Slashdot Mirror


Let Them Eat Teslas

theodp writes "If you're a bright kid who wants to prepare for the 21st century workforce (PDF) by studying engineering at Purdue, the government will help your parents pay the $100,000 or so tuition tab with a 7.9% interest loan (plus 4% fees) that's likely to be non-dischargeable in bankruptcy and paid back with after-tax money. If, on the other hand, you want to buy a tricked-out $100,000 Model S, Tesla has teamed up with the government, Wells Fargo, and U.S. Bank on what it calls a 'Revolutionary New Finance Product' that enables those who play the game right to avoid paying sales tax, get the government to pick up the first $15,000 (no down payment needed!), and also receive a 2.95% bankruptcy-dischargeable loan for the balance, the payments for which could be tax-deductible. Yep, 'Revolutionary' may be about right!"

461 comments

  1. LOL! American "priorities"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL! American "priorities"!

    1. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Our government is being managed for the benefit of corporate elites. It's the simplest and most reasonable explanation for what looks like total idiocy from the outside.

    2. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2

      Is this energy efficient spam??

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    3. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by Stormthirst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the outside?

    4. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      - point

    5. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Our entire economy and society is being managed for the benefit of corporate elites. It's the simplest and most reasonable explanation for what looks like total idiocy from the outside.

      FTFY

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    6. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      The correct solution is to strip that power from government rather than imagine it will never happen.

      "Vox populi vox dei" is the servant of corruption, yet as a meme it turns said masses into useful idiots. Politicians seek power for the purpose of getting in the way of things, for the purpose of getting paid to get back out of the way. This is endemic and obvious in most countries. It is just hidden a little better in some.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Our government is being managed for the benefit of corporate elites.

      Well, someone has to buy their services. The corporate elites happen to be the ones with the money. If you were wealthy, I imagine you'd find yourself with plenty of opportunity to buy government services whether you wanted to or not.

    8. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by yurtinus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also have quite favorable loan terms on my house - better than my girlfriend has on her student loans. I'm not going to go pound on my credit union's door and demand social justice. The problem is with the education loans, not the home or car loans. Demonizing Tesla or the auto industry for striving to provide a means of buying their products is asinine and childish.

      Education finance has some serious issues that need to be addressed. We aren't going to solve them by crying about auto loans. This entire discussion is flamebait - just fishing for angry rants.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    9. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I also have quite favorable loan terms on my house - better than my girlfriend has on her student loans.

      A house can be repossessed. An education can not. Interest rates should reflect risk.

      Demonizing Tesla or the auto industry for striving to provide a means of buying their products is asinine and childish.

      Nobody here is demonizing Tesla. We are demonizing the government. It is not Tesla's responsibility to make sure tax dollars are spent wisely.

    10. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by yurtinus · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Demonizing" might be harsh, but the tone of the summary and a fair deal of the subsequent discussion is that Tesla is taking away from education. Come on... "Let Them Eat Teslas" ...?

      I'm not arguing that education loans should have lower interest rates - just pointing out that the submitter (and maybe the article, but who RTFAs anyway) is specifically picking on Tesla when his beef is with education. Hell, I could walk down to the Subaru dealership and get at worst a 2.9% rate loan with no money down. In any case, I don't think you and I really have differing opinions on the interest rates for school loans and car loans because you are spot on about the investment risk and options in the event of default.

      However, I stand by my main point that this summary is written just to rile up the masses.

      Nobody here is demonizing Tesla. We are demonizing the government. It is not Tesla's responsibility to make sure tax dollars are spent wisely.

      The only federal government involvement here is a $7500 tax credit. This is the same type of credit that's been around for hybrid vehicles for years. You may not agree with them - I don't - but enough people have decided they're worthwhile, so they stick around. Sales tax exemption and state tax credits are the state's issues, write your (much more local) state legislator about those. I know I'd pay full sales tax. TFS is making it sound like everybody's going to run out and get a check from Uncle Sam for $15k and dodge sales tax just for buying a Tesla, but that's a stretch at best and - depending on the tax credit situations in Washington and New Jersey - a outright lie at worst.

      Anyhow, I think it's important to talk about the costs of education. People talk about education loans these days as if they're mandatory - ignoring options like scholarships, grants, less expensive school choices, or part time work during college. But this Tesla thing is just an attention grab.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    11. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Hey, who cares?

      I'm long out of school. Now, if they give this kind of deal, AND..they start making Tesla Roadsters again that are eligible for this deal, I'm IN!!

      I don't need a family car (S car has too many seats), but I'd love an electric performance sports car with a nice tax break and loan built in!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Anyhow, I think it's important to talk about the costs of education. People talk about education loans these days as if they're mandatory - ignoring options like scholarships, grants, less expensive school choices, or part time work during college. But this Tesla thing is just an attention grab.

      And let's face it, not everyone needs to go to college, nor can they cut it in college. Go be a plumber or something.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by loufoque · · Score: 1

      You're encouraging people to buy an American-made green car instead of a German-made polluting car. That money would have been spent by those people anyway, the government is simply directing where it is going.

      On the other hand, helping poor people get access to higher education is almost a net loss for the economy.

    14. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      I'm on board with nearly the entirety of your post. However:

      ignoring options like scholarships, grants, less expensive school choices, or part time work during college.

      One of the issues is that financial aid packages assume loans will be taken out. So if you skip the loan, and work more instead, you may be able to cover the expense. But what happens next year? Oh yeah, your grant is reduced because of the amount of money you made this year. So now you have an even bigger funding gap to close.

      Also, the scale at which students take loans means that colleges and universities have no issues raising tuition. College tuition is increasing far faster than inflation -- which already outpaces earnings growth for part-time workers.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    15. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      Jefferson tried that by creating the Democratic Party when the Federalist Party was inundated with corporate interests. That party is long-gone. Did that do the trick? No, the 'special interests' just jumped ship to another party. I'd say the correct solution is to remove greed from the equation... While I like to remain fairly optimistic, I'd have to say that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    16. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Well, you would also need to strip power from the judicial branch as well as the legislative, because the elites wield the law as a weapon against the poor.

