Bernie and the Economy

O

Overtures

Guest
Let's devote this thread to discussing the effects of Bernie's policies on the economy, whether good or bad. Which is to say, let's not limit this to his economic policies but how all of his polices would effect the economy.

I have recently decided to back Bernie without knowing much at all about his platform. Here's what I do know -

He supports student loan debt forgiveness.

Great idea in my opinion. Student loans were given out far below sub-prime lending standards and it's drowning multiple generations in debt they will never pay off. If we relieve this burden from them, they will be can funnel their debt money into consumption or investment.

He supports universal healthcare.

Also good with me. I'd be more than happy to pay extra in taxes to help achieve this goal. The overall quality of life in the country would soar.


Overall - I think Bernie's policies may slow the economy down, perhaps. But I see a net positive in the above. Secondly, the US Economy survived three years of market volatility due to Trump's trade war and erratic behavior. We're seeing something much more resilient than we anticipated.

And lastly, what are the measurable differences between a good economy and a bad economy? And do I really want to let those measurable differences force my hand in making decisions that are against my moral impulses?
 
Are you expecting more of a discussion then righties screaming socialism is bad mmmk?

With maybe a libtard, and soyboy thrown in to mix it up?

I mean I would love to have a discussion about Biden, or Warren's economic platform vs Bernie's, but I have no idea what their views are, outside of adopting a more conservative version of Bernie's platform.
 
Are you expecting more of a discussion then righties screaming socialism is bad mmmk?

With maybe a libtard, and soyboy thrown in to mix it up?

I mean I would love to have a discussion about Biden, or Warren's economic platform vs Bernie's, but I have no idea what their views are, outside of adopting a more conservative version of Bernie's platform.

If people really think Bernie is bad, now is their time to convince me not to vote for him.
 
Are you expecting more of a discussion then righties screaming socialism is bad mmmk?

With maybe a libtard, and soyboy thrown in to mix it up?

I mean I would love to have a discussion about Biden, or Warren's economic platform vs Bernie's, but I have no idea what their views are, outside of adopting a more conservative version of Bernie's platform.

oh shit you're not banned.

praise be

FHk0YLZ.gif
 
oh shit you're not banned.

praise be

FHk0YLZ.gif


I didn't even get a warning.

The mods aren't dumb. They could see all that monkey and ape talk for what it was, before I started flaming.
 
Who did you flame and about what?

My democratic pro-Israel thread.

I'm pretty sure Shingami's army of alts decided to come back for round two, but this time he thought better of following me to the OT.

He was trying to troll me into a ban, and I took it to the OT because I knew what was going on.
 
Loan forgiveness is welfare for the rich, which bernie supporters screamed bloody murder about 5 minutes ago. Cool, every lawyer making way above average money get their loans paid off by middle class families and people whose families and themselves saved money to avoid debt get to pay twice for it. Yippee!

Went to a trade school or started working instead? Fuck you, you just get to pay for college anyway without any benefit.

It's a pander to the Veruca Salt millennial demo, who do get a short term benefit now and give no consideration to the fact that they'll be spending more themselves in taxes than their loan was even for and just know they appear to get something now, which is why they took out the loan in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Loan forgiveness is welfare for the rich, which bernie supporters screamed bloody murder about 5 minutes ago.

Wait, you think rich people take out loans at 6% annual interest? Instead of, you know, paying it without said interest?

eddebtcolumn_revised.jpg


But, yes, student debt cancellation would also benefit the rich. And there's an importance to doing away with pedantic means testing: breaking down class divisions and establishing education as a public good.

Also, in the past two decades, odious student loan debt has swelled in the ranks of low income earners due to the proliferation of predatory for-profit schools.

Four years ago, student loan debt in America topped $1 trillion. Today, that number has swelled even further, with some 43 million Americans feeling the enduring gravity of $1.3 trillion in student loan debt.

While student debt may not intuitively register as something that plagues the poor, student debt delinquency and defaults are concentrated in low-income areas, even though lower-income borrowers also tend to have much smaller debts. Defaults and delinquencies among low-income Americans escalated following the Great Recession of 2008, a period when many states disinvested from public colleges and universities. The result was higher costs of college, which has led to larger loans.

Low-income students are often left at a dramatic academic disadvantage in the first place. For example, students who work full-time on top of college classes can’t cover the cost of tuition or living expenses, and working while in school can actually shrink the chance of graduating altogether. Moreover, these students are less likely to have access to career counseling or outside financial resources to help them pay for school, making the payoff negligible at best.

