Student loan interest rates hit 12% this year

[zugzwang]

1 minute ago, Locke said:

The very term "shadow banking" shows that the governmental banking system has unintended consequences.

Black markets do not exist without government sanctioned "normal" markets.

The shadow banking system was (and still is) a completely unregulated free market. Free markets are inefficient, full of noise, and incapable of self-repair. Pricing errors accumulate without limit when market makers control the money supply.

[anonguest]

8 minutes ago, msi said:

 

No, he just ended 'boom and bust'

Well, insofar as he helped postpone the 'bust' he certainly played his part in ensuring that when the bust truly arrives here in the UK, as far as property prices are concerned, it will be ENORMOUS.

8 minutes ago, msi said:

I miss the days of incompetence

Really? Maybe those sunglasses you're wearing are too dark. Cos if you take them off and look around you can see incompetence everywhere. Just two words. Boris AND Johnson.

Edited April 14, 2022 by anonguest

[AThirdWay]

2 hours ago, btd1981 said:

II) Why should they be subsidised by others?

 

Higher notions of an educated society.

[AThirdWay]

37 minutes ago, Locke said:

Why should I pay for someone else to study "art" for 3 to 5 years?

In your opinion. How many of the great artists and musicians got there by higher education?

Does that require 3 to 5 years of university education?

 

Society as a whole benefits, but I know your definition of society differs from most

[anonguest]

21 minutes ago, AThirdWay said:

Higher notions of an educated society.

Indeed. So that the intellectual elites can be afforded the opportunity to study and debate the modern equivalents of how many angels can fit on the head of pin, such as why men with penises can actually be women or whether mathematics is actually racist and other such highbrow deeply important and erudite matters that affect and improve the day to day quality of life of Joe and Joanne Average.

IF you want to be a doctor good on you. I'll pay for it when I visit you professionally after you qualify.

IF you want to be an Electronics Engineer good on you. I'll pay for it when I buy the latest gizmo you helped create/invent.

IF you want to be an Art Historian I'll pay for it when I visit the gallery/museum/institute/etc that you end up working in - which will be never.

Edited April 14, 2022 by anonguest

[msi]

11 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Well, insofar as he helped postpone the 'bust' he certainly played his part in ensuring that when the bust truly arrives here in the UK, as far as property prices are concerned, it will be ENORMOUS.

Brown certainly didn't help build any buffer or regulatory control - his continuance of the Tory 'light touch' approach and nervousness of any thing strong triggering the Rabid Right

Quote

Really? Maybe those sunglasses you're wearing are too dark. Cos if you take them off and look around you can see incompetence everywhere. Just two words. Boris AND Johnson.

I knew I should've used a sarcasm tag   Browns incompetence is a world away from the sheer malevolence of the current crop of Tories

[msi]

6 minutes ago, AThirdWay said:

Society as a whole benefits, but I know your definition of society differs from most

hahahaha

[Bob8]

3 hours ago, btd1981 said:

Higher earning graduates may well pay it all off, or much of it. Some lower earners will never meet the threshold to pay any, which begs the questions:

I) What is the point of their courses?

II) Why should they be subsidised by others?

 

Would you say caring for, helping teach and raise children is important?

[Patfig]

Didn't the government sell off the student loan debt?

[Locke]

28 minutes ago, AThirdWay said:

Society as a whole benefits, but I know your definition of society differs from most

I disagree that the group of people paying for it receive a net benefit. University graduates have become progressively (get it?) more of a burden on their creditors over time.

In any case, when education is funded without the standard of profit, costs escalate and benefits recede, as we are seeing today.

[Locke]

2 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Would you say caring for, helping teach and raise children is important?

Yes, which is why those tasks must not be entrusted to an organization as incompetent as a government.

How much of what you were taught for the 14 years of government schooling you likely received do you apply in your day to day life?

[Money Frugality]

19 hours ago, coypondboy said:

Crikey, maybe better off borrowing against house at 1% to clear it off as many sensible students will have done if now in well paid jobs and equity in house.

Nonsensical

3 hours ago, btd1981 said:

I) What is the point of their courses?

II) Why should they be subsidised by others?

Yup

2 hours ago, Locke said:

The point by the way is to indoctrinate the youth into collectivism and it has worked exceedingly well.

Yup. See more women than men in higher education who are predisposed to more collectivism naturally. 

