We should stop giving government guaranteed loans to people who pick majors that are not economically viable

We should stop giving government guaranteed loans to people who pick majors that are not economically viable.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=G7oglIAdnJM
youtube.com/watch?v=gDoIilJ-_Z0
elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
youtube.com/watch?v=G7oglIAdnJM&t=20s
youtu.be/5k5lGYZRFmI
washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/21/black-lives-matter-blames-orlando-white-supremacy/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

like math

your obsession with plastic gooks is not economically viable

it probably works out for the gooks though, she probably has a guy paying for all her shit.

it works for a fraction of the pop with high paying jobs living in capital city
koreans ans asians in general are ugly as fucking sin and I don't understand why this obvious well known fact has to be reiterated so often

We should start putting people in prison for missing payments on student loans taken out for fake degrees, like Sociology and Women's Studies.

Or you know you could throw fines at schools offering degrees like that.

>stop giving government guaranteed loans
>to people who are not economically viable
youtube.com/watch?v=G7oglIAdnJM

Economically viable? How economically viable is a degree you never use, which is the case for most degrees. There are average incomes associated with degrees, but the variance is enormous.

The government should just get out of schooling entirely.

youtube.com/watch?v=gDoIilJ-_Z0

Nah, that would be counter productive. The faster we can cause the university bubble to pop and the economy collapse, the faster a world in which economic restraint is the norm will exist. In this world, no one will have the time nor money to even hire SJWs with their retarded degrees, so their movement will slowly die as they starve to death. And always remember, degrees like ours will become more powerful and profitable in a financially conservative jobs where corporations don't even bother interviewing other people.

Just let it all burn.

If it collapses they'll just blame capitalism and gain even more control of the economy. People still believe the housing market was caused by unregulated capitalism.

>People still believe the housing market was caused by unregulated capitalism.
Because it was.

You think killing off sjw degrees is going to make STEM degrees more powerful?

Wouldn't the opposite be true? By killing sjw degrees you inadvertently force an influx of people going into STEM which is already suffering from HB1s.

fuck off commie

What we should do is make college free but harder to get in, economic viability is irrelevant. Many discoveries that benefited humanity were not immediately economically viable.

I bet you let real estate tycoons fuck your wife too.

>If someone dislikes unregulated capitalism which doesn't work best for people they must be a communist
American "" "" "" ""education "" "" "" "" ""

no shit sherlock

How fucking retarded can this guy be? Holy shit!

Fuck loans. School shouldn't be for profit.

The way the system should work is like they do it in all developing countries.

Free of charge state universities. Hard entrance exams. Pure meritocracy (well almost but I'm not going into that now).

The only reason it doesn't work like that any more (it used to be that way) in first world countries, is because stupid rich and middle class people want their kids to have undeserved opportunities. So we have this shitty system where a lot of stupid people get a dumbed down degree so that they can go work in places where they don't belong.

>Lets floos stem even harder
Fuck you, STEM is full.

There are already more grads than jobs while job growth is minimal. This means many salary growth is either negative or non existent thanks to overload of human resources. Some STEM degrees have shit pay already, like math, physics and engineering.

That said STEM degrees like engineering already face challenges in automation and outsourcing. Only thing keeping salaries afloat are shitty degrees that people are taking instead STEM.

Too bad Gov/companies are shilling STEM even harder to push down wages. Automation doesnt come fast enough and outsourcing doesnt always work so theyre opting for next best thing

Fuck you, were a full.

>We should stop giving government guaranteed loans to people who pick majors that are not economically viable.

Totally agree, if your degree isn't in a hard science, or engineering based on hard science then you should be on your own.

learn how to be a professional SJW victim on someone else's money.

>If it collapses they'll just blame capitalism and gain even more control of the economy

no, actually what will happen is:

The republicans will declare that any public funding of education is a failure that caused the collapse and their solution will be to privatize all education in America K-12 and college and remove all funding from it.