The inequity is so crushing that an alarming number of these students—predominantly students of color—are dropping out of school altogether. One-third of low-income student borrowers at public four-year schools drop out, a rate 10 percent higher than the rest of student borrowers overall.

When it comes to for-profit colleges, the story gets even worse. These institutions often target prospective students who are low-income while falsely assuring positive job and economic prospects upon graduating. Many students do end up dropping out, and even those who do graduate do not always receive a quality education that leaves them prepared for success—or with an income that matches up with their monthly loan payments. Their degrees too often cannot compete in the job market, leaving many of these students jobless.

A dream of a higher education shouldn’t be a sentence to years—or an entire lifetime—of poverty.
This confluence of factors explains why borrowers who owe the least tend to be lower-income, and are the most likely to fall behind or default on their monthly payments. As the Mapping Student Debt project has found, people with more debt are less likely to default on their loan payments because they have the most access to wealth, whether through family money or financial assets or educational degrees. And it’s not hard to connect the dots. The biggest borrowers tend to be the biggest earners, so those who take out large loans to pay for graduate or professional school are less likely to default or fall behind because they’re in high-earning jobs. The Department of Education estimated that 7 percent of graduate borrowers default, versus 22 percent of those who only borrow for undergraduate studies. Default can actually lead to an increase in student loan debt because of late fees and interest, as well as a major decline in credit, ineligibility for additional student aid, and even wage garnishment at the request of the federal government.

Fortunately, there are solutions already in place that can help borrowers get out of default and back on their feet. For borrowers with federal loans, the Department of Education has a number of income-driven repayment programs (IDR) that cap a borrower’s monthly payment to as low as 10 percent of their discretionary income. Rather than being saddled with debt and an income that doesn’t realistically allow for repayment, borrowers can take advantage of programs such as PAYE, REPAYE, and Income-Based-Repayment to make their monthly loan payments proportional to their income. And some low-income borrowers might even qualify to pay nothing at all if they fall beneath certain income levels.

These plans won’t just help borrowers with high debt balances. IDR is especially helpful for borrowers with smaller balances because it reduces the monthly burden while keeping more money in pockets to cover expenses for food, housing, and other basic needs that borrowers must choose between in the face of overwhelming monthly payments.

Yet woefully few borrowers are aware of these plans that have the potential to make sure low-income borrowers aren’t paying more than they can afford. Fully 51 percent of student loan borrowers nationwide are eligible for these programs but only 15 percent are enrolled.

A dream of a higher education shouldn’t be a sentence to years—or an entire lifetime—of poverty. With federal IDR programs, the process of paying back any amount of student debt can be much less draining of an obligation, especially for our most vulnerable citizens. It’s on all of us to make sure those who can benefit the most from IDR are aware of it.

https://talkpoverty.org/2016/05/02/why-student-loan-debt-harms-low-income-students-the-most/

Experts haven’t typically worried about people with large student loan balances. That’s because those who take out large loans, above $50,000, generally do it to finance graduate school. After they become lawyers or doctors, they earn high salaries and pay the loans off. Only 4 percent of them went into default in 2009. (Students without large balances have a default rate that is more than four times higher.)

But in recent years, there’s been an alarming surge in the number of students taking out big loans to finance their educations, with 17 percent of borrowers leaving school with more than $50,000 of federal student loan debt in 2014, up from 2 percent in 1990 and 5 percent in 2000. (The $50,000 is adjusted for inflation in constant 2014 dollars.)

With this growth, scholars are identifying new types of big borrowers who are running into trouble: lower-income adults and parents.

“There are lot of people who’ve gone to take out large graduate loans, or their parents have taken out large federal loans, and they are struggling to repay,” said Adam Looney, an economist at the Brookings Institution and a former Treasury Department official. “A lot of these students have taken on totally unmanageable levels of student debt.”

Default rates on big loans aren’t surging. People with big loans don’t necessarily go into default when they’re struggling to make payments. Instead, they often arrange to defer or stop payments temporarily or negotiate a new payment plan that’s based on a percentage of their income. But interest is continuing to accrue on these loans, which means their debts are growing.

Looney and his co-author Constantine Yannelis at the University of Chicago calculated that more big borrowers (owing more than $50,000) are falling behind on their payments than making progress in reducing their debts. Beginning in 2010, large-balance borrowers owed more in student debt than they did when they first left school.

