Hurr durr if we wipe out all debt everyone will be finally free

>hurr durr if we wipe out all debt everyone will be finally free

Why are millenials so retarded? Its worrying because a lot of millenials actually believe this

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(Christianity)
forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/10/05/could-national-debt-forgiveness-help-kickstart-the-american-economy/#2b2b156056f0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

seriously? people asking for global default?

Don't worry, Tendie Sanders will fix everything :^)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(Christianity)

forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/10/05/could-national-debt-forgiveness-help-kickstart-the-american-economy/#2b2b156056f0

Because the concept of having to pay money you borrowed is very complex and difficult for some reason.

i don't get this people should be grateful they got money when they needed it in the first place.
biting the hand that feeds you is clinically insane.
if stupid irrational fucks that place themselves in a debt they can not pay for get forgiven then they will do it again hell people who never needed said loans will do it because fuck it i need that gold coated mercedes now to cruise and get chicks debts will be forgiven anyways.

...

Yeah I dunno.

Like bro, it's not an evil jewish capitalist conspiracy. You agreed to borrow money on certain terms, eventually those terms come around and you have to honor them. What exactly is evil about this? Never understood.

there are models where you only gonna get debt from your employer who pays you your salary and pretty much the rent your food and clothing you can only buy from your employer.

prostitutes from eastern block are often kept like this at the west. in this particular case the debt is not the result of free decision but engineered artificially it is not based on free market choices. but indeed a form of slavery.

i don't think it applies to the majority of people in debt. and even whores can quit but then they would have to work.

the problem is society has been compromised such that one MUST get a degree (or two or three) to make an adequate living.

this is not a function of a free market. it is a cleverly designed scheme which keeps people trapped under debt that at least half of them don't want or need.

People, for the most part, are incapable of recognizing the system that controls them, how it functions, or who runs it. That's why most radical movements that want "freedom" usually wind up as cats paws for the establishment. Whether we're talking about far left feminists wanting to "smash the patriarchy" or alt-right stormwiggers blaming "dah joos" for everything.

Millenials of many political affiliations think that the banking system is the extent of global power and control because they are incapable of conceptualizing anything that doesn't resemble their own boogeyman, just like everyone else. Banks are the thing that they blame for the lack of jobs, the student debt they voluntarily took on, and the fact that they can't save the down payment on a mortgage.

Yes, it's stupid, but they're part of a big stupid crowd.

It's true, though.

That doesn't mean there wouldn't be chaos, but they would be free from debt.

This is completely different from a default. Under a default, your credit rating suffers and you are less likely to be able to borrow money in the future. The situation in Mr. Robot is different. All electronic records would be lost, so there would be no way to enforce current debts.

>biting the hand that feeds you
Who is feeding who? Borrowing money with interest is a mutually beneficial agreement. It's not charity. Lenders make a killing, especially if the borrower keeps paying the interest while slowly paying off the principal. The borrower is feeding the lender as much as (or arguably more than) the lender is feeding the borrower. You think the Euro bailouts were helping Greece? No, they were bailouts for the lenders.

This is completely irrelevant for college. Fine for credit card debt and stuff, but on average college has a great ROI and most students don't really have many assets at 18. Waiting until you actually can afford it upfront diminishes the return you can get from it, since you will be closer to retirement age when you get a degree.

A more appropriate piece of advice would be "don't borrow money for something that won't pay you back."

So, so you plan to fix it with free education, or what?

I went to college on scholarship. I'm not fucked. If you couldn't get in without taking on debt you should probably have gone into a trade.

That's great. I have some scholarships, and some loans, and I'm perfectly happy with that. I acknowledge that I made a choice, I'm not asking for a magical socialist revolution or jubilee.

People taking six figures of debt for meme liberal arts degrees are batshit retarded, but I'm comfortable with my circumstances. I could have made cheaper choices, but I'm glad I didn't.

That's like asking why people get cars with 28% interest.

There's no understanding of tomorrow.

This.

Depends on the debt, I suppose. College debt is an anchor around a young professional's neck because even the people dumb enough to need them but smart enough to pay them off have to allocate a good chunk of their early earnings on paying it back. Maybe if you got a stipend for graduating with a certain GPA or something, so you only go into debt for university if you weren't really needed there anyway (drop out or flunk out)

>cars with 28% interest.
jesus does that really happen

I'm not too knowledgeable on economics. Can someone tell me whether this would cause serious inflation or would it help the value of the currency?

