Gender studies...

GuidoBandito

March 26, 2017

357 upvotes

/r/MGTOW

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Gender studies...
Author	GuidoBandito
Upvotes	357
Comments	36
Date	March 26, 2017 6:14 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/61mznt/gender_studies/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/gender-studies.599410 https://theredarchive.com/post/599410

[–]Diam35 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]soullessgeth10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LibraryGuyMGTOW 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]ABoyandhisFrog29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]feedmecarrots9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whiskeybandit67 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]feedmecarrots3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

This would be a bigger bailout than what the banks got in 2008 for housing, and that was secured.

Saying that the 2008 bailouts were for "secured" loans is an incredible stretch.

Let's start with the fundamental bad investments, which were mortgage loans. I buy a $500k house, you give me a $530k loan (cause who couldn't use an extra $30k when they're in debt up to their eyeballs and have no income?). That house is now worth $280k. Almost half of the value of that mortgage is effectively unsecured, though in theory you could recover half of it if you don't mind the hit on your financials in realizing that loss (vs the wishful thinking that maybe in less than 20 years it might go back up).

Those loans accounted for very little of the bailout, and they're barely what I would consider "secured."

Most of the money went towards credit default swaps. Those are completely unsecured derivatives. It seems like they were created to solve a classic wall street problem - I want to invest a trillion dollars in "safe" mortgage investments, but even throwing money at people who can't possibly pay it back failed to turn up this kind of demand for stupid investments. So, wall street figures out a way to leverage things further, so that this $260k house could be the basis for $1M or more in money changing hands (not that any of those derivatives had any kind of right to put a lien on the house).

That said, the whole student loan thing needs a major reform. I'm not keen on just wiping it all out, but at the very least we need to stop lending more out.

The bailout isn't the only thing the student loan crisis has in common with 2008. They were both based on wishful thinking and in some ways political correctness. In 2008 we saw what happens when you hand somebody a loan that they can't pay back to buy a house that isn't worth the money, probably because it was unfair that they couldn't buy a house. Well, one of these days we'll see what happens when you hand somebody a loan that they can't pay back to pay for a college degree that isn't worth the money, also because it is considered unfair that some snowflake can't get a diploma without it.

[–]feedmecarrots5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cristoff131 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ijciji31 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kyledontcare1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

That is certainly one way to make it happen, and making lenders actually have some skin in the game would be one way to go about that. Right now as far as I can tell the lender makes money whether you pay back your loan or not. So, they'll happily loan you money for anything. Taxpayers are the ones who potentially lose out, but they're far removed from the decision-making and don't get to vote with their dollars.

I do think that education is an investment for society as well as the individual, because educated people are less likely to be a burden on society. Well, that is assuming their education is actually meaningful, which goes back to your point.

I'm not sure exactly what reform would look like. I'd probably eliminate government guarantees for loans to start. If the student defaults, the investor who financed the loan loses their money. I do think that on the flip side bankruptcy does need some kind of controls on it for student loans because they're inherently unsecured loans because you can't repossess somebody's education. Maybe set the law that there is a 5-10 year waiting period before you can discharge a student loan via bankruptcy. That would keep people with STEM degrees from simply declaring bankruptcy the day after graduation because they have no assets. However, if somebody does have a meaningless degree they could get out of it and that gives the bank more incentive to not fund meaningless degrees.

I'd like to think that limiting the supply side of the loans in this way would put a lot of downward pressure on colleges to reduce their costs. A bank might be willing to take a $40k risk on some kid with great grades and test scores but no money, but they might not be willing to take a $100k risk on them. That gives students more incentive to shop around for what really matters, which probably isn't that really fancy residence hall and stadium.

The problem right now is that the only ones with skin in the game are taxpayers (who are removed from the decision-making process) and the student (who is a kid who no bank would give a $1000 loan to let alone a $100k one). The student follows the advice of their peers, teachers, and parents. The peers are worthless. The teachers have no long-term financial stake and as educators it is going to be hard for them to argue that somebody shouldn't spend money on education; half of their mission is to prepare kids for college it seems. The parents are interested in status half the time, and they give advice based on their personal experience back when the local public college cost $2k/yr and the union factory down the street would hire anybody with a pulse if they showed up to work on time.

Personally I find it difficult to blame the kids, even if they're idiots. It is like blaming a child when you hand them a loaded gun and they end up shooting somebody with it. At that point in life they haven't actually experienced enough of the real world to understand the significance of the decisions they're actually making.

[–]feedmecarrots1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]feedmecarrots0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fmanly1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Kids shouldn't even be given choices like that. Would you hire an 18 year old with no experience to manage a $100k budget in your business? Then why would you trust him to borrow that kind of money?

I'm all for letting kids make mistakes so that they can learn from them, but it is dumb to both shelter them and then give them this huge opportunity to totally screw the rest of their entire lives up.

Besides, everybody the kids trust are giving them horrible advice.

The problem is that we as taxpayers are enabling this sort of thing.

The other problem is that people spending their money foolishly tend to drive the costs up for those who would otherwise be responsible.

But, sure, the basic advice here is sound and it is the best thing that any individual can do. The problem is that you and I are still stuck with the results when all those individuals don't make that choice. So, to the degree that we can get society to change it is in our own interests to reform the system.

[–]feedmecarrots1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fmanly2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheExSexOffender 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I've always had a problem deciding what "should" be done about student debt, but the more I think about it, the more I want the "you can't discharge this debt" to continue. Mostly because even though I majored in something useless, I paid off my debt and don't feel any empathy for somebody who can't.

I mean, what are the two options? Let them declare bankruptcy and have a bunch of debt collectors or the government eat the loss or bail out the student debt and then what? they still have a useless piece of paper.

[–]fmanly8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We're in this crisis because of a stupid economic policy. Bankruptcy exists for a few good reasons:

It gives banks a reason to not just throw money at really bad ideas.
It gives people some incentive to be productive.

The second item is key. Suppose I manage to get $500k in debt. Ok, we can agree that I was probably stupid. But, what is to be done about it? I can't change the past. Maybe I'm capable of earning $30k/yr. If you let the debt collectors garnish my wages, then I probably won't take home any income. That means I have no incentive to work. So, instead of paying back some of the debt, or at least paying for my own room and board, I end up costing society money in welfare, prison, or through various charities/etc.

Bankruptcy is a different way of looking at the problem. It starts with the premise that you can't get blood from a stone. That $500k is already gone, and nothing we can do will make it get paid back. So, we wipe the slate clean so that the debtor now has an incentive to work and make the most they can out of their life.

Student loans are no different. Little Suzie was an idiot for borrowing $70k to fund a gender studies degree. The problem is that we the taxpayers were even bigger idiots for lending her that money. Face it, we're not going to get that money back. The question is how do we give Suzie an incentive to lessen our losses. Maybe Suzie is a loser who will never earn her keep. She could at least earn some of it, versus none of it. We can at least establish a policy that will minimize our own losses.

We won't do it because we give two shits about Suzie. We'll do it because it is financially in our own interests to make a deal with the devil, because we're already screwed unless we intend to default on the national debt instead.

[–]Cristoff130 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link