    17. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      You're right, off the cuff I'm going to say the typical skilled tradesman will have better financial success than a typical college grad.

      Master plumber in my state requires 5 years apprenticeship with mandated tests to be licensed. I wouldn't compare it to a 5 year engineering program but it sure the hell beats the pants off of a typical management or lib arts class load. Although there are a lot of people who call themselves plumbers or engineers who aren't really those things.

    18. Re:LOL! American "priorities"! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Hell, about the only thing that sucks about it...is having to work outdoors and under houses....often at times when the weather isn't the best, but still, good money, and you're independent, etc.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by trout007 · · Score: 5, Informative

    They can always repo your car.

    This is why Education should be funded where the risk is borne by the one making the loan. The repayment terms should be based on a percent of the students income for a fixed number of years.

    These guys are trying to do it.

    https://www.upstart.com/

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by TheRealRainFall · · Score: 1

      Isn't this more or less the Cuban model, but with an unspoken contract and no buyout options?

    2. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Very good point...
      With a car loan, the car is collateral. If you default, they can take back the car.
      With a student loan, what are they going to do? Cut out sections of your brain?

    3. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why Education should be funded where the risk is borne by the one making the loan. The repayment terms should be based on a percent of the students income for a fixed number of years.

      This is why Education should be funded by The People. If we took the profit motive out of education we wouldn't have to worry about the "administration" making several times what the instructors do for not even teaching.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Captain+Hook · · Score: 5, Funny

      "This is your brain..." "And this is your brain after defaulting on an education loan..." Cut to shot of egg being smashed under a frying pan.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    5. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Custard+Horse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And who underwrites the losses for students who flunk out, die, refuse to work or only work for minimum wage (they need to be able to retain minimum wage to live), and those who are committed to prison for whatever offence?

    6. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      ...not to mention those that take themselves and their education to another country to earn a living. Would extraordinary rendition be appropriate?

    7. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      In many cases, college students, degree or no, would have very little brains they could spare.

    8. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The repayment terms should be based on a percent of the students income for a fixed number of years.

      The problem is that, to do it that way, you can't give a loan to everyone. To make that model work, you would have to weed out the slackers and medieval art majors who have no immediate prospects of making a decent income at graduation. The way the system is set up now, everyone is basically treated equally when it comes to federal guaranteed student loans, be they stoners/dance majors or over-achievers/engineering majors. That would never fly under a "pay a % of your income for X years" model.

    9. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Great, so I get a loan and don't work or part time for the first X years.

      How about we just admit having an educated society is a good thing and we make a university education free to those who qualify.

    10. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by xaxa · · Score: 1

      This is why Education should be funded where the risk is borne by the one making the loan. The repayment terms should be based on a percent of the students income for a fixed number of years.

      This is how my British student loan works. The government underwrites the risk, some privatised company manages everything, and I pay off the loan gradually -- minimum 9% of my earnings over £16,000. The interest rate is low (it was very low, but they changed the rules -- I think it's now 1.5%).

      If I were to earn less than £16,000 I wouldn't pay off anything. If I die, or become permanently unable to work, the loan is written off. Everyone is entitled to one loan (I think).

    11. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by hughbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes naughty students for dying just to avoid their financial obligations. Never heard of such outrageous behaviour.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
    12. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Think of it like buying stock. You get a cut of the profits. If the company is wiped out you take a loss.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    13. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      This is why Education should be funded where the risk is borne by the one making the loan. The repayment terms should be based on a percent of the students income for a fixed number of years.

      This is why Education should be funded by The People. If we took the profit motive out of education we wouldn't have to worry about the "administration" making several times what the instructors do for not even teaching.

      Or learning.

    14. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Sure it would. Just the terms would be worse. If anything it would help those who can get into great schools but can't afford it. If you take a lousy major from a lousy school your % of income for a certain loan will be much higher than if you took a major where you could make money.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    15. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wait, you mean the summary is misleading me? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! Maybe the details of the Tesla deal will bring some truth:

      US Bank and Wells Fargo will provide 10% down financing on approved credit, and the down payment is covered or more than covered by US Federal and state tax credits ranging from $7,500 to $15,000. New Jersey, Washington and DC also have no sales tax for electric vehicles. These advantages are not available when leasing.

      So buyers don't "get the government to pick up the first $15,000 (no down payment needed!)", but rather they get a government credit that may cover the 10% down payment, assuming their purchase qualifies for the various government programs. There's no further details on what exactly the tax credits are, but my suspicion is that they're generic credits for buying an electric car or other blessed "green" technology, and probably cover 7.5% to 15% of the item's value..

      After 36 months, you have the right, but not the obligation to sell your Model S to Tesla for the same residual value percentage as the iconic Mercedes S Class, one of the finest premium sedans in the world, made by Daimler (also a Tesla partner and investor).

      Not only is Tesla guaranteeing that resale value, but Tesla CEO Elon Musk is personally standing behind that guarantee to give customers absolute peace of mind about the value of the asset they are purchasing.

      And here's the part that's being touted as "revolutionary". The company founder is apparently personally guaranteeing the car's resale value. That's it. We're back to the idealized old days where company owners stood by their products and actually put money behind having satisfied customers. Not really "revolutionary" in my book, but I don't write headlines.

      As is usual for Slashdot these days, the summary is sensationalist bullshit and most of the comments are knee-jerk anti-government reactions.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    16. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is your brain..."
      "And this is your brain after defaulting on an education loan..."
      Cut to shot of egg being smashed under a frying pan.

      No dude, after a $100,000 investment by the government, you do not smash and fry repo'd brains (unless you're working for the Zombie Food Stamp Program).

      This is what the government does with repo'd brains. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of them.

    17. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Stormthirst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oooohhh!!! The scary spookiness of Socialism.

      You're right of course.

    18. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by trout007 · · Score: 1

      I should have been more clear. It's not actually a loan but an investment. There is no balance or interest.

      The person looking for the funds pledges a certain percent of their income for 10 years. I think this company does their own predictions and figures out how much money they will get per percent. But an exchange could be established where people bid for that amount.

