Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The People's Bailout

howtosharpenpencils.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 323 posts

Re: The People's Bailout

#271

Post by elemenohpee »

hnal943 wrote: post #243
elemenohpee wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Civil liberties and free speech are supposed to be the cornerstone of American democracy and yada yada, but people suddenly feel extremely threatened when people want to exercise them. Notice the government doesn't get their panties in a bunch over the Westboro church, or Tea Party townhalls, but turn your attention towards the plutocrats and suddenly there's riot police in the street. The fact that the government…

There's no reports of rampant drug use and rape at tea party rallies.

With a straight face, you're going to tell me that the reason there was such a brutal crackdown on OWS was that people were smoking pot and there were isolated incidents of rape?

Also keep in mind that the Tea Partiers were carrying around assault rifles.

Yeah I'm not buying it.

Re: The People's Bailout

#272

Post by elemenohpee »

justindocanto wrote: post #222
elemenohpee wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still only thinking in terms of the market. This action is about raising social capital.

The action is people donating money that is going to be put to waste in comparison to their immediate needs. They should change the entire event to fundraising more food, generators, shelter, clothes & necessities for these people. If they want to do something extraordinary, which it seems they're trying to paint this event as, they should do something extraordinary like take all the money they raise and start buildi…

This is not necessarily connected to the Sandy relief efforts, and there's nothing wrong with different parts of the Occupy movement working on different problems.

There's already enough houses, we don't need to build more. What needs to change is peoples' tacit acceptance of the current debt relations, which is precisely what this action is challenging.

I'm not sure why you put social capital in scare quotes, it has an accepted definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital

Re: The People's Bailout

#273

Post by tilgovi »

tsotha wrote: post #170
sc68cal wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that the vast majority of student debt is not people going to an Ivy institution. The major concentration of serious debt issues has been in the private-education-as-big-business sector from companies like University of Phoneix and DeVry, whose business models depend on government backed student loans, or loans from private companies that are subsidized/guaranteed by the government (before President Obama s…

>I believe that the vast majority of student debt is not people going to an Ivy institution. The difference is nobody goes into $200k debt studying at the University of Phoenix, whereas people who go to lower tier Ivies on student loans and get less marketable degrees have literally sold themselves into debt slavery.

Except you're the one who brought up $200k as a number to begin with. And those people who sold themselves into debt slavery, by going to an extremely good school, may actually still hold jobs that will allow them to repay their loans eventually. Ignoring your arbitrary choice of debt number, we're looking at many people in debt and many of them without any college degree whatsoever.

And talking about parents isn't helpful. Parents are the ones watching the State of the Union address where the President talks about higher education and competing with China and then go out in the town and talk to the other parents about where their children are going to college and what their children are doing with their degrees. Thinking that only 18-year-olds can be fooled into saddling themselves with excessive debt is nonsense.

Re: The People's Bailout

#274

Post by tilgovi »

tsotha wrote: post #266
zanny wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so either, I just don't think its an excuse to say colleges and universities (especially since they are all federally funded) can practice extremely predatory financing expecting a kids parents to know better for them. I agree you should not alter open agreements, but those agreements are already biased by federal dollars in the form of guaranteed stafford loans. We need to get rid of federal loan and g…

I would get rid of GSLs. I would go further, too, and make the current financing process illegal. Imagine if you went to the local car dealer and he told you "Every car on the lot is $200k. But give me a detailed listing of your assets and income and I'll adjust the price such that you can barely afford to buy one if you take out as much financing as possible." That kind of price discrimination is illegal for your lo…

Here you are talking sense.

Re: The People's Bailout

#275

Post by elemenohpee »

greedo wrote: post #220
elemenohpee wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still only thinking in terms of the market. This action is about raising social capital.

How does this raise social capital? It's not helping the original debtor, and in fact, is increasing the demand for non-performing debt? Collection agencies will LOVE this program, since they can now actually make some money off of non-performing debt. If anything, this will result in collection agencies increasing their harassment of delinquent accounts.

Because it's a signal to all these debtors that there's a significant segment of the population that doesn't want to play by the old rules. It shows that they can count on their fellow citizens to help them out when they are down on their luck, the very definition of social capital.

