.

This poster/post just oozes of regression. Yeah, sure it was only the brokers who were responsible for the bubble. Despite a government institution (Freddy n' Fenny) being right in the middle of the crash. Despite by all accounts the government being massively involved in the creation of the bubble. What was the political agenda of the day again? "Every american should own a home (or two)". Yeah, this obviously had nothing to do with it, it was all because of the profit hungry evil brokers! They were so cunningly evil that almost no politician saw it coming, and instead generally CHEERED for the rising home prices, giving these evil profit salivating institutions all sorts of benefits in order to attain their Marxist goals of homes for all. Oh, the evil brokers...

Here is one evil broker who laid out how the government played a significant role in the creation of the bubble, before it burst. Bit of a TWIST, huh?


The truth is, it was a classic bubble, massively sponsored by your mythical saint party leaders. Only a complete tool could believe it was all the evil brokers, when the party leaders were massively sponsoring those same brokers!

 

[BluesLegend]

When the government guarantees loans no bank would ever make to a student then naturally the risk free loans are going to drive up the cost of higher education. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon and students are left holding the bag.

 

[SwimExpert]

I've got my daughter in private school and I've vowed that she'll never step into a public school.

I mean no offense but what does this have to do with the increase in college tuition?

Loaning people money so they can go to college means more people will go to college (whether they graduate or learn anything useful is another argument) therefore prices will go up

Since there are lines of people still trying to get into college I don't see how demand increases should drive price.

Demand increases always drive price

Correction, demand increases without commensurate increases in supply will drive up prices; of course price increases in a free market will have the effect of driving down demand and thus stabilizing prices inline with supply; however in education government intervention has completely short circuited the mechanism.by manipulating the price mechanism (i.e. offloading part or all of the costs onto other people).

The whole system that's currently in place is insane as well as immoral.

You're both wrong. Mainly because neither one of you understands what "demand" actually means.

 

[NightFox]

You're both wrong. Mainly because neither one of you understands what "demand" actually means.

Uh-huh, care to elucidate the basis for your assertions ?

 

[SwimExpert]

You're both wrong. Mainly because neither one of you understands what "demand" actually means.

Uh-huh, care to elucidate the basis for your assertions ?

Demand is not about number of people who are interested in your product. It's about how much people are willing to pay for your product. There are 315 million people in the country, and every single one of them wants toilet paper. Doesn't mean they're willing to spend $20 a square.

 

[g5000]

In the 2+2=5 Bizzaroland of Liberals we learn that having adult sign on for more home they can afford is evil and merits the death penalty but having young people just starting out in the world taking on more debt than they need to buy a starter home is, well, you tell me

Predatory lending is any lending practice that imposes unfair or abusive loan terms on a borrower. It is also any practice that convinces a borrower to accept unfair terms through deceptive, coercive, exploitative or unscrupulous actions for a loan that a borrower doesn't need, doesn't want or can't afford.

Obama is a Predatory Lender, right?

I guess you haven't noticed the Democrats have been saying student loan debt is out of control and is predatory for a very long time. I guess you prefer instead to listen to the imaginary voices in your head.

That's why Bernie wants the first two years of college to be free, dipshit. Pay attention! Do try to keep up.

What solutions have the Republicans offered?

Oh, yeah. The usual. NOTHING!!!!

 

[SwimExpert]

What solutions have the Republicans offered?

Oh, yeah. The usual. NOTHING!!!!

Well, I've been advocating for years that we need to completely overhaul our education system, lengthening high school and revamping it to provide marketable technical training, etc. But nobody wants to listen to that plan...

 

[NightFox]

You're both wrong. Mainly because neither one of you understands what "demand" actually means.

Uh-huh, care to elucidate the basis for your assertions ?

Demand is not about number of people who are interested in your product. It's about how much people are willing to pay for your product. There are 315 million people in the country, and every single one of them wants toilet paper.