      Say it's 5% of income for 10 years. It doesn't matter if you are unemployed the whole time or win the Lottery, you owe the 5%.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    19. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Who are these people who get into great schools and cannot afford it?

      The great schools seem to have pretty generous scholarship programs.

      Either way this ignore the fact that all of society benefits from an educated populace. Even those educations that do not make much money. This means society should at least be chipping in.

    20. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why Education should be funded by The People. If we took the profit motive out of education we wouldn't have to worry about the "administration" making several times what the instructors do for not even teaching.

      Yeah. Because public officials never use the power of their office to accumulate wealth and benefits at the expense of the public. Because without profit motive there is no accountability. You couldn't possibly be this naive. Is it still April fools somewhere?

    21. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

      I'm happy to pay taxes to educate children and young adults in basic skills such as writing and mathematics.

      I don't want to send my tax dollars to for profit "colleges" to pay for worthless education and mind-candy degrees.

    22. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I've been pushing for this for years. I haven't seen upstart.com, so thanks. I will take a look at this. To me it's simple: the lender takes a very small percentage from your salary at the lower payscales and then the percentage increases somewhat as your pay rises until you've paid off the loan + agreed upon interest.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    23. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why Education should be funded by The People. If we took the profit motive out of education we wouldn't have to worry about the "administration" making several times what the instructors do for not even teaching.

      Given that state funded research institutions receive a very large portion of their funding from the government in the form of general funding and institutions like NIH and NSF, what makes you think this is true?

    24. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, so if a loan took 10% of income, I would have a choice of getting a job that paid say $50k+, and earning $45k+ for a few years after loan payments were taken out, or work part time for less, say $20k a year, which becomes $18k after loan payments. Even if the part time work was exempt from loan payments, the choice would be to earn $20k a year instead of $45k a year, because you wanted to "save" the $5k a year in loan payments?

    25. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So indentured servitude is what you really mean.

      How about instead we recognize the benefit to society of having an educated populace and have university education be made available to qualified applicants at a cost low enough that these schemes are not needed?

    26. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Meeni · · Score: 1

      And we could call this taxes, and make education free for all who merits.

    27. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, fix public schools first. Reading, writing, arithmetic. If a high school graduate can't do all those three, fail them. In the mean time, make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. You can't get a loan for college? Too bad. We already have a lot of degree holders.

    28. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Quite frankly, if he wasn't dead, I'd have him expelled.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    29. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by jodido · · Score: 2

      Not sure what you mean by "Cuban model." In Cuba all education is free. All. Free.

    30. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No, because some people are just malicious dicks.
      You can't count on rational actors, no one is a rational actor all the time and a few are never rational.

      I could also work off the books to avoid paying this, or just leave the country.

      What you are talking about is not a loan, but instead a form of indentured servitude.

    31. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by rssrss · · Score: 1

      Galley slaves.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    32. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Artifakt · · Score: 2

      Ultimately, claiming that the only way to ensure accountability is the profit motive is claiming that government itself doesn't and can't work. If criminal law can't ensure accountabilty, if elections and recalls can't ensure accountability, then there's no rationale for ANY form of democratic government. So how do you figure the profit motive will work where civil law can't ensure the sanctity of contract? Isn't that an accountability issue? (And you're posting as AC and insulting people to boot - might want to rethink that)

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    33. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why Education should be funded by The People.

      I agree... to a point. I think public education should be extended two years such that anyone can get an associates or technical degree for free. That seems to be where the sweet spot is these days in terms of return on investment. A high school diploma is more or less worthless these days. At this point in time, I don't think we should be funding people's advanced degrees.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    34. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Forget high school graduate. There should be tests that determine these things at various grade levels and failure to pass means being held back. Can't read? Get to do first grade again.

      Also allow schools to expel trouble makers. Make their parents pay for their education if they cannot at least manage to not be disruptive. If the parents cannot pay, place them in alternative education situations.

    35. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by thoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's the thing, the free market isn't some magic fairy that shits pots of gold and sprinkles rainbow dust everywhere.

      If you want to have education with a profit motive, then the RISK should be borne by universities. Getting government guaranteed loans with bankruptcy exemptions so it can be handed over to a for-PROFIT institution is total bullshit. In this situation, the university is motivated to crank up tuition with no ceiling. When the RISK is borne by universities, they'll price their damn "product" better, screen students better, perhaps even innovate (e.g. charge different amounts for degrees based on perceived ability to earn income).

      Of course, that would lead to large stratification of education, with the wealthy drawn like a magnet to the best schools, the poor having to do with leftovers, etc.

      And I would argue that outcome is unacceptable for a 21st century superpower, due to the fact that the free market outcome would not adequately distribute available resources, so education should be exempted or removed and handled by "the public" whereby the society itself benefits.

    36. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That is how it works right now.

      You don't have to pay back much if you do not make much money. They can only take a max of some percentage, but then the loan takes forever to pay off and interest of course does its dirty work and makes you even more in debt.

    37. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by darjen · · Score: 1

      Profite motive? Really? Private education is virtually non-existent, except for a handful of church-run schools. The vast majority of people go to a publicly funded primary and secondary education, then attend a publicly funded university, underwritten by loans which are mostly provided by the government itself or government-backed institutions. It's hard to imagine how much more funded by The People it could get.

    38. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dig him up! It was done for heretics, and now money is the chief deity!

    39. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What good is universal literacy in a society where the written word is severely restricted? (Goes not only for Cuba)

    40. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by haystor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No. I don't want to fund the current crop of college students. There is no accountability that they are doing anything worthwhile. The vast majority of degrees are meaningless.

      Let the market fund the schools instead of government loans and non-dischargeable debt. The college price bubble would crash and true lenders could actually enter the market.

      What am I saying?! Let's just give away more money that we really don't have.