Then it will be just like in the good old days when the rich could educate their children and the poor died young working the fields.

It still bothers me that in 2017 we can't offer stipends to necessary science degrees that have low average earning prospects while other STEM degrees like most every Engineer that's expected to pull 80/90k+ salaries pay for theirs.

>majors that are not economically viable.
So no government loans for any majors then.

>Totally agree, if your degree isn't in a hard science, or engineering based on hard science then you should be on your own.
>Hard science
>Guaranteed job
ok pajeet

>So no government loans for any majors then.
okay ass clowns, just cause you don't understand that scientists and engineers help a countries economy doesn't mean that everyone else thinks you're not retarded.

also send the pajeets back to India. H-1b visas are bullshit.

The system you describe works well for professional programs where the graduate will have a stable income, but that's not the only point of higher education.

The original purpose of liberal arts education is to cultivate the children of the elite in art, language, and history, and have them network amongst themselves. Those things will not help a poor student, but they used to provide a common cultural reference point for young aristocrats.

The government should not be involved in education period.

>Have banks invest in high risk, high return mortgages
>Mortgages fail
>Banks fail
>Economy tanks
>Govt. bails banks out
>Banks invest in high risk, high return mortgages
>And so on
Who is in the wrong here? Was it wrong for the banks to take such high risks? It's their choice. They take the risks, they pay the price. Except in our neoliberal, government-sticks-its-dick-everywhere western nations, these high risk investments are made inevitable by the very fact that the risk is eliminated by the govt.

It was literally the government lowering the bar, i.e deregulating the banks, that made the banks able to invest in those mortgages.

>>Govt. bails banks out
>>Banks invest in high risk, high return mortgages
>Banks pay back money owed to gov't
>Everyone's happy

why do you think banks got involved in subprime lending? are they suicidal, that's your theory? the clinton government encouraged it because not lending to niggers who are unable to pay was racism and supposedly the reason niggers couldn't get out of poverty.

You assume everyone can do it in STEM. By Calc 2 they have all been weeded out.

>get STEM degree
>join military (US anons only)
>use the shit like GI bill and other bonuses to pay for you debt
>profit
Just pass the exams they give you on enlisting and they will put you in some cozy desk job. They value college grads especially STEM guys since the other people who flood them are all GED holders.

Exactly, the government was convinced to release their grip on the banks in a misguided attempt to increase niggers' entry to housing

I know, I fucking hate sociology. My teacher's specialty is social justice and it shows. Thinking Dylan Roof shows "pervasive wyht sapremasy" but Orlando shooter is not even mentioned.

Aren't there more empty than filled computer analyst jobs? According to online OCC handbook. Not saying everyone should be a programmer, got enough genius intellects who think completely changing windows 8 and 10s interface from 7s was a great idea.

Who is this semen demon?

>economy crashes for a significant period of time and huge quantities of taxpayer money are wasted on the bail out
>everyone's happy

What a joke.

If someone is majoring in sociology, they'll be denied funding? If the next great academic in English literature is aiming to go to college, they're denied funds despite showing excellence?

Retarded. No wonder nobody takes STEM seriously. Math is just as rigorous as proper writing. Any other opinion is immature, blind by ignorance, or blind by an undergrad who thinks he'll be something in the future of his studies while he's shitposting on a science board about how "superior" he is

What with this degree obsession so espoused at lot here?

>Math is just as rigorous as proper writing.

Hey Mr. Undergrad!

Writing and proper literary analysis has rules, just like math. I don't know why math autists think they're smarter for knowing different rules than someone else.

>Writing and proper literary analysis has rules, just like math.

>We should stop giving government guaranteed loans to people who pick majors that are not economically viable.

WTF... what is wrong in majoring in Mongolian 13th century footwear

elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

not too crazy an idea. people who major in things like history have a hard time finding jobs outside of academia, and there are way too many people competing for those few positions.

this should really happen.

>asians in general are ugly as fucking sin
Now that's just not true.