Nobody said anything about "number of people"..... and it was explicitly pointed out that the root of the problem was government interference with respect to offloading costs. The bidding up of prices is in fact the core of the issue and that is being accomplished by two factors, the government is putting (an ever increasing amount of) money in the hands of people that shouldn't have it in the first place AND the number of people with access to that money exceeds the available supply of classroom seats.

To summarize you have government short circuiting the price mechanism by either subsidizing the cost of tuition and/or providing credit to would be students that could not otherwise qualify for it (or would end up with much higher interest rates) based on actual repayment risk, in either case it's an artificial increase in DEMAND and the higher prices aren't acting to curb that DEMAND because government is just increasing the supply of money involved in the bidding process.

 

[NightFox]

What solutions have the Republicans offered?

Oh, yeah. The usual. NOTHING!!!!

Well, I've been advocating for years that we need to completely overhaul our education system, lengthening high school and revamping it to provide marketable technical training, etc. But nobody wants to listen to that plan...

Don't worry it'll "overhaul" itself since eventually government interference will drive the tuition costs of traditional colleges and university up so high that nobody in their right mind will take on the debt required to finance an education there (except of course for the terminally stupid), which of course makes alternatives more and more attractive (online "virtual universities", technical schools, etc..,).

You can only defy market dynamics for so long.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nobody said anything about "number of people"

That's what the entire conversation has been. Don't try to side step it now. Or did you think "Loaning people money so they can go to college means more people will go to college (whether they graduate or learn anything useful is another argument) therefore prices will go up" were song lyrics about getting a pony on your 5th birthday?

..... and it was explicitly pointed out that the root of the problem was government interference with respect to offloading costs. The bidding up of prices is in fact the core of the issue and that is being accomplished by two factors, the government is putting (an ever increasing amount of) money in the hands of people that shouldn't have it in the first place AND the number of people with access to that money exceeds the available supply of classroom seats.

But nobody said anything about number of people....right?

Look, this isn't a big deal so don't launch off in a desperate attempt to tap dance around simple mistake. You're right that government intervention has been a major part of the problem contributing to the ballooning costs of college. But what you're not really, truly understanding is that it is people's willingness to pay that is the single biggest contributing factor.

At the end of the day, the government isn't really dumping anywhere near as much money into college as private citizens are. College loans are just that. They are loans. They have to be paid back. And when it's time to start paying them, the price is very high. People are willing to pay because they perceive the value of the gain to be greater than the value they sacrifice. Until people comprehend that the discussion is just about the curtains in the window.

 

[Norman]

That's what the entire conversation has been. Don't try to side step it now. Or did you think "Loaning people money so they can go to college means more people will go to college (whether they graduate or learn anything useful is another argument) therefore prices will go up" were song lyrics about getting a pony on your 5th birthday?

You're both wrong. Mainly because neither one of you understands what "demand" actually means.

Uh-huh, care to elucidate the basis for your assertions ?

Demand is not about number of people who are interested in your product. It's about how much people are willing to pay for your product. There are 315 million people in the country, and every single one of them wants toilet paper. Doesn't mean they're willing to spend $20 a square.

Ah, a other democrat regressive who didn't only fail his economics, but basic addition!!

Let me school on basic addition, since the public school obviously failed to do that. (the irony in all this has reached a bizarre level)



Indeed, THE MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE DEMANDING, THE HIGHER THE PRICE! (Assuming upwards sloping supply). THE EASIER PEOPLE ARE LOANED TO THE HIGHER THE PRICE AND THE MORE PEOPLE WILL GO.

Just a question, in your personal life, do you think you can hike prices more if there are 10000 million people lining for your products, or two? How dumb can a person be? (This might explain why the one example of a business attempted by a regressive - his lemonade stand - still failed).

It is funny though that this guy is talking as if he was some sort of authority on the issue, lecturing NightFox, who is completely correct, even though he himself is COMPLETELY CLUELESS. This is called "liberal arrogance".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In the 2+2=5 Bizzaroland of Liberals we learn that having adult sign on for more home they can afford is evil and merits the death penalty but having young people just starting out in the world taking on more debt than they need to buy a starter home is, well, you tell me

Predatory lending is any lending practice that imposes unfair or abusive loan terms on a borrower. It is also any practice that convinces a borrower to accept unfair terms through deceptive, coercive, exploitative or unscrupulous actions for a loan that a borrower doesn't need, doesn't want or can't afford.