Looney’s and Yannelis’s calculations were published in the current August 2019 issue of the journal, Economics of Education Review, in their paper, “How useful are default rates? Borrowers with large balances and student loan repayment.”

“It used to be that you were paying or you were in default, but now it’s not true,” said Looney.

One reason for struggling big borrowers is that their unemployment rates are rising. Back in 2000, 12 percent of people with over $50,000 in student debt were unemployed. In 2015, that unemployment rate had grown to 15 percent.

Looney found that more older adults are taking out bigger loans. Undergraduate students are capped at $31,000 in federal loans if the students are still claimed as dependents on their parents’ tax returns but independent students can take out as much as $57,500 for their associate or bachelor’s degrees. Many of these older adults are clustered among the lower end of the boom in large loans. In 2014, almost third of borrowers with large debts had taken out their loans to finance their undergraduate education. Back in 2000, undergraduate debt alone accounted for less than a fifth of big borrowers.

Related: Some experts have a new idea to help students afford college: more federal loans

Big loans to finance degrees at for-profit colleges have been sharply rising, in part because for-profit schools were building graduate programs. Back in 2000, only 2 percent of large loans were used for for-profit programs. In 2014, that had jumped to 11 percent.

Parent borrowing is also responsible for the surge. Back in 2000 only 6 percent of borrowers with big loans were parents who had taken the loans out to help finance their children’s education. In 2014, federal Parent PLUS loans had increased to account for 10 percent of big borrowers.

With larger debts, it takes fewer people to add up to a worrisome amount of dollars.

Roughly 5 million Americans owe more than $50,000 each. But they’re responsible for the majority of the nation’s student loan debt. If you ranked everyone with student debt by low large their student loans are, the top 20 percent of borrowers are responsible more than 60 percent of total student debt dollars.

And if you looked at the very biggest student borrowers in the nation, just those who’ve taken out more than $250,000 in loans, they would number 170,000 people. Collectively they owe $54 billion or 5 percent of the entire federal student loan portfolio.

“It’s very concentrated,” said Looney.

Looney says that ultimately taxpayers will absorb the cost of these unpaid loans. He recommends that the federal government should cap the loan amount that graduate students and parents can borrow from the federal government. Currently, graduate students and parents can take out unlimited amounts of student debt up to the cost of attendance, including living expenses.

“Historically it’s mostly been high-income parents sending their kids to expensive schools who were able to repay the loans with interest,” said Looney. “But increasingly, it’s shifted. A lot of the borrowers are now low-income,” said Looney.

And that makes their student loans more vulnerable to repayment problems.

https://hechingerreport.org/the-new-low-income-big-borrower-of-student-loans/
 
Wait, you think rich people take out loans at 6% annual interest? Instead of, you know, paying it without said interest?

eddebtcolumn_revised.jpg


But, yes, student debt cancellation would also benefit the rich. And there's an importance to doing away with pedantic means testing: breaking down class divisions and establishing education as a public good.

Also, in the past two decades, odious student loan debt has swelled in the ranks of low income earners due to the proliferation of predatory for-profit schools.



https://talkpoverty.org/2016/05/02/why-student-loan-debt-harms-low-income-students-the-most/



https://hechingerreport.org/the-new-low-income-big-borrower-of-student-loans/
Yet no suggestion of paying for it by taxing the fuck out of endowments of the schools that continue to raise tuition at obscene rates and created the problem? Nope, plumbers will pick up the tab.

Elizabeth Warren was pushing this crap too, but her concerns didn't seem to be there when she was making $400,000 to teach 1 class.
 
Yet no suggestion of paying for it by taxing the fuck out of endowments of the schools that continue to raise tuition at obscene rates and created the problem? Nope, plumbers will pick up the tab.

Elizabeth Warren was pushing this crap too, but her concerns didn't seem to be there when she was making $400,000 to teach 1 class.

Plumbers will pick up that tab? What's being floated is a tax on the top 1% of income earners. Even under more graduated and expansive funding proposals, the vast majority of revenue would be generated by persons making well into six figures and very little, if any, would be derived from persons making under $50k. So either you're woefully misinformed or you're being dishonest about the funding of these programs and initiatives.