Greece is asking for this as well, Argentina tried to get this from the US, but a NY circuit judge threw the book at them. There are entire nations and blocs of nations that believe this. That should scare you even more.

>omg u r so retardad XDDD
>mileneals r so stuepid XDDddddddd
>argumant disporved
Calling people retarded isn't a justification for your opinions, moron.

>dumb enough to need them

Hello daddy's spoiled boy

it would kill the fundamentals of economy.
nobody would lend money anymore if anyone could default on it without severe consequences.

without lending there is no interest, without interest there is little point to banks, without banks the people would want their money in their pockets. but there is not enough money for that. guess what it would be a clusterfuck.

If a college degree has a great enough ROI to pay off the original debt and then some (a STEM degree, for example), then you can afford that debt. If you get a degree in feminist studies, you're buying shit you can't afford.

>"don't borrow money for something that won't pay you back."
I agree, but I think original advice is saying the same thing in different words.

it is really bad that the foundation of banks are based on interests, it should be fair and square. If someone wants a loan of 100,000 , the way it should go is you as a bank charge a fee, let's say a 1,000 dollar fee and payback should be 100,000. no compound interest, no simple interest. it's not profitable to the bank as the interest scheme.

you can think of the end result of compound interest as the total fee. except you would be bonked pretty hard in the ass if you want to repay your debt faster. the way it's calculated makes little difference to the end result if it's payed back on schedule.

here is the deal
interest is a two way thing
you can't have little interest when you borrow money and nice big interest when you loan the money. the bank takes a cut of course but it's private lender that give you the money when you borrow.

the interest rate is determined by the inflation the velocity of money which in turn derives from present / future value.

there is nothing sinister about interest. present value of money is greater than future value of same amount (usually). thus you have to pay more back later than what you received otherwise the lender party will not be interested as it would be a net loss to him.

incentive to lend money is the interest. if you default on debt then you introduce risk to the game lenders will only lend you at higher percent of interest. until they won't lend you at all because it's too risky.

at that point the economy comes to a crashing halt.

it is in everyones best interest that no one defaults on debt. for higher than fair interest and demand for mortgage blame he fuckers who do default as they induce systemic risk with their shitty anti-social behavior and make the game worse for good-faith actors.

It's inevitable. I just want to figure out a way to short debt before it happens.

short default swaps?

>the interest rate is determined by the inflation the velocity of money which in turn derives from present / future value
1. That sentence is a word salad of econ 101 terms and makes no sense.
2. What I -think- you are trying to say is still wrong.
Interest rates are determined in a semi-free market. The base rate is the rate at which the government will lend currency. Because the government can print money, by definition, no one can lend money for less than that (because otherwise borrowers would just go to the government for loans, either directly or through market middlemen). The rate the government chooses has a bit to do with economics and a bit to do with politics. Beyond that, banks choose their own interest rates according to whatever they feel like charging. If customers think a rate at one bank is too high they can try another, and the competition keeps rates as close to the government rate as the profits of the banks will allow.

As you say, money now is generally worth more than money later, but the interest doesn't just bring them to par. Lenders lend because more-money-later is worth more to them than some-money-now. It's how they feed their families.

Lending is a for-profit enterprise and like buying any normal good at a store both parties engage in the trade because they prefer what they are getting over what they are giving. A young couple prefers 100k now to buy a house and is willing to pay 150k for it over the next couple decades and the bank would prefer that 150k then to the 100k it has now.. There's nothing wrong or shameful about it. Everybody wins.

Well, at least until some poorly educated people think they have a "right" to something and thus shouldn't have to pay for it.

it's not wrong i worded it awkwardly a bit but the point is "money printing" is just a meme the velocity of money multiplies the money supply more effectively have more effect on inflation and vica versa.
when there is inflation the velocity of money increases because the future value of the money you have decreases thus you re more inclined to spend it now.
it's a feedback system really. inflation velocity of money and future value they are all connected and effect each other. and together they pretty much determine interest rates.

now governments try to pretend they control interest rates by state bond interest rates (provided it could serve as a baseline a very low risk investment) but the truth is they more likely to follow market pressure than influence it. but again it is also a feedback system of sorts.

Sure are alot of Jews in this thread.

i don't think so
nobody mentioned "muh shekels"

it was written by a 44 year old gen x fag named Chuck Palahniuk for fellow gen x losers raised by some greedy boomers.

Good. If I want to understand the concept of lending I would most definitely consult a kike

They know best. Thank you Jewish overlords

This is what should be addressed, but the answer isn't free college, which would only make the core issue worse.