Obama is a Predatory Lender, right?

I guess you haven't noticed the Democrats have been saying student loan debt is out of control and is predatory for a very long time. I guess you prefer instead to listen to the imaginary voices in your head.

That's why Bernie wants the first two years of college to be free, dipshit. Pay attention! Do try to keep up.

What solutions have the Republicans offered?

Oh, yeah. The usual. NOTHING!!!!

Democrats, who federalized the loans and made a generation of debt slaves and exploded college tuition..did what???

Republican suck, they're as bad as Democrats.

 

[SwimExpert]

You're both wrong. Mainly because neither one of you understands what "demand" actually means.

Uh-huh, care to elucidate the basis for your assertions ?

Demand is not about number of people who are interested in your product. It's about how much people are willing to pay for your product. There are 315 million people in the country, and every single one of them wants toilet paper. Doesn't mean they're willing to spend $20 a square.

Ah, a other democrat regressive who didn't only fail his economics, but basic addition!!

Let me school on basic addition, since the public school obviously failed to do that. (the irony in all this has reached a bizarre level)



Indeed, THE MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE DEMANDING, THE HIGHER THE PRICE! (Assuming upwards sloping supply).

Ah, another self deluded retard who read something on the internet and thinks they have the answers now.

Your simplistic comprehension is 100% disproven with two simple, every day items:

There is more demand (in terms of total number of purchases) for chapstick and lighters than pretty much any other piece of merchandise you can find. Main reason being people always lose the two long before they run out (often within two weeks of purchase). And yet, despite this, they are both extremely cheap and can be had for about a dollar.

By contrast, look at high end luxury cars or sports cars. How many people wouldn't love to own a Lamborghini? Only a couple thousand are sold worldwide ever year, while millions of Honda Civics are sold each year in the US alone. Despite the vastly higher number of people in the market for a Civic, the price is much lower. Because people's willingness to pay for a Civic is much lower.

 

[Norman]

You're both wrong. Mainly because neither one of you understands what "demand" actually means.

Uh-huh, care to elucidate the basis for your assertions ?

Demand is not about number of people who are interested in your product. It's about how much people are willing to pay for your product. There are 315 million people in the country, and every single one of them wants toilet paper. Doesn't mean they're willing to spend $20 a square.

Ah, a other democrat regressive who didn't only fail his economics, but basic addition!!

Let me school on basic addition, since the public school obviously failed to do that. (the irony in all this has reached a bizarre level)



Indeed, THE MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE DEMANDING, THE HIGHER THE PRICE! (Assuming upwards sloping supply).

Ah, another self deluded retard who read something on the internet and thinks they have the answers now.

Your simplistic comprehension is 100% disproven with two simple, every day items:

There is more demand (in terms of total number of purchases) for chapstick and lighters than pretty much any other piece of merchandise you can find. Main reason being people always lose the two long before they run out (often within two weeks of purchase). And yet, despite this, they are both extremely cheap and can be had for about a dollar.

By contrast, look at high end luxury cars or sports cars. How many people wouldn't love to own a Lamborghini? Only a couple thousand are sold worldwide ever year, while millions of Honda Civics are sold each year in the US alone. Despite the vastly higher number of people in the market for a Civic, the price is much lower. Because people's willingness to pay for a Civic is much lower.

So far you have proven that you are inept at adding things together.

With this post, you have now proven that you are unable to solve the most basic form of equations as well.

Because you know, the price of a product is formed at the equilibrium of supply and demand. Let me educate you on this as well:



Let me ask you the question again, can you hike prices more if there are 53 million people lining up for your small boutique store, or 2 of them?

And this would be why, public school Marxist indoctrination, is not worth it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Because you know, the price of a product is formed at the equilibrium of supply and demand.