And yet you were okay with the Republican tax cuts that shifted the revenue burden onto middle income earners and reduced the tax burden of the rich to the lowest in 80 years. And I'm sure you were fine with the gutting of public unions, the attempt of the AHCA to increase healthcare prices and throw millions off of coverage, and stuff like that. Just wtf.
 
Let's devote this thread to discussing the effects of Bernie's policies on the economy, whether good or bad. Which is to say, let's not limit this to his economic policies but how all of his polices would effect the economy.

I have recently decided to back Bernie without knowing much at all about his platform. Here's what I do know -

He supports student loan debt forgiveness.

Great idea in my opinion. Student loans were given out far below sub-prime lending standards and it's drowning multiple generations in debt they will never pay off. If we relieve this burden from them, they will be can funnel their debt money into consumption or investment.

He supports universal healthcare.

Also good with me. I'd be more than happy to pay extra in taxes to help achieve this goal. The overall quality of life in the country would soar.


Overall - I think Bernie's policies may slow the economy down, perhaps. But I see a net positive in the above. Secondly, the US Economy survived three years of market volatility due to Trump's trade war and erratic behavior. We're seeing something much more resilient than we anticipated.

And lastly, what are the measurable differences between a good economy and a bad economy? And do I really want to let those measurable differences force my hand in making decisions that are against my moral impulses?

I'd like to focus on student loan forgiveness, since you have raised 2 massive (and separate) issues. Even student loan forgiveness is multi-faceted.

It's obvious that the post-secondary education system, as currently constituted, is broken. Sanders' idea sounds good, but even apart from the issue of the upfront cost, and the moral hazard issues identified by @nostradumbass in having taxpayers retroactively subsidize educations through debt-forgiveness, I am not sure that it solves the issues with education in the long term.

Sanders proposal, as I understand it, is this:

1) forgive all federally-funded debt;
2) buy up all private debt and forgive that too;
3) start a tuition-free public college program; and
4) cap student-loan interest for private schools and graduate schools at 1.88%.
5) pay for this with a new tax on Wall Street transactions, which they say will raise $2.4 trillion over 10 years.

Let's set aside that Wall Street will almost certainly not sit still and get taxed to the tune of $240 billion a year; tax avoidance is one of their main skills, after all. I think the finance sector as currently incarnated is largely parasitical on the real economy, so I wouldn't be too upset if they got crushed by this, but they will probably weasel out if Sanders wins. So this policy will not pay for itself.

First, the existing student debt has been securitized and sold, which means that bondholders take a big hit in a large forced sale. The bonds only have value because they pay out interest over time. These bondholders are large institutions and pension funds. Since we are talking about roughly $1.6 trillion in loans, I am no expert on this stuff, and could be wrong, but I would be surprised if there were no economic repercussions from this (some good stuff will undoubtedly occur as well, since a bunch of ex-students will have a ton of disposable income which previously went to servicing debt, but the point is that even the forgiveness is not cost free, apart from the tax burden).

Second, public colleges will have to be radically different from the current college experience in order to control for cost. I am not confident that this can be done. The real underlying crisis is that college costs way too much at this point, and offloading that cost onto the taxpayer, unless steps are taken to reduce overhead, will be cripplingly expensive. Reducing cost will probably require deep thinking about the purpose of education and the current structure of the university. Given that the cost of public primary and secondary education has also skyrocketed in terms of per student expenditures, along with post-secondary, I am not confident in the ability of government to reign in these costs. The public colleges, at this point, become yet another damn thing America cannot afford, although it hardly seems to matter at this point. Anyone who wants to exercise their brain can read this article on cost disease, which will help make you alive to the problem: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/. I think I've posted it before. It's still worth reading.

Third, I can't think of any good reason for continuing to over federally-funded or federally-guaranteed student loans on a broad scale, because the thing above that has enabled the bloat of college costs over time is federally-guaranteed student loans. Regardless of what is the underlying issue driving cost up is (some people blame administrative bloat, regulation, what have you), the only reason this bloat can exist is because the government has decided to backstop the loans. Absent the backstop, college prices drop; they have to, because otherwise people can't afford college, and the institutions all die. Now, doing this is radical, and would hurt a lot of people who would actually benefit from college, but I honestly don't think there are solutions that don't hurt people at this point.