      --
      t
    41. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by trout007 · · Score: 1

      The way this works is based on a fixed term of 10 years. You pay a percent of your income for those 10 years and that's it. There is no balance or interest to pay off. The amount is based on the income you file on your IRS forms.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    42. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by haystor · · Score: 2

      One of the major causes of the high price of college is the easy availability of loans. College students are not price sensitive. Lenders are not risk sensitive since these loans are either government backed or non-dischargeable.

      Today's solution *is* a non-market solution. It is a government created situation which, of course, means the same people who caused the current problem will be screaming for even more government to solve it.

      --
      t
    43. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by operagost · · Score: 1

      Well, we need to outlaw teacher unions then, too, because there's a profit motive for them in the weight of the collective bargaining agreement.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    44. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let the market fund the schools

      "The market" won't even train its own employees anymore and you expect them to pick up the tab for education?

      At least it'll be self-correcting. The market will cry and sob to it's capitol servants that they can't find anyone smart enough to hire and the government will say "well gee we better open the floodgates so all these people in socialist countries that bothered to provide education can come in" and the ideology will be drowned out.

    45. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Ultimately, claiming that the only way to ensure accountability is the profit motive is claiming that government itself doesn't and can't work.

      Until we build a better human who remains interested in his government even when times are good, that's the truth.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      This is why Education should be funded by The People. If we took the profit motive out of education we wouldn't have to worry about the "administration" making several times what the instructors do for not even teaching.

      Our public universities don't have a profit motive, but they're the worst offenders. They consume all the resources they can- state subsidies aren't used to lower tuition, but hire more administration, build fancy new facilities (that don't add to the instructional value.), or just have fun with the college kids at taxpayer's expense. You essentially propose throwing more taxpayer money at the problem, but that hasn't helped the student so far, why would it now? The entire system- public universities especially- needs to be revamped.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    47. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by operagost · · Score: 1

      To the American Left, the current socialist system is "the free market". Therefore, any problems with the current education system-- even in public schools and state colleges-- is due to "capitalism", and therefore we should adopt the Cuban system.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    48. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by TheRealRainFall · · Score: 2, Informative

      I mean that the state is an investor in it's citizen as opposed to a private corporation. With this, they claim rights over the individual much like a corporation would if the state permitted.

    49. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by operagost · · Score: 2

      Ever heard of scholarships? Colleges still want the best students. There's no problem the government created that it won't claim it can solve. The high price of education is primarily due to government-backed loans providing unlimited income to colleges.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    50. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Cuban education (at least, if you're Cuban) is only free as in beer.

    51. Re: Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When institutions like U. of Texas in Austin, U. of Okla and U. of Missouri are all now being funded by the state BELOW 20% of their general budget, it is hard to consider these to be public institutions. Those are the schools I have reason to know about. I'm told the situation is the same across USA -- we are dismantling public universities. I've heard suggestion among some donors to OU that the name should change to University IN Oklahoma since the state isn't choosing to be "of" the school anymore. Too many schools are begging rich alumni for gifts. At some point, the schools will become more in the service of those alumni than of the public.

    52. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by haystor · · Score: 2

      How are you going to stop the wealthy from getting better services? Will you shut down the Harvards and Yales? Force them to teach who you deem worthy?

      This "public" you speak of which will dole out education to those approved -- who are they? The same elected officials and their agents who have caused the current problems? You don't think this will lead to only the best connected getting the premium schools?

      At least in a free market a poor person with talent can take a loan to go to a good school. The best schools will continue to want the most talented people.

      Also, risk shouldn't necessarily be borne by the universities, but by the lenders. A student would probably end up with a credit score for education loans based on a universities success, their own academic history, their chosen field's ability to repay, etc... The poor would definitely be able to attend an elite university in this fashion, they just might not be able to study 18th century French literature.

      --
      t
    53. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      The dilemma, though, is that said 'alternative educational situations' become more and more expensive. Ending in the even more expensive endpoint of a prison.

    54. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      This is why Education should be funded by The People. If we took the profit motive out of education we wouldn't have to worry about the "administration" making several times what the instructors do for not even teaching.

      You'd have to take the profit motive out of society.You don't have administration making so much because the college is "for profit" (it rarely is BTW), but because the administrators are "for profit".

    55. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by dfm3 · · Score: 1

      This is why a college education should not be intended for everyone. Let's face it: not everybody is cut out for higher education and a society of nothing but service employees, managers, and middlemen with bachelor's degrees or MBA's is not sustainable. Increasingly, people are being forced to spend years in school and take on tens of thousands of dollars in debt learning things that they don't need to know just because employers like to use "degree required" as a way to filter out applicants to entry-level service jobs that pay minimum wage and which don't actually require any of the skills picked up in school.

    56. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The one making the loan, of course. Moneylending is investting, and investments aren't risk-free.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    57. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

      There is no need to 'outlaw' anything. Simply end what makes it a govt. monopoly, by passing Right To Work laws.

    58. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by tgd · · Score: 1

      This is why Education should be funded where the risk is borne by the one making the loan. The repayment terms should be based on a percent of the students income for a fixed number of years.

      This is why Education should be funded by The People. If we took the profit motive out of education we wouldn't have to worry about the "administration" making several times what the instructors do for not even teaching.

      Why? The vast majority of college students don't pick their area of study based on the economic viability of the degree. Why should the "people" fund that?

      If you said the people should fund trade schools, I'm right there with you.

    59. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2

      Maybe you mean taxpayer funded, but unless every hour of labor is donated, all supplies are donated, the buildings in which education happens are donated, then it's not free. Paying for something in a different way doesn't make it free, although I get that it makes a lot of people feel like it is.

    60. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by uncqual · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, in the U.S., I fear this would result in a situation where "everyone gets an associates or technical degree", and these programs would end up getting dumbed down so "everyone gets an associates or technical degree" in the interest of "fairness, diversity, and inclusiveness" - just like our K-12 system has. Then, the two year degree would be worth what a HS degree is now - not much.

      I think the U.S. should be seriously considering something more like the German system. Put students on one of a few tracks early (maybe fifth grade?). One of these would be a strong academic track which is intended to end up with at least solid STEM MSc or a PhD in one of the "softer and in less demand" disciplines (such as Ancient History). At the other end of the spectrum would be trade oriented curriculum with students learning skills necessary for basic life (some accounting, enough math to figure out interest, basic understanding of government, basic writing skills) and skills specific to a group of trades and including apprenticeships in HS.

