Forgiving student debt sends the signal that educational investment is worthless because it cannot return the rate of the money borrowed to finance it. That may actually be true but then what is the value of the credential?
It will create a boom in worthless degrees and ruin the lives of students who waste their time on them, for the years thus destroyed can never be recovered. On top of that "education" will be the next subprime bubble.
Because there's no real return these policies are zeroing out the future, for interest rates carry information about the use of time, and no cost borrowing will incentivize kids to spend years or even decades as students. Loans should tell the truth about the future not lie.
The one asset that government can't create is time. Not even Communism pretends it can. But they can waste time. And that's exactly what distorting opportunity prices does.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Perhaps the moral of the story is we should take people at their word. When they openly vow to take possession "from the river to the sea" or abolish the "colonial state of America", whether you agree or not, you should regard this as a serious declaration.
The mistake was to patronizingly regard these serious undertakings as a joke; a figure of speech, mere hyperbole, adolescent exaggeration. The real jokers were the spineless custodians of culture, who though powerful, lacked the tenth of the resolve of the militants.
1990: experts all agree missile defense will never work.
2024: why doesn't the Fleet defend every country on earth like it did Israel? Seems effortless.
Same thing happened to the Internet and GPS. It seems like secret diabolical Pentagon inventions become basic human rights in two generations. We go from "you must never build it" to "you must provide it, preferrably for free."
I have often thought the smartphone encapsulated the process of how the American empire was built. It was created by accustoming the world to things that they couldn't live without. And suddenly the new Rome was just there.
In assessing the danger of an attack on the Gaza port, you should always figure on capability. Don't assume intent.
In fairness to Joe once he made the decision to stick his presence, into Gaza, absent active protection, he had no choice but to hope no one takes a shot at it. He is defended by "luck".
It has been said that "hope is not a strategy" but actually it is a betting gambit that presumes the future has a hockey stick shape where Joe takes a short term hit or risk in exchange for the prospect of hitting the jackpot down the track.
Nine months into his first term in 2021 Joe Biden told the UN: “as I stand here today, for the first time in 20 years the United States is not at war. We’ve turned the page.”
All Joe thought he had left to fix was Climate Emergency, the challenge of the age, to which he pledged $11B. The road ahead was bright. But somehow bad luck intervened. Future historians will try to understand the misfortune. But at the inflection point it was all rosy.
It's almost like Nagumo at 10:24 June 4, 1942. Tomonaga's force has returned from Midway. All enemy torpedo bombers have been shot down. An overwhelming strike against reported enemy ships will be ready in minutes. Victory!! Suddenly a lookout points up at something unseen ...
I have often argued that the Greatest Generation deserves the name, not because they won the war (which they did) but because they won the peace which was in many ways the harder trick.
The key to their success was that they did not try to restore the pre-WW2 system. They let the British and European colonial empires die. The world was rebuilt on first principles. Subsequent generations have done the opposite. They've focused on preserving the World Order.
Joe Biden's "Build Back Better" has often struck me as the Bourbon Restoration attempted with rotgut whiskey.
Sam Bankman Fried will not face second trial on campaign finance charges. In public interest not to dredge up "campaign finance violations, conspiracy to commit bribery".
It would avoid raising such painful questions as "who did you suborn? Who did you bribe?" Since he's already convicted of money laundering the prosecution will only make the rubble bounce, right?
Who saw this coming when they split up the charges?