>t. guy who has no idea what math is

Too bad no major guarantees 100% that you will get a job

>okay ass clowns, just cause you don't understand that scientists and engineers help a countries economy doesn't mean that everyone else thinks you're not retarded.
Yeah, so do underwater basket weavers, by selling finely crafted underwater baskets. Just because the market is extremely limited doesn't mean it's not there. However, no major is "economically viable" these days because the expense outweighs the return, even for STEM majors.

This is classic!

the economy is built on loans so we need to give them to everyone

>not economically viable
youtube.com/watch?v=G7oglIAdnJM&t=20s

>>Have banks invest in high risk, high return mortgages
First of all, no one made the banks offer these services, however the government did allow them to take unnecessary risks while consolidating to the point where, if they became insolvent, it would cause a systemic, catastrophic collapse of the global economy. That's what they mean by "too big to fail" and that's why the bailout happened.
> They take the risks, they pay the price.
Everyone would have paid the price. If your bank becomes insolvent, your savings account is gone. Your money is gone. If depositing money in the bank becomes a "risky investment" then you might as well not have any financial institutions at all.
>these high risk investments are made inevitable by the very fact that the risk is eliminated by the govt.
The risk was by no means eliminated. Just because the government kept them on life support doesn't mean the banks weren't hurt really really badly by the crash.

>federal reserve manipulates interest rates, Treasury yield curve inverts, $2 trillion of QE create stagflation
>massive subsidies and guaranteed housing loans from FHA/fannie mae/freddie mac inflate housing market
>low quality/high risk loans GUARANTEED BY GOVERNMENT
>somehow it's the free market's fault

>why do you think banks got involved in subprime lending? are they suicidal, that's your theory?
Banks are not people, regardless of what the law says, and they do not experience dread when faced with existential risk. Banks' behaviors are defined by the behaviors of the executives who run the banks, and their behavior is defined by individual self interest. Now, let's say, for the sake of a simplistic example, an institution's executive officer has two options on how to run things. Option A will have the institution grow at a steady rate that is modest but sustainable. Option B will yield extremely high short term gains but is not sustainable long term and will ultimately lead to catastrophe. The executive could choose A and lead the company for decades and retire as an effective yet milquetoast businessman, or he could choose B, make millions in bonuses, then exit and ride into the sunset with the glowing praise of shareholders whose portfolios are temporarily bursting from his "success." Also, if he chooses A he will be hounded constantly by activist investors pressuring him to switch to B, and option B will result in absolutely no personal consequences for our executive. I wonder which he is more likely to choose....
>the clinton government encouraged it because not lending to niggers who are unable to pay was racism and supposedly the reason niggers couldn't get out of poverty.
Wrong. If it was only driven by subprime residential lending then the crash would have been more localized to the residential housing market. Instead we saw the entire real estate market implode all at once: a systemic crash. Moreover, the "nigger" loans you are referring to were a small percentage of residential subprimes, so it's moot either way.

Or just make universities publish salary distributions of graduating classes x months after graduation, because prospective students are too stupid to look that up themselves.

You have to realize that the problem is not the high risk mortgage, it's that Banks are guaranteed by governmental institutions to get their money back, which means they are more likely (incentive) to do reckless lending of money without properly assessing the characteristics of their borrower ; and it increases the demand of mortgages (since the mortgage are guaranteed, banks can afford to lend money to riskier people) which inflates the price in the housing market. It's a disaster scheme.

If their mortgages weren't guaranteed, banks would be more careful to whom they lend money, as they would have to face the consequences if their borrower becomes insolvable. They would have to properly assess the risk and adjust the amount of money lent in consequence.

>We should stop
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>Stephen Molyneux
I hate to turn this into /pol/, but Stefan is a retard: youtu.be/5k5lGYZRFmI

Majors who are not economically viable are the ones that should be getting money from the government, because studying only the things that make money in the short term is a terrible idea.

What's the "child born"?

Yes, education is just to make you into a better wage slave.