      If you've ever worked with fifth graders, it's pretty obvious which ones will never be on the academic the track or the one just "below" it. If, in spite of being exposed multiple times to it, they haven't figured out how to compute 6.9 × 0.042 or 42.42 ÷ 0.1, they are extremely unlikely to catch up and even survive Algebra 2 a few years later. However, generally students should be given the benefit of the doubt and put into a higher track if they are "on the bubble" and then be aggressively reevaluated every six months to determine if they should be moved to a less academically demanding track. The requirements and expectations of the tracks should not be adjusted to match the students, the students should be placed in the track that match their motivation, intelligence, and interests.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    61. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2

      No one underwrites the losses. That's what the interest and fees are for. Or do you think that 4% + 7.9% should be entirely risk free for the lender?

    62. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      You can't count on rational actors, no one is a rational actor all the time and a few are never rational.

      HERECTIC!!
      Why do you blaspheme so against the invisible hand?!!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    63. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by idontgno · · Score: 1

      It's awesome to praise the Revolution and the wise leadership of the Party in the best, most eloquent, heart-touching prose and poetry possible.

      Oh, what good is universal literacy to express oppostion and discontent? Not so much.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    64. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing, the free market isn't some magic fairy that shits pots of gold and sprinkles rainbow dust everywhere.

      You do realize that's a really stupid thing to say right?

      If you want to have education with a profit motive, then the RISK should be borne by universities. Getting government guaranteed loans with bankruptcy exemptions so it can be handed over to a for-PROFIT institution is total bullshit. In this situation, the university is motivated to crank up tuition with no ceiling. When the RISK is borne by universities, they'll price their damn "product" better, screen students better, perhaps even innovate (e.g. charge different amounts for degrees based on perceived ability to earn income).

      You do realize that most universities aren't "for profit". It's actually pretty rare. Yet they still have a huge incentive to do this sort of thing.

      Of course, that would lead to large stratification of education, with the wealthy drawn like a magnet to the best schools, the poor having to do with leftovers, etc.

      Still sounds a lot better.

      And I would argue that outcome is unacceptable for a 21st century superpower, due to the fact that the free market outcome would not adequately distribute available resources,

      And what system distributes available resources better? Some system where students are leaching from "the public"? No way.

      I would argue that the market is the 21st century way to distribute resources, that there isn't anything better out there, and I would be right. We've done "the public" approach to distributing resources, that leads to things like corporatism because specialized rent seekers of the form of profit, incorporated businesses are more efficient at getting funds from "the public" than anyone else is and mooching, because getting funds from "the public" in exchange for a vote is easier than working.

    65. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's this free market thing you speak of?

    66. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Make it the greater of x% of the first y thousand hours of W2 reported work (add hours to the W2 for the sake of this program) and AGI for the first z years where x, y and z are picked by the loan providers for each applicant. That would take care of the part timers.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    67. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Our public universities don't have a profit motive, but they're the worst offenders. They consume all the resources they can- state subsidies aren't used to lower tuition, but hire more administration, build fancy new facilities (that don't add to the instructional value.), or just have fun with the college kids at taxpayer's expense.

      If they're getting state money, is there some particular reason why the state can't simply order them to lower tuition, or better yet remove it completely? I've never really understood why anything should be some weird hybrid of public and private institution that combines the drawbacks of both and the benefits of neither. Either treat them as public institutions subject to public will, or stop giving them money and let them sink or swim on their own.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    68. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not working would cost you opportunity profit.

      Before giving away more-free higher education, as a society we need to address how education is viewed. Schools are between a glorified daycare and a proper school. When a B.A or B.S. is the new high school diploma there is either a serious undervaluing of high school education or high schools do not educate enough.

      If there is a good metric to use, I'd venture forth that at least 70% of societies jobs should be viable on a high school education. The rest would be 15% for an associates, 10% for a bachelors, and 5% for PH.D.

    69. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by istartedi · · Score: 1

      This is why Education should be funded by The People.

      We do that. It's called K-12. It sucks. Fix? This is why a baseline education standard should be funded by the people. Why the qualifier? Because this is what socialism does best. Socialism is fantastic at taking people that have absolutely abysmal standards, and pulling them up to a baseline. The rest has to come from your initiative, family wealth, luck, etc. Why? Because when socialism tries to enforce equality of outcome, the only way it can do that is to squash initiative, family wealth, luck, etc. In the worst case, the socialist becomes consumed with suppressing what he feels is unfair, the noble idea of pulling the masses up to a baseline is forgotten, and the country becomes absolutely despotic.

      Long story short, equality of opportunity is socially cheap; but equality of outcome is socially expensive.

      Or another way of putting it:

      Rule 1 is that cream rises to the top. Rule 2 is that your arm will get too tired if you try to change rule no. 1.

      Giving everybody college isn't going to solve our problems. Most people don't belong in college. We've just dumbed it down because the K-12 system is broken. When my parents went to school K-12 was still working. My father provided us a comfortable middle-class life with an 8th grade education, a GED from the Navy, and a few college level vocational courses--no BS degree.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    70. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Forget high school graduate. There should be tests that determine these things at various grade levels and failure to pass means being held back. Can't read? Get to do first grade again.

      That's how it was when I was a kid. Most classes had at least one or two flunkies who were a year older.

      Also allow schools to expel trouble makers. Make their parents pay for their education if they cannot at least manage to not be disruptive.

      Now this, I cannot agree with. There are reasons beyond the parents' control for why a kid might misbehave - the parents of a mentally ill child or adopted miscreant likely have enough problems at home already, without also shifting this burden on them.

      Again, when I was a kid, the worst trouble makers were placed in special boarding schools, equipped to handle them. This was paid for by the government (i.e. us all), and reduced the overall costs on society both by making regular education more effective without the disruptive elements, and by reducing the future crime and prison levels by ensuring that even these kids got an education, and were as far as possible taught how to behave.
      The parents still paid the social stigma of having children at these schools, but for some it was a relief.

