Sorry, my dude. I just browse when I don’t have much going on, and those periods never last long. That sometimes results in kind of mangled thoughts.
What I mean to say is that ensuring your student debtors are on the hook is par for the course for how we’ve been realizing supply side economics. We’re maximizing outcomes for capital holders at the expense of consumers. Reducing student debt means that student debtors pay less to the loan servicing companies, which would not be maximizing the outcome for the capital holders.
Yes, you’re right, if we really wanted to generate wealth, we would optimize outcomes for consumers and workers, not for capital holders. You’ll find no disagreement with me there. Our economy is heavily dependent on the trading of consumer goods and services, so consumers not being able to afford goods and services is kind of dumb af. What I’m saying is that supply side economics (which I think is a steaming crock of crap) is a school of economic thought and policy that takes the view that if you maximize the outcomes for the capital holders (business owners, investors, etc), then you’ll generate more wealth than you would have under some other strategy, and that excess wealth makes everyone better off. We’ve had forty years of optimizing outcomes for asset and capital holders now, and I’m still waiting to see the cup overflow (spoiler alert: it won’t).
Thanks for the elaboration. Sounds like the supply economics is less of the issue, and forcing people into debt is an extra step on top of helping wealthy people amass wealth. And that alone has the presumption of trust and good faith embedded within in. Convincing people to vote for that is a stranger saying “trust me bro i’ll pay you back” behavior. If laws and regulations are geared towards making rich people more rich then that’s all the law is meant for, nothing else. That’s the point of taxes (allegedly) so that we can point the nation’s wealth to what we want for the good of everyone. scam/10
Sorry, my dude. I just browse when I don’t have much going on, and those periods never last long. That sometimes results in kind of mangled thoughts.
What I mean to say is that ensuring your student debtors are on the hook is par for the course for how we’ve been realizing supply side economics. We’re maximizing outcomes for capital holders at the expense of consumers. Reducing student debt means that student debtors pay less to the loan servicing companies, which would not be maximizing the outcome for the capital holders.
Yes, you’re right, if we really wanted to generate wealth, we would optimize outcomes for consumers and workers, not for capital holders. You’ll find no disagreement with me there. Our economy is heavily dependent on the trading of consumer goods and services, so consumers not being able to afford goods and services is kind of dumb af. What I’m saying is that supply side economics (which I think is a steaming crock of crap) is a school of economic thought and policy that takes the view that if you maximize the outcomes for the capital holders (business owners, investors, etc), then you’ll generate more wealth than you would have under some other strategy, and that excess wealth makes everyone better off. We’ve had forty years of optimizing outcomes for asset and capital holders now, and I’m still waiting to see the cup overflow (spoiler alert: it won’t).
Thanks for the elaboration. Sounds like the supply economics is less of the issue, and forcing people into debt is an extra step on top of helping wealthy people amass wealth. And that alone has the presumption of trust and good faith embedded within in. Convincing people to vote for that is a stranger saying “trust me bro i’ll pay you back” behavior. If laws and regulations are geared towards making rich people more rich then that’s all the law is meant for, nothing else. That’s the point of taxes (allegedly) so that we can point the nation’s wealth to what we want for the good of everyone. scam/10