You'll make a good goy

>it's that Banks are guaranteed by governmental institutions to get their money back
You seem to be under the false impression that the government backs every single subprime loan for some reason. Maybe you should read something besides the National Review.
The number of government backed loans was actually decreasing in the years leading up to the housing crisis. There's no evidence that government backed subprime loans default at a high rate than non-guaranteed subprime loans, indicating that banks do not see the government backing as carte blanche to hand out loans to whoever they wish. I think I read somewhere that government back loans actually perform slightly better than non guaranteed loans. The spike in subprime lending immediately followed passage the Gramm Leach Bliley Act that deregulated the banking industry. Deregulation was the primary cause.

not an argument

The thing is that government did back subprime loans, which created a moral hazard situation, not through direct backing, but through indirect backing with monetary policies. The government explicitly claimed (through Alan Greenspan) that they would not interfere to prevent the creation of bubbles with monetary policy, but that they would rather use monetary policy to offset its consequence, were it to show up. That means that banks got the wrong incentives : they could lend to risky individuals, without properly assessing their risk first, because if they gain money in the end, good on them, but if they were to lose money, then the government would take measures to mitigate that loss, which means the banks wouldn't have to feel the consequences of their decisions. It means that such monetary policies protect investors against their bad decisions (risky mortgage), which encourages them to create bubbles. The main error being that Greenspan almost guaranteed continued, very low interests rates in the 2000s, all that to keep prices ''stable'' and mortgages ''affordable'' and to irrationally prevent a deflation, which ''falsifies'' the prices on the housing market and sends the wrong information to the agents in that market, including banks, such that they could misallow capital into risky mortgages and create a bubble.

Over regulation is what helped create the bubble, not deregulation ; because if things had been deregulated, and if inflation had run its normal course (and wasn't forcefully prevented) the prices on the housing market would have adjusted, and so would interest rates, which would have forced banks to make a better risk-assessment of their clients. Instead, since prices were kept ''stable'', and inflation low, the bank could afford to do risky mortgages and so to more people.

porn

back to tumblr

Oh, I'm retarded. I usually expect a :DDDDDD for those words

you don't seem to grasp the difference between monetary policy and deregulation

yes, the fed's monetary policy contributed substantially to the timing and magnitude of the financial crisis

but subprime mortgage lending through structured investment vehicles made possible by deregulation of the financial industry in the late 90s and early 2000s was the driving force behind the bubble

to pretend deregulation played no part just because it suits your political agenda is either quite obtuse and shortsighted or intellectually dishonest.

Using buzzwords such as deregulation without additional classification is intellectually dishonest.

>The thing is that government did back subprime loans
Yes, and those loans were just a fraction of the total number of subprime loans.Those government back loans were nothing new. They had existed since the 70s without incident. Fanny and Freddie didn't start the trend of handing out subprimes like candy; they followed suit with the industry. Again, problems only started after the GLB Act clawed back Depression Era regulations.

The government should stop funding anti-American propaganda.

>liberal arts majors can make it in STEM
Kek, these people have a hard time understand algebra taught in high school.

Yes, there is a difference, and central banks should exist, and some legislation should be in place so that banks act honestly. However, a lack of regulation (=deregulation) isn't a bad thing like you claim. The lack of regulation only caused a problem because the wrong incentives where it place (wrong monetary policy). If there had been a good monetary policy, which would have allowed for deflation, the lack of regulation would have meant that the market could deliver an efficient solution, and not instead create a bubble.

And I'm not intellectually dishonest, or at least I think I'm not. Sometimes problems are created because the wrong incentives are in place, which means more legislation need to be adopted to control that new situation, and so on and so forth, but the original problem is not that there weren't any regulations, but that the incentives were misplaces. Much the same thing happened with the crisis of bank deposits.

I was speaking in a general way, not technically when I said this ; hence why I said through indirect backing with monetary policies. Direct backing (loan insurance/guarantees) leads to market inefficiencies and bad results, though has low chances of creating a bubble, that's true, but indirect backing, through poor monetary policies does lead to disasters.