    71. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is nothing preventing government funded schools from being ruthlessly competitive. You just have to limit how many there are, and not treat your preferred secondary education as some kind of right.

      I mean, it's hell on the middling students, who just might get in the good schools if they study their asses off, but seems to work for many Asian and European countries.

      Of course, here we have too many special snowflakes, and the obnoxiousness of parents is only amplified when their wealth is rendered moot against demonstrable ability. "I pay taxes, how dare they give my child's spot to some brown immigrant ragamuffin with a 150 IQ!"

    72. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      It might work if we didn't have criminals working to undermine the government in an attempt to make their own policies look palatable, we call them neocons.

    73. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want education to be taken seriously we have to change our whole culture.

      Basketball players make more money than people who cure cancer, kids know this. People who make sex tapes get on TV, people who educate are mocked on TV.

      Expecting any different outcome is foolish when our culture flatly does not value education and will not pay for it.

    74. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Two words: video games!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    75. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Because regular credit scores are handled well with no errors. I can't wait to hand over more information to those poor companies that only want to help you get better rates. Cradle to grave monitoring is where it's at!

    76. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I was mostly using that to suggest boarding school for habitual trouble makers. Getting them out of the classroom has almost as much value as trying to educate them.

    77. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by eltonito · · Score: 1

      You neglected to mention that "revolutionary" plan pins the depreciation rate on one of the fastest depreciating cars in the world. That puts the depreciation at about 43% in 3 years. We don't have a lot of precedent to go off of on a purely electric luxury car, but given how well most hybrids hold their value I would assume the Model S would fare a lot better in the near term than the Mercedes-Benz S-Class.

      Either Elon Musk is planning on some serious profit-taking in 3 years or he knows something about the quality of his cars we don't. Either way, it is a huge red flag in my mind.

    78. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I agree, more schooling is not the answer. Better, more targeted education should make it so that a high school diploma is worthwhile and truly provides the basic level of competency that employers and society expect of a person.

    79. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Bank and Wells Fargo will provide 10% down financing on approved credit, and the down payment is covered or more than covered by US Federal and state tax credits ranging from $7,500 to $15,000. New Jersey, Washington and DC also have no sales tax for electric vehicles. These advantages are not available when leasing.

      So buyers don't "get the government to pick up the first $15,000 (no down payment needed!)", but rather they get a government credit that may cover the 10% down payment, assuming their purchase qualifies for the various government programs.

      They get tax credit of $7500-$15000 - ie, between 75% and 150% of the down payment. If you pay more than $15k in taxes, a $15k tax credit is indistinguishable from the government writing you a check for $15k (actually, indistinguishable from the government writing you a check for $19k, since you don't pay taxes on tax refunds). You gotta put up the money when you buy the car, but you'll get it back in April, so effectively: no down payment.

    80. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, but it's difficult. Should The People fund a PhD in russian literature for anyone who wants to do it? Should we fund for-profit places like ITT tech or U of Phoenix? How much are places allowed to charge? Private schools? Public Schools?

    81. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      I think this post is an excellent example of Poe's Law.

      I cannot tell if you're serious or being extremely funny.

    82. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Our public universities don't have a profit motive"

      You don't follow college sports, do you?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    83. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by westlake · · Score: 1

      And who underwrites the losses for students who flunk out, die, refuse to work or only work for minimum wage, and those who are committed to prison for whatever offence?

      Every loan comes with the risk of default.

      These losses are statistically predictable and generally fairly easy to absorb.

      Without subsidized student loans. many trades and professions would be closed to all but the sons and daughters of the very rich.

    84. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't this more or less the Cuban model

      Maybe you mean Canada. All those 'C' countries sound alike to me too, and what's the difference? Universal health care, nearly tuition free university education, a commie is a commie.

      And it's getting worse. Even here in America we now have socialized fire and police departments. That's right - no conspiracy theory! If your house is burning down, or you're the victim of a crime, you can request fire or police protection (there's even a hotline for it) and the government will pick up the whole tab. Talk about moral hazard! Before you know it, people will be tossing lighted matches into their homes for fun and walking down the street with $100 bills hanging out of their pockets.

    85. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Appropriate for Mediterranean countries, but I believe cotton picking and chain gangs are more traditional here.

    86. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      The real problem with student loans is that they there is no discrimination in the selection process of who gets them and who doesn't. I went to dental school and racked up about $150k in 6.8% loans. Some of my classmates went as high as $350k. We have to pay high interest to cover losses to people who rack up debt studying things like art history, anthropology, and underwater basket weaving.

      This country has no real education policy. If there were a policy, low interest loans would be given to those who study subjects that are likely to lead to an ability to repay them (and maybe to people studying things that the economy needs) and others would have to pay interest rates commensurate with the risk of not being able to repay them when studies are complete.

    87. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Here's the thing, the free market isn't some magic fairy that shits pots of gold and sprinkles rainbow dust everywhere.

      You do realize that's a really stupid thing to say right?

      You're right. He could be arrested for blasphemy.

    88. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's this free market thing you speak of?

      Please don't make fun of other people's religious beliefs. The infallibility of the free market is clearly a matter of Faith, as its proponents are impervious to empirical debunking.

    89. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      What good is a telephone call, if you are unable to speak?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    90. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      screen students better

      That's like screening mortgage applicants. It limits the American Dream to only those who can afford it. Those who can't afford it vote for politicians to subsidize it, just the the subprime mortgage mess.

      America is not yet ready to admit that the era of earning middle-class wages with only a high-school diploma and a union is long gone. We simply don't have the 10x worker productivity advantage over the rest of the world that we once enjoyed, and it's never coming back.

    91. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What you are talking about is not a loan, but instead a form of indentured servitude.

      Wouldn't that be an improvement, though? An indentured servant is guaranteed a job, basic necessities and a specified date of freedom, while debt can keep on ballooning forever.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    92. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 2

      "The market" won't even train its own employees anymore

      Ever wonder why things just happen? The answer to the above is that there's no incentive to train your own workforce when you can make the requirements sufficiently ridiculous that only an H1-B can fill them. Then you train the H1-B to do the actual job.