Re: The People's Bailout

#276

Post by [deleted] »

justindocanto wrote: post #222
elemenohpee wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still only thinking in terms of the market. This action is about raising social capital.

The action is people donating money that is going to be put to waste in comparison to their immediate needs. They should change the entire event to fundraising more food, generators, shelter, clothes & necessities for these people. If they want to do something extraordinary, which it seems they're trying to paint this event as, they should do something extraordinary like take all the money they raise and start buildi…

[deleted]

Re: The People's Bailout

#277

Post by neilk »

downandout wrote: post #193
patio11 wrote: post #25

For the benefit of folks who might not understand how debt collection works, which may include OWS: if you buy $10,000 of an individual's debt for $500 and then forgive the debt, they have just incurred income of $10,000 and are obligated to pay taxes on it exactly as if you had handed them $10,000 in cash for services rendered. If you don't inform the IRS that you forgave the debt, via a 1099-C, you're going to get…

Why not ask the people to make nominal payments, and use those payments to purchase additional discounted debt? This would both solve the IRS problem and potentially make this a self-sustaining venture.

I think you just described the business model of a collection agency.

Re: The People's Bailout

#278

Post by bobwaycott »

greedo wrote: post #213
bobwaycott wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm not entirely disagreeing with your point, there is an element of dubious optionality wrt student debt when one systemically cannot find gainful employment without a college degree. College degrees are increasingly becoming the new high school diplomas—wherein they are, for all intents and purposes, of equal compulsory nature, without the defense of laws requiring all 18-21-year-olds to be there. Thus, for v…

The problem isn't that people are pursuing degrees, it's that some are pursuing economically unviable degrees. Here's a little anectdata from a friend. His daughter is in debt $60k for a degree in theater. Did well in college, but wants to "make it" in NYC. Now obviously the theater industry is very competitive, especially in NYC. So while trying to do various theatrical activities to get her foot in the door, she's…

I really think you need to get your biases in check. Pursuing one's dreams is exactly what the last couple generations have been raised to do. They didn't exit the womb feeling entitled. They were told since near birth they could be whatever they wanted to be. They were told they needed to go to college. They did exactly as they were told and wound up with little to show for it and an overwhelmingly difficult job market. They have been following the cultural narrative.

Now, they're thinking, "What the fuck?" and society is acting like it didn't push them headlong into this. By the time they've realized the narrative failed them, it's too late.

Re: The People's Bailout

#279

Post by bobwaycott »

greedo wrote: post #214
bobwaycott wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you miss the point. Systemically , exiting high school and entering college is the narrative. It is the path students are being presented as the way forward, not an option forward. Culturally, there is a very strong set of expectations placed on people wrt university education, and this narrative determines people's recognized option paths. There are strong social determinants in place, both positive and nega…

Then we need to change this narrative, because it doesn't fit the real requirements of the job world. Trade schools, apprentice programs etc are common all over the world, but not as well accepted in the US. You know who I envy? The electrician who came out last week to install a whole home surge protector. He makes excellent money, in a relatively safe work environment, and has reasonable hours. There's a whole worl…

> Then we need to change this narrative, because it doesn't fit the real requirements of the job world.

Exactly this.

Re: The People's Bailout

#280

Post by greedo »

elemenohpee wrote: post #269
greedo wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elemenohpee was trying to argue that someone who drives without insurance and hits someone wasn't responsible for their actions. If that's an argument you want to back, have at it.

That's what you want my argument to be, because it would be much easier to dismiss. In reality what I'm saying is that I don't think it's right to have a society that puts crazy amounts of pressure on people and simultaneously refuses to acknowledge the negative influence that those pressures have on behavior.

I'm not dismissing the point that people have hard choices to make in life, but I am refusing to acknowledge that they lack responsibility for those choices.

Society puts a lot of pressure on me to live up to its standards. It's my choice as to whether I let that pressure influence me against my values.

Sometimes all the choices and options suck. Not denying that at all. But if I ran over someone while driving in a tired state, or otherwise impaired, it would be ridiculous to not assume the blame for it. Yeah, my fatigue would be a slightly mitigating factor that might garner some sympathy, but compared to the poor schmuck I just hit? Not so much.

You can't really control the amounts of pressure and negative influence you get in life. But you can control how you react and respond to it.

Post reply on HN