Suppose you grew up in Sioux Falls, SD. Your family didn’t have a lot of money. You never thought about public vs. private as you contemplated your options in high-school. You just knew you wanted to go to college. 1/8
You considered three options. (1) South Dakota State Univ, which is 70 miles north in Brookings, (2) University of South Dakota, which is 70 miles south in Vermillion, (3) Augustana University, which is right there in your hometown of Sioux Falls. 2/8
Augustana is private. SDSU and USD are public. You never gave a moment’s thought to any of this. Your family didn’t have a lot of money, so you received a fairly generous financial aid package from Augustana. 3/8
Tuition at the public schools was lower, but it would have ultimately cost more to attend SDSU or USD because of room & board. You decided to live at home and go to Augustana. 4/8
You graduated in 2008 with $40k in student loan debt. The job market was lousy (Global Financial Crisis). Eventually, you found work, but you fell behind and missed a few payments. Because of fees & penalties, you now owe $65k. 5/8
You just heard that the federal government is considering cancelling some student loan debt for people who attended a private college or university. You race to the computer and Google “Is Augustana University public or private?” 6/8
Noooooo! You had the misfortune of attending one of the hundreds of small, private colleges that serve rich and poor kids alike in big cities and small towns across America. For that “sin,” you’re not eligible for debt relief. 7/8
It drives me absolutely crazy to hear politicians talk about cancelling debt “for those who went to public colleges and universities.” It’s bad enough that we’re talking about means-testing cancellation, let’s not public-private test relief as well. 8/8
The above tweet (6/8) should state, “You just heard that the federal government is considering cancelling some student loan debt for people who attended a PUBLIC college or university.”
The above tweet (6/8) should state, “You just heard that the federal government is considering cancelling some student loan debt for people who attended a PUBLIC college or university.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We could have designed something *similar* to this.
The first question is basically, Do you need financial help? Y/N
I pretended I was Canadian for purposes of this exercise. 1/9
Decided to live in Ontario. 2/9
Like many Americans, I claimed *some* lost income due to COVID. 3/9
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that what we’re hearing from a number of economists today was laid out more forcefully more than a decade ago by those they prefer to ignore.
Mainstream econ has arrived at the position that we’re probably OK as long as CBO forecasts re: the future path of interest rates is off. MMT asserts that the future path is a policy choice.
I’ll put the MMT record up against the stopped clock mainstream Keynesian record any day. Exhibit A brookings.edu/wp-content/upl…
If you’ve followed the headline Keynesians over the years, you know that they have twisted themselves into knots, trying to justify their ever-shifting views on fiscal sustainability.
They counseled Congress (and Obama) to steer clear of a bigger relief package, paving the way for an abysmal “recovery.” They leaned into Simpson Bowles and went on to warn that “A debt crisis is coming.” washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-deb…
I promise to stop when the battle is won. Until then, here’s another attempt to improve understanding and shift our broken thinking about government “deficits.”
THREAD
First, the word deficit. 🤦🏼♀️
It’s a terrible word because it suggests a shortfall.
A deficiency.
A problem.
It’s none of those things.
But that’s how we usually think of the word. Like when the announcer says, “If the Rays are going to come back and win this game, they’re going to need to overcome a three-run deficit against the Dodgers.”
I recently heard someone refer to MMT as “dangerous.” It is upsetting to those who prefer to stay nestled in the conventional discourse, where it is acceptable to change one’s answers to age-old questions but not to challenge the questions themselves. 1/4
Thus, “How much does the government *need* to tax vs borrow to pay for its spending?” can be answered differently by “reasonable” people. 2/4
Dangerous people change the questions: “What is the purpose of taxing and borrowing, and when/why should a currency-issuing government *choose* to do more of either?” 3/4