      The market will cry and sob to it's capitol servants that they can't find anyone smart enough to hire and the government will say "well gee we better open the floodgates so all these people in socialist countries that bothered to provide education can come in" and the ideology will be drowned out.

      And what do you know? Even you admit that is what's happening. I do find it odd that you think it's not self-perpetuating.

    93. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a nice vaction in Cuba a couple years ago. The beer is awful. Black market rum was excellent. Cigars? Overrated (these days, other countries produce cigars that are just as good if not better). The prostitutes are unbelievable. The weed is good (I've had better) but the cocaine... they get the stuff straight from Colombia and it's pure nose candy, none of the cut down shit you find in the states.

    94. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by wed128 · · Score: 1

      It's not free. The student doesn't necessesarily pay for it, but someone does.

    95. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Ultimately they do pay for it. The education should mean they get a better, higher paying job, and pay more tax on that higher income.

    96. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the U.S. should be seriously considering something more like the German system. ... If you've ever worked with fifth graders, it's pretty obvious which ones will never be on the academic the track or the one just "below" it.

      How do you know "which ones will never be on the academic the track"? Did you follow former 5th graders for life?

      While I agree "Ph.D.'s for everyone" is nonsense (other than filling the pockets of the education-industrial complex), the German system is too rigid. Should your performance in the 5th grade determine the path of the rest of your life? I refused to do anything in the 4th through 6th grades (family problems) but wound up getting an MSEE (ok, that's the sort of thing you usually keep in the closet, but I know people who got real degrees too). Similarly, an old friend of mine dropped out of high school and 10 years later went to Harvard Law.

    97. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      How about we just admit having an educated society is a good thing and we make a university education free to those who qualify.

      Who's paying for that? My view is that the simplest approach is for students to pay for their own education. They're adults, they can work. If an education is really that valuable, then they'll find a way to pay for it. I'd also drop completely, the parts that don't work, like loan subsidies and guarantees.

      The thing is an educated society is not always a good thing. For example, in the current US where we're running up the costs of education several-fold while simultaneously saddling a whole generation with onerous debt. Is the educated society worth that cost?

    98. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      There is a point for collective protection, then there is a case of educating people who neither deserve it nor want it. Not everyone wants or can be a college educated Ph.D. Further, education, especially at the higher levels, is all about self discipline. I don't have a problem helping people get educated, but I have a problem forcing people to be something they don't care about. Use of Government force should be limited, controlled and under very tight monitoring. Education, is one of those fields where government control and force is used excessively under the guise of "no child left behind".

      As unfortunate as it is, some people don't want to be educated, if we abuse state power and force them to be, then that is an abuse I don't want. Education should be free, as in Opportunity, but not necessarily free, as in beer. Further, I do not have a problem making additional resources available to people willing to work hard and takes an active role in their own education, but they must show interest.

      If you want to improve education in the US, start by fixing the dismal quality being offered in the K-12 arena. The dumbing down of a HS diploma is making it worthless piece of paper. And the McDonald's application is one more proof that too many people are illiterate even after 12 years of state sponsored education.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    99. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would argue that the market is the 21st century way to distribute resources, that there isn't anything better out there, and I would be right.

      No, you'd be wrong. The market is a very ancient thing, not 21st. Corporatism is the 21st century way.

      And there is a better way to distribute resources called Imperialism. It's what made Western civilization the dominant civilization today (capitalism is ancient, but for most of human history it's taken a back seat to Imperialism, dictatorships, and other systems). The West got to where it is today shooting up and enslaving all the other peoples, not by treating them as equals in a mutually beneficial trade relationship in the market.

      The only thing the market is good at is, ironically, destroying Imperialism. But that's not really a good thing. What is the response to "the market"? Socialism and communism, which has done more damage in its relative short life than Imperialism.

      You know how irrational moralists try to fix something, but usually there are unintended consequences which make things worse? Well, socialism are communism are those unintended consequences to trying to implement "the market"

      And that brings us back to corporatism, which is the 21st century way. Corporatism merges Imperialism (government) and the market (corporations), creating something that is better than both. The Imperialist parts keeps the socialism at bay, while the market parts keeps the economy going. The loss of some market efficiency (since you aren't going market all the way) is well wroth the price of keeping dirty nasty smelly socialism away.

    100. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Either Elon Musk is planning on some serious profit-taking in 3 years or he knows something about the quality of his cars we don't. Either way, it is a huge red flag in my mind.

      I think you answered your own concerns. In 3 years, when the resale guarantee matures, the S Class value offer will be much cheaper than it seems now, so Elon Musk isn't risking as much as it may seem (and it looks like Musk will only guarantee it after Tesla does, so Tesla's taking the bigger financial risk). The whole guarantee is just a hedge bet against the Tesla having even higher depreciation than the Mercedes-Benz. If you're in the market for a luxury car, the guarantee gives an upper bound on depreciation, making its long-term cost easier to predict.

      As one of the articles mentions, the guarantee is intended to ease the minds of buyers skeptical of electric cars' feasibility. If the Model S fails miserably in terms of depreciation, the buyer still has a car worth $57,000.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    101. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong with spending a year dead for tax reasons.

    102. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ebno-10db · · Score: 0

      The high price of education is primarily due to government-backed loans providing unlimited income to colleges.

      Of course the government getting involved in higher education is the reason that costs are outrageous. This explains why places like Canada, where university is practically tuition free and they have about the world's highest percentage of university graduates, is being dragged to its knees by the costs. Oh, wait ...

      It's easy to find an ideology strong enough to resist empirical debunking, but do you really want to spend your life that way?

    103. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, society was "chipping in" for 13 years of education. If we're not happy with the results, perhaps we should solve the problem of what we are currently paying for, instead of slapping on another 4 years - which will probably lead folks in 30 years time to demand that everyone get a free master's degree, because, you know, it's in our best interest to have an educated populace.