1 hour ago, spyguy said:

I get shouted down but the best filter would be to require an A level Maths pass at C or higher before letting people into HE.

Yup, instantly half the amount in HE as it should be. 

[anonguest]

Just now, Bob8 said:

Would you say caring for, helping teach and raise children is important?

Yes. But what has that to do with pursuing a History of Art degree?

[AThirdWay]

1 hour ago, anonguest said:

Indeed. So that the intellectual elites can be afforded the opportunity to study and debate the modern equivalents of how many angels can fit on the head of pin, such as why men with penises can actually be women or whether mathematics is actually racist and other such highbrow deeply important and erudite matters that affect and improve the day to day quality of life of Joe and Joanne Average.

IF you want to be a doctor good on you. I'll pay for it when I visit you professionally after you qualify.

IF you want to be an Electronics Engineer good on you. I'll pay for it when I buy the latest gizmo you helped create/invent.

IF you want to be an Art Historian I'll pay for it when I visit the gallery/museum/institute/etc that you end up working in - which will be never.

The price of everything, the value of nothing.... 

[anonguest]

Just now, Locke said:

Yes, which is why those tasks must not be entrusted to an organization as incompetent as a government.

How much of what you were taught for the 14 years of government schooling you likely received do you apply in your day to day life?

A reasonable point.

I learned that the Earth goes around the Sun and, like Sherlock Holmes, observe that.....

"....If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”
― Arthur Conan Doyle, Shelock Holmes

😉

 

[anonguest]

Just now, AThirdWay said:

The price of everything, the value of nothing.... 

"Money makes the world go around"  😉  LOL

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by anonguest

[AThirdWay]

51 minutes ago, Locke said:

I disagree that the group of people paying for it receive a net benefit. University graduates have become progressively (get it?) more of a burden on their creditors over time.

In any case, when education is funded without the standard of profit, costs escalate and benefits recede, as we are seeing today.

A builder knows how to build a house. Given the instruction "build a house" he'll build you a box with a roof on it. Given the instruction "design me a house" an architect will design a house that, dependent on taste, will be beautiful. 

The beautiful house benefits all, that is the difference.

I'm intrigued by you insistence that government shouldn't be involved in providing education, who do you think would fill the void? Religious organisations? 

[Locke]

1 minute ago, AThirdWay said:

Given the instruction "design me a house" an architect will design a house that, dependent on taste, will be beautiful. 

The beautiful house benefits all, that is the difference.

Have you not seen the shit which government trained and employed architects have been putting out?

Anyway, most all houses are now constructed by government cronies who abuse the planning system to push out people who want to build nice homes for themselves. They do not employ architects, but use shitty copy n paste plans arranged to squeeze human kennels into every last square inch.

3 minutes ago, AThirdWay said:

I'm intrigued by you insistence that government shouldn't be involved in providing education, who do you think would fill the void? Religious organisations? 

Whoever wants to. Governments have proven themselves not only incompetent, but anti-competent at educating people.

State run education is so poor that parents could easily teach their children better. Especially that we have the internet now where knowledge is free.

Apprenticeships for example, where a business pays for its employs to receive the training they need to work at the business are a brilliant form of educational system, good enough that it has survived the kleptocracy of today's age.

If you can't get someone to pay for you to learn something, that indicates that what you want to learn is worth less than the cost of learning it.

[AThirdWay]

7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

"Money makes the world go around"  😉  LOL

 

Perhaps ones financial situation has a bearing on the attitude to this? I'm comfortably retired with the other half still grafting to keep us in the manner to which we have become accustomed. I can take the time to appreciate design.

I had almost 20 years of maintaining and operating brutally functional equipment and buildings in the army. Whilst one can argue that the functional simplicity of that equipment is designed in, it is fairly obvious that it was designed by engineers, not designers per se. That was fine at the time, I didn't have time to stop and wonder why, for example, the bloody heaters in transport never worked, you just got on with it. The engineers weren't that concerned about the human, mainly the equipment.

Todays equipment has ergonomics (and survivability!) now designed in by designers. Yes, the engineering technology is still there, but people educated in university around arty-farty design concepts have input to produce a better product.

If the armed forces can accept that money doesn't make the world go round, there is hope for us all!

 

[adarmo]

2 hours ago, Locke said:

Why should I pay for someone else to study "art" for 3 to 5 years?

In your opinion. How many of the great artists and musicians got there by higher education?

Does that require 3 to 5 years of university education?

