'Biden's Education Department just wiped out $1.74 billion of student debt for 22,000 borrowers...'

[Riedquat]

The problem with money is that there's a huge system obfuscating something that fundamentally attempts to compare apples with oranges in the first place. People get lost in that obfuscation and genuinely believe there are no downsides to things like cancelling debt; all a government (or central bank) does with things like cancelling debt or issuing new money is shift wealth around; there's no actual increase in the meaningful economy (via productive work done or assets owned; it should be obvious that any measure of wealth is subjective though). Money means having a bit of a say over that work and assets, tax is the government getting its say directly (as is printing more money - has the same effect, plus inflation). As is issuing then cancelling debt (pretty much identical to printing money - the overall net result is transfering wealth from one bunch of people to another).

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Apparently as I'm reading, the loans come from the treasury department which insinuates that the money's being printed fresh, which means that... cancelling it is probably relatively harmless to the economy if it got laundered through the university system (public ones at that half the time) anyway.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Abusing statutory authority to transfer the debt of people with relatively high paying, secure jobs to the general taxpayer. Yeah, great job.

Taxes don't fund federal spending. Read some Modern Monetary Theory.

That is more like Modern Magical Thinking.

However, if taxes do not fund federal spending then the federal tax code should be eliminated, as that is the only just argument to have federal taxes.

There are plenty of good reasons to have federal taxes. To incentivize or disincentivize certain practices is one. To keep a check on inflation is another.

If we want to pretend taxes fund federal spending, however, then can I ask what dog you have in the fight and exactly how you think it will materially affect you?

To incentivize behaviors is social engineering to justify theft. It also tends to create black and grey markets. It ultimately also results in police choking out a guy for doing things like selling loosie cigarettes.

I have a dog in that fight because I pay taxes, because other people and institutions paying taxes has an effect on their behavior that will have an effect the economy which has an effct on me.

Wow. You really went there, huh?

Taxes didn't cause police to murder a man for selling loosies. That was a little thing called police brutality.

What, you think if they shave the money it costs for public services and social programs they'll give you the extra hundred-something-odd dollars back? They'd just buy another umpteenth of a combat fax machine or a few more bullets that will be dumped directly into a river because the army doesn't need them.

The police were enforcing compliance with the punitive vice taxes on cigarettes in New York when they killed Eric Garner. When you create a law against something you give law enforcement a license to use violence against people, even lethal violence to enforce that law. Which is why you do not use the law frivolously and ought to be damned sure whatever goal you are trying to accomplish is worth potentially getting someone killed over it.

...we have tons of laws that get enforced without getting anyone killed. I...are you saying it is appropriate that the police use lethal force for ANY law on the book?

[CharlesPhipps]

Apparently as I'm reading, the loans come from the treasury department which insinuates that the money's being printed fresh, which means that... cancelling it is probably relatively harmless to the economy if it got laundered through the university system (public ones at that half the time) anyway.

One of the issues that is facing the US is the fact that banks have taken advantage of the laws to become their own printers of money. By creating debt in unlimited amounts and trading it, they have effectively been creating their own currency. There is now far more debt in America created by banks than there is money to pay it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Apparently as I'm reading, the loans come from the treasury department which insinuates that the money's being printed fresh, which means that... cancelling it is probably relatively harmless to the economy if it got laundered through the university system (public ones at that half the time) anyway.

One of the issues that is facing the US is the fact that banks have taken advantage of the laws to become their own printers of money. By creating debt in unlimited amounts and trading it, they have effectively been creating their own currency. There is now far more debt in America created by banks than there is money to pay it.

I understand debt as a rather regular market commodity. I've never heard of it as an effective inflationary device though unless used in intermediary fashion by the fed when doing open market operations which is a highly deliberate and instrumental process and is also more of a relative contractionary monetary mechanism as opposed to a total money supply modulation iirc.

[CharlesPhipps]

I understand debt as a rather regular market commodity. I've never heard of it as an effective inflationary device though unless used in intermediary fashion by the fed when doing open market operations which is a highly deliberate and instrumental process and is also more of a relative contractionary monetary mechanism as opposed to a total money supply modulation iirc.

Inflation isn't necessarily the problem as currency isn't being devalued. It's the fact that there's not enough money being paid out to deal with the debt ironically enough. The debt of Americans and need for wealth is growing far faster than the US' government willingness to provide it because the economy is generating far more need for it than actually exists.

Which is partially why I am not at all troubled by the expenditures on infrastructure as we do need to dramatically expand the wealth availability for the public to keep up with the massive increase in debt.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I understand debt as a rather regular market commodity. I've never heard of it as an effective inflationary device though unless used in intermediary fashion by the fed when doing open market operations which is a highly deliberate and instrumental process and is also more of a relative contractionary monetary mechanism as opposed to a total money supply modulation iirc.

Inflation isn't necessarily the problem as currency isn't being devalued. It's the fact that there's not enough money being paid out to deal with the debt ironically enough. The debt of Americans and need for wealth is growing far faster than the US' government willingness to provide it because the economy is generating far more need for it than actually exists.

Which is partially why I am not at all troubled by the expenditures on infrastructure as we do need to dramatically expand the wealth availability for the public to keep up with the massive increase in debt.

Alright well yeah this is a little clearer on where you're coming from. Debt is indeed an issue, and it is not without controversy. While private debt has known economic implications more or less, public debt which includes the US government's liability towards private individuals and organizations, creates thinning prospects for tying monetary stability (inclusive of effective regulatory efforts) with market prosperity. Inflation is like shedding fat, and is actually good for international trade for instance, but that comes with the caveat that stuff like inflation rates and interest rates can only be stretched so much.

Private debt, which is held by banks, can have systemic implications like with the 2008 meltdown involving toxic assets and international financial markets deregulated by the Clinton administration. That's more of a fluke though, and not really seen as an exploitation of laws so much as an oversight failure.