    104. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      What is it about extreme libertarianism that makes so many people go after it like eccentric Spanish noblemen tilting after windmills? Is your view on society and politics so weak that you can only defend it from relatively ludicrous viewpoints? Is there's a legit reason for all the mouth-foaming? Please explain.

    105. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by slas6654 · · Score: 0
      Socialism, in the end, begets Fascism. I think there are alot of things to worry about.

      Whatever education is being financed, it seems history is no longer a part of it.

    106. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this more or less the Cuban model

      Maybe you mean Canada. All those 'C' countries sound alike to me too, and what's the difference? Universal health care, nearly tuition free university education, a commie is a commie.

      And it's getting worse. Even here in America we now have socialized fire and police departments. That's right - no conspiracy theory! If your house is burning down, or you're the victim of a crime, you can request fire or police protection (there's even a hotline for it) and the government will pick up the whole tab.

      I pay local, county, and state property taxes as well as sales tax to fund all that. Like usual, the government is "picking up the tab" with our own dollars.

      ps - just like insurance, I've paid for the above services for years but only rarely (police) or never (fire) had to use them. Also, just like most of my private insurances, I'm happy to pay even if I never need to use it. I do wish I could shop my police/fire services around (like I do for insurance), but that's quibbling. Still, your thinking that the government is just "picking up the tab" and we're not paying for it is ludicrous. And, actually, I'd say we're overpaying by a large amount.

    107. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea, make parents sit in the class with their disruptive students and babysit them. Hell, pay them a wage to do so. However, if the parent/student combo cannot be controlled, it requires remedial training for both parent and student. Failing that, they should be expelled and expect no government benefits at all. Why should society pay for assholes to be assholes? Screw them, they are a drain on society. We shouldn't be encouraging bad behavior by rewarding them with lifetime of benefits.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    108. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear!

      Even other than universities, here in NY State we have a notorious things called "public authorities". All the power of government and almost none of the accountability. If my tax dollars are funding it, I want the government to be able to throw its weight around and tell these institutions what to do. Most of all I want to help the son-of-a-bitch wasting my money to loose the next election. Public-private hybrids and "public authorities" are the worst of all world's, having the disadvantages of both public and private, not the virtues of both.

    109. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      How about allowing high schools to offer technical degrees, college prep degrees, and basic degrees. That way, the diploma has meaning and value, rather than something that everyone gets, regardless of proficiency. A HS Diploma is nothing more than a trophy everyone "wins", it is meaningless.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    110. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I don't think "free" means what you think it means.

    111. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Yes, you would have to end social promotion. This seems to be happening now anyway.

      But the high school degree isn't worthless because of social promotion - it's worthless because the whole experience is geared towards the old manufacturing economy of the last century. Even the best students come out with a good mastery of basic concepts, but no training towards any sort of vocation except continuing their education. We have "vocational schools" that do a bit of that, but nothing on the scale of what is needed. My feeling is that if the major goal for the end of public education is "preparing kids for more education", then you have stopped too early. Getting prepared for more education should be something the exceptional students are doing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    112. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Every loan comes with the risk of default.

      Some more than others. Loans that are backed with public money, and managed by people with no stake in the outcome, most of all.

    113. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, you'd be wrong. The market is a very ancient thing, not 21st. [...] Corporatism [...] Imperialism [...] Socialism [...] communism

      Let's stop the silliness. I realize some people such as yourself stop thinking the moment someone says words like "market". Today's markets aren't the bizaars of old. Electronic, near instantaneous, high information, that kind of thing.

      Corporatism and imperialism are just ways to co-opt resources from others, just like socialism and communism. And all four are rather poor at what they do. I wouldn't be so quick to pick favorites.

    114. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are we going to stop bright, smart, and brilliant people from getting a better eduction than a drooling idiot?

    115. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      So indentured servitude is what you really mean.

      WTF? People burdened by student loans in this country would kill for a deal like that. Because, sanctimonious pleas about the intrinsic value of education aside, people usually go to college to earn a better living. It's reasonable that they pay back some of the cost. OTOH having them take all the risks is absurd. Student loan not even dischargeable in bankruptcy is absurd, as is the individual risk of say, having the bottom fall out of a field that was lucrative when you started college. Spreading that risk around is like an insurance pool, but having the beneficiaries pay a reasonable amount is also a good idea.

      If something doesn't happen to control college costs in the US, I'm going to vote to revoke the Declaration of Independence.

    116. Re: Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Bartles · · Score: 1

      No, we've just moved the funding mechanism from direct public funding of the universities, to publicly backed loans to the students.

    117. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonder how the inhabitants of Stockton, CA feel about that.

    118. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I guess that is exactly what I am proposing, but I'm skeptical that you can cram the extra instruction into the existing timeframe. Sure, exceptional students can do it - but they are likely going to college anyhow. I'd like a system that captures something like the middle 50% on the bell curve. The top 25% are fine no matter what, and the bottom 25% is another problem with another whole set of solutions.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    119. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Universities ARE bearing the risk. What if you fail a class or don't complete it and the aid must be refunded? University pays it back and then tries to get it from you. Ok, loaned money or educational debt may not be dischargable in a bankruptcy, but that DOES NOT guarantee that the money can ever be recovered by the University not to mention collection costs. What if you are an international student and just don't pay? What if you skip town, state, or country or have no assets? Sure, you won't get the credit hours or a transcript, but those are intangible costs to you compared to the University which has kept a seat in class open for someone who never paid. Universities write off perhaps 4% or more of all charges. That money has to made up somehow. If it was a for-profit business the University would not allow students non-businesslike non-payment or late payments with little or no fees for lateness. Most "public" universities are gradually being effectively privatized by states that do not want the taxpayers to bear their costs, thus they must be mostly self-funded by donations or charges.

    120. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

      I think this is (at least part of) the reason why tuition rates continue to rise, along with unemployment rates.

    121. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0

      Yes, the market does train it's own employees. All of them. Individual companies may or may not assist with it, but within the market if you are not self training then yes you are doomed to fail, you deservedly need to learn to