Fourth, another key issue is that we are over-credentialing people, and in a lot of cases it isn't accomplishing more from an economic perspective than a massive wealth transfer from young people to universities and their various hangers-on, and forcing young people to forgo 4 years of earnings. You simply don't need a degree to do most jobs. We need to get away from this credentialing problem. I cannot emphasize this enough. The problem, of course, is that from most employer's perspective, a college degree, in our world, is a filter for the unmotivated and the stupid. All things being equal, in a white-collarish office job, you will get a smarter and more pliable office drone if you select for literally any college degree over someone without a degree. It's a shitty filter, and super costly on a societal level, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense for employers to use it as a filter. Which is how you get constant credential creep.
 
If people really think Bernie is bad, now is their time to convince me not to vote for him.
I don't have much time. But basically capitalism is good. But is an animal and must be controlled. Controlled via responsibility. People like ceos need to be responsible for what they do. They don't need to overhaul the whole system. Just make it so those at the top don't get to cash in no matter what the outcome. Do that and you solve most issues with capitalism
 
Yet no suggestion of paying for it by taxing the fuck out of endowments of the schools that continue to raise tuition at obscene rates and created the problem? Nope, plumbers will pick up the tab.

Elizabeth Warren was pushing this crap too, but her concerns didn't seem to be there when she was making $400,000 to teach 1 class.
Endowments and fake charity organizations like the LAST, Walmart family need to get taxed at corporate rates, annually.
 
Let's devote this thread to discussing the effects of Bernie's policies on the economy, whether good or bad. Which is to say, let's not limit this to his economic policies but how all of his polices would effect the economy.

I have recently decided to back Bernie without knowing much at all about his platform. Here's what I do know -

He supports student loan debt forgiveness.
Bernie plans to pay for forgiving student loans with a .5% financial transaction tax. That's a .5% tax on each stock, commodity, or derivative trade.

Here's my analysis on that:

It would lower your retirement portfolio by 55% of its value (buy = .5%, sell = .5%, 200% turnover/ year; .98^40 = just 45% your retirement portfolio remaining after 40 years). That doesn't even take into account transaction costs (brokerage commissions, bid/ ask spread) going up ~2000% under that tax, which will wipe out a bit more on top of that.

Trading is electronic. So, trading would simply move to Singapore or Hong Kong and other not-transaction taxed markets overnight. Not actually banned in the US; but effectively banned in the US. Companies would simply get off of the New York Stock Exchange and list their companies onto foreign stock exchanges. People would simply stop trading oil and other commodities on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and start trading them on foreign commodities exchanges.

Investment funds would also move accordingly.

It's not an actual ban. It's just a make-the-US the worst place in the world to do it, make American investment funds the worst place in the world to have your money, and it's all electronic so it can all be moved overseas overnight for 0 cost de facto ban.

Ultimate Irony: The goal is to collect tax revenue on a financial transaction tax. On top of offshoring huge American industries, it will actually lower tax revenue. The loss in capital gains taxes will be larger than any financial transaction tax revenue collected.

So, the plan simultaneously manages to lowers tax revenue and destroy an entire American industry. Therefor, that still leaves student loan forgiveness unpaid for.
 
Last edited:
He supports universal healthcare.

He supports mandatory (forced) medicare whether you want it or not instead of a public option. I don't want be on medicare for the rest of my life if I can afford not to be. I'm living overseas in a country with a public healthcare option right now and it's amazing. They have no need to force it on you because almost everyone wants to sign up voluntarily. The only people who don't sign up are the upper classes who can afford to spend more on the creme of the crop private healthcare plans. If it's such a good idea, I should want to sign up voluntarily; you shouldn't have to force it on me.

What if medicare for all ends up sucking and now you're forced to be on it forever? That could happen and that's why it should be an option.
 
Last edited:
Another thing that bothers me is Bernie's energy policy. We're energy independent and can actually pull out of the ME for good now. We're energy independent and the world's largest oil producer because of fracking. We have discovered enough fracking reserves to power our country for more than the next 100 years. However, Bernie wants to ban fracking.

That destroys one of America's fastest growing industries and takes us back to about 2003 in terms of being dependent on the ME:

750px-US_Crude_Oil_Production_and_Imports.svg.png


All that growth after ~2010 is fracking.

I think a lot of Bernie's goals are great. Healthcare for everyone, making our universities accessible to everyone without bankrupting them. The rest of the free world has these things. We're the richest country in the history of the world; there's no reason we shouldn't have these things. It's shameful and embarrassing that we don't have these things.

His ideas on how to get these things are crazy though.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top