 

Why should anyone do anything for anyone else in a society? The old contract was simple. HE paid by state and in return you ended up paying more tax. That seemed simple. 

Pink Floyd (greatest band ever) all met at Oxford IIRC. As did Blur, Radiohead, most of Queen. Against this argument Coldplay also met at university so I'm torn whether to allow arts in there or not. On balance world is richer for Pink Floyd than it is poorer for Coldplay.

Take the point, you're either creative or not but university is simply much, much more than the subject you study. 

[AThirdWay]

7 minutes ago, Locke said:

Have you not seen the shit which government trained and employed architects have been putting out?

Anyway, most all houses are now constructed by government cronies who abuse the planning system to push out people who want to build nice homes for themselves. They do not employ architects, but use shitty copy n paste plans arranged to squeeze human kennels into every last square inch.

Stop moving the goalposts. Your question was 'cui bono', I think I answered that question.

Whoever wants to. Governments have proven themselves not only incompetent, but anti-competent at educating people.

State run education is so poor that parents could easily teach their children better. Especially that we have the internet now where knowledge is free.

You REALLY believe the church/mosque/synagogue would be an improvement on the government current provision? Wow! Don't kid yourself that the majority of parents would choose home-schooling... They wouldn't.

Apprenticeships for example, where a business pays for its employs to receive the training they need to work at the business are a brilliant form of educational system, good enough that it has survived the kleptocracy of today's age.

See, we can agree on some things!

If you can't get someone to pay for you to learn something, that indicates that what you want to learn is worth less than the cost of learning it.

Assuming education must have a cost benefit, yes. But as we see, I don't agree that is the bottom line. The cost of everything, the value of nothing!

Lunchtime over people, the grass doesn't cut itself you know! 

Enjoy

[anonguest]

15 minutes ago, AThirdWay said:

but people educated in university around arty-farty design concepts have input to produce a better product.

Resulting in the abundance of pretty looking but functionally cr*p consumer products that abound? Form over function.

Elegant bathroom taps with no 'grip' to them when you have soapy wet hands, pretty looking sofas with literally no ars*/lumbar support so you sink down into them and and up sitting with your knees at your chin, computer software that lacks thought in design for the end user, Film and TV visual effects that are pointless and add nothing to the content being presented (and give you a headache too!), and so on.

[anonguest]

29 minutes ago, AThirdWay said:

I'm intrigued by you insistence that government shouldn't be involved in providing education, who do you think would fill the void? Religious organisations? 

Your conflating the setting of/specifying the standards required (i.e. what children should learn) AND the actual delivery/implementation.  They are two different things.

For example, so far as I am aware, private schools are not legally required to emply people with formal qualified teacher status.  Who would argue that private schools do not, mostly, deliver good curriculum and education?

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by anonguest

[adarmo]

20 hours ago, coypondboy said:

Crikey, maybe better off borrowing against house at 1% to clear it off as many sensible students will have done if now in well paid jobs and equity in house.

Perhaps. 

Had this debate with someone a while ago. IF you expect to clear the initial balance of the debt during your working like and IF the interest rate on the loan is lower than other sources of borrowing. But if you're going to earn £30K a year and have the thing written off in 30 or 40 years then wouldn't bother. 

Personally I think it's a disgrace that rather than making self employed and anyone of pension age pay NI they burn the young with this. Sure, too many go to uni to study wishy-washy BS but, in part, I think that's a function of slacker standards in schools, an insistence on academia over trades or vocational courses and grade inflation. 

Cynically the expansion in university numbers was simply to keep youth unemployment down. 

[Freki]

11 minutes ago, adarmo said:

Perhaps. 

Had this debate with someone a while ago. IF you expect to clear the initial balance of the debt during your working like and IF the interest rate on the loan is lower than other sources of borrowing. But if you're going to earn £30K a year and have the thing written off in 30 or 40 years then wouldn't bother. 

Personally I think it's a disgrace that rather than making self employed and anyone of pension age pay NI they burn the young with this. Sure, too many go to uni to study wishy-washy BS but, in part, I think that's a function of slacker standards in schools, an insistence on academia over trades or vocational courses and grade inflation. 

Cynically the expansion in university numbers was simply to keep youth unemployment down. 

The issue is that the prospect of earning more money is not very appealing. The loan burden acts as a deterrent. 

From microeconomics 101: the marginal rate of a higher salary is diminished. Overall society loses out due to this moral hazard.