I remember I failed precalc in highschool and now my life is miserable.

So no more doctors, lawyers, teachers, therapists, or (soon) engineers?

Or we could just remove all sports from colleges and save lots of money.

STEM has been overrun by wage slaves, it's fucking pathetic. You study science for the pursuit of understanding, not so that you can pretend to be Chad Cuckerburg.
Not science related.

They'd still exist but they'd be exorbitantly expensive

>people (especially niggers) can't be trusted to take care of themselves they'll all buy drugs and shoot each other
>except for me of course i'm smart and college educated and young :^)

>entrepreneurs and politicians cannot be trusted to run society they're too selfish
>except for the politicians i support and of course people like elon musk and mark zuckerburg :^)

>implying inflated tuition doesn't make them expensive
The tangle of Government deals surrounding post-secondary education is what makes college expensive.

They step out, everything will be peachy, if given a year or two to stabilize. Of course both of those steps would require divine assistance to take given colossal millennial butthurt over the realities of economics.

>regulations can't be done privately
>regulations are always good
>government regulations are the best way to handle things

Right buddo

school isn't for profit the teacher don't work for free dipshit.

you need to be willing to move to get a good job.

education was affordable before the government started shilling for it. Free market makes things cheaper, or better, or both not more expensive

Government literally insured any loan they would make and threatened them with law suits because their lending practices were deemed racist aka they didn't lend to people because they couldn't ever pay it back but the government saw it as racist because a majority were black or latino.

washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/21/black-lives-matter-blames-orlando-white-supremacy/

Venezuela another socialist utopia imploding

Implying doctors can't be replaced with computers.

Government guaranteed loans have nothing to do with economically viable and everything to do with inflated tuition.

Since the govt agrees to cover all loans, schools can up their tuition to the stratosphere. What happens is new schools pop up everywhere and fill themselves with dozens and dozens of Vice Provost and Deans for everything, like 'Dean of Inclusion' being paid $650k a year. This is all paid for by jacked tuition bubbles.

End the govt loans and schools now have to compete, no more extremely high tuition for a run of the mill state school because they can't fill their administrations with cruft to leech money. The top students will never have to pay for school anyway, they are always given full grants to Ivy League schools and by full grant I mean living allowance and everything paid for and forgiven after graduation.

Meanwhile Joe Blow, who wants to go to a state school, leaves with almost $70k in debt these days.

Medical school is a good example, you need like $350k now to graduate because of inflated tuition.

B doesn't happen for the same reason companies don't hire someone who doesn't do any work at a job. They don't hire B or don't let B do what he wants because it will fuck the company up. This is usually a problem leftists have with economics, is that their incentive exist in a vacuum. Its like physic but you've forgotten some of your force lines.

>subprime residential lending then the crash would have been more localized to the residential housing market
wrong as they monetized those loans through derivatives so the financial markets were fucked by those subprime loans as well. For comparison Europe had subprime loans but they didn't collapse at all because they weren't incentivized to make shitty loans.

...

This whole uni is about jobs meme needs to end. Just do this:
One company produces standardised tests to tell how competent an applicant is for a profession. Sells them to testing centers who administer and mark the tests. Students sitting the test pay for the expense in order to discourage them from simply sitting tests over and over again until they fluke it.

From there it's entirely up to the student to prepare themselves for the test, whether they pay someone for tutoring, or just fucking googling until it's done.

Regulations often have a negative effect on profits, but companies exist to maximise their profits so I have no fucking idea why you'd think companies would regulate themselves and hence handicap themselves relative to their competitors
No, regulations aren't always good, but on the whole they're better then unfettered capitalism

Not even a socialist but logic like
>corrupt government unsurprisingly implodes
>this is the fault of socialism
Seems faulty. Unless your point is more to do with the large amount of power that may be required for socialism (depending on how it's implemented), in which case your point is more valid