*yawn*

You're inability to comprehend the subject is tiresome, because it's really not that difficult. Hell, your own video highlights exactly what I am saying.

Let me educate you on this as well:

At 1:30 of your video the narrator very clearly rejects your view in favor of what I have been saying:

"The demand is the entire relationship. The actual specific quantity, we call that the quantity demanded."

Demand does not equal the number of people looking to buy a product or service. It's about the willingness to pay for that product or service.

 

[NightFox]

Nobody said anything about "number of people"

That's what the entire conversation has been. Don't try to side step it now. Or did you think "Loaning people money so they can go to college means more people will go to college (whether they graduate or learn anything useful is another argument) therefore prices will go up" were song lyrics about getting a pony on your 5th birthday?

Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote (that you responded to), please point out where "number of people" was even mentioned, you just went ahead with your assumption that I was under the impression that demand was solely a factor of "the number of people" that wanted a given good or service whose supply was finite when I was perfectly aware (and pointed out) that the money supply among the bidders was also relevant to demand.

..... and it was explicitly pointed out that the root of the problem was government interference with respect to offloading costs. The bidding up of prices is in fact the core of the issue and that is being accomplished by two factors, the government is putting (an ever increasing amount of) money in the hands of people that shouldn't have it in the first place AND the number of people with access to that money exceeds the available supply of classroom seats.

But nobody said anything about number of people....right?

Perhaps you should now read everything IN CONTEXT since it explains EXACTLY what is happening with respect to how the price is being bid up for tuition, the number of people in combination with the amount of money being pumped into the system are the components of the artificial DEMAND which exceeds the available SUPPLY.

Look, this isn't a big deal so don't launch off in a desperate attempt to tap dance around simple mistake.

The mistake was yours by making assumptions instead of reading what was written and asking for clarification if you needed it, I understood the dynamics of supply and demand long before you ever came along.

You're right that government intervention has been a major part of the problem contributing to the ballooning costs of college. But what you're not really, truly understanding is that it is people's willingness to pay that is the single biggest contributing factor.

That's been my point ALL ALONG! their "willingness to pay" is based on the money that the government is putting in their hands through cost offload and artificial credit, that doesn't exist in a vacuum because the number of people who are "willing" to pay because of this manipulation now exceeds the available supply and that is why prices are rising, take away government injected money and the number of people "willing" to pay will fall and so will prices.

At the end of the day, the government isn't really dumping anywhere near as much money into college as private citizens are. College loans are just that. They are loans. They have to be paid back. And when it's time to start paying them, the price is very high. People are willing to pay because they perceive the value of the gain to be greater than the value they sacrifice. Until people comprehend that the discussion is just about the curtains in the window.

I disagree; because those college loans (along with tax payer funded grants and other direct subsidies) wouldn't be made in many cases without explicit government backing or they would be made at much higher rates of interest because a large chunk of the borrowers wouldn't qualify due to excessive repayment risk, that's why the federal government got into the college loan business in the first place because private institutions were requiring qualified borrowers and were loaning at rates based on actual risk, it's a vote buying scam that is punishing every student with higher tuition prices.

 

[Norman]

Because you know, the price of a product is formed at the equilibrium of supply and demand.

*yawn*

You're inability to comprehend the subject is tiresome, because it's really not that difficult. Hell, your own video highlights exactly what I am saying.

Let me educate you on this as well:

At 1:30 of your video the narrator very clearly rejects your view in favor of what I have been saying:

"The demand is the entire relationship. The actual specific quantity, we call that the quantity demanded."

Demand does not equal the number of people looking to buy a product or service. It's about the willingness to pay for that product or service.

Holy hell dude. In JUST THE LAST POST, regarding basic addition, it was explained that the quantity of people demanding the product affects the aggregate quantity demanded. And you STILL can't perform basic addition!

You are beyond saving. This is what public education does to people.

Once again, do you propose you will have to hike the prices more, when bunch of people are lining for your products, so many that you can't supply them all... or perhaps when everyone is abandoning your business in droves. In which instance do you feel it would be more appropriate to raise prices?