Employers used to more frequently do aptitude testing during screening of potential employees. This changed with the Griggs Power case, which showed that these aptitude tests showed "disparate impact" toward minorities. So now instead of those tests (which are now on shaky legal ground), you signal that you are not an idiot by spending 50k and four years of your life. Pretty fucked up.

Training on the job was also more common in the past, I hear, compared to nowadays when you are expected to come to most companies already trained (in theory at least by your college degree) and ready to go.

I coudlnt even read past the url

Are millienials the libcap boogeyman?

It would do the opposite and cause severe deflation. But this is not a good thing. Look into Irving Fisher's model of debt deflation.

I was more pissed with the idea that ONE company is holding all the debt. I mean, holy shit
>if I destroy this company, the entire US will be free of debt

The show was interesting in premise, with one lone hacker 'realistically' fighting against the elite. But when you have the 'elite' being in one company, it loses all realism.
All possible types of conspiracy, backstabing, corperate espionage, with this lone hacker trying to destroy the entire thing. But nope, it's just this one company.

There's a part, somewhere, where a group of guys laugh at how silly tv shows are at depicting hacking. And that's what the show is all about, posing that it's smart while being ridiculously shit and stupid.

Feminist studies people usually get well-paid office jobs in academia or Human Resources. STEM's the meme degree from a strictly effort-to-gain perspective, honestly.

>inflation is one thing, that's why interest has to be adjusted to inflation
no it is the inflation that also derives from interest rates in a pretty simple mechanism.
money + interest = more money = inflation of money supply.
>loans should only account for inflation
there is risk and reward also.
>loans aren't supposed to create value
then nobody would lend you need incentives for people to lend their hard earned money to others.
>i don't see debt interest healthy for the economy
so basically you are a poorfag who don't have any money to lend out. try having some fucking money you will realize it's nice to get interest on it.
bonds are loans basically and they are used as an investment vehicle by governments and corps.
your arguments are immature and short sighted.

im not a poorfag, i actually do lend money for collateral, but I never ask for interest.
I lend my acquaintances 4-7 thousand, i ask for a simple process payment that is usually one percent of the amount as one time payment+cheque cost, nothing more. I also offer them extension periods for one percent of the remainder of their debt if they need more time, if they don't pay back, we have a contract and can take them to court.
I always get paid back in full.

im not arguing, lol, this is what I do.

well if you wish to do charity that's your business.
i want my loans to pay above inflation.
hell, since it's more risky i want them to pay above government bonds.
i lend to family on gov bond interest as i trust them the same but i wouldn't do so for strangers.

you have to build your risk into the interest otherwise it's bad business. of course you have every right to underestimate the risks involved in lending lots of people that took on debt have become unable to repay them from an unforseen turn in their life. unemployment damage to health. they will be very sorry and all crying and shit but the end will be they won't pay you or won't pay you in time or in full.

fuck that.

there is 0 risk if i have collateral+ a well written contract, it isn't charity, it's what loans are originally, until usury got mixed into the play. look, i do account for inflation. does it make sense to lend someone two hundred grams of gold and after one year he owes you two hundred and twenty grams of gold ? absolutely not.

Lolwut

If I had the chance for free college I would take the most expensive as fuck route and pass simply because it's free

I'd love to have global default, clean slate

Yeah and those jobs that were made specifically for them wont last forever. Who do you think is more valuable in an economic collapse? A trades person, farmer or some office faggot who makes money by providing a service that will be useless later on.

usually the easiest degrees are preferred by the most people.
you might be an anomaly.

>there is 0 risk if i have collateral+
you never said you were a loan shark lol. never occurred to me to take collateral.

i have loaned for 0 interest before it was a 1 week affair with a co-worker i had to lend him some cash for bail money on a rental car so he can take his kid somewhere.
but if i had to choose between him and a guy who offers 10% interest for the same loan guess which one i would have went for.

statistically loans are a risky business. micro loans not so much. also by providing money for someone who needs it you provide a service. for free. only retards provide service for free in my book.

no i would lose way more than what i would gain.
my bonds would be worthless my bank probably bankrupt and i would lose the money on my account. i would only retain what i have in gold and silver.
fuck that!

Well its not like we have a choice, it's going to collapse eventually, we just don't know when. 10-30% of your assets in PMs would far offset your losses in a global collapse anyways and you'd be farther ahead than where you are now.

free tendies for everyone :^)

in bernie's america, everyone's a good boy!

lol not really fair at all to people who've loaned out or invested considerable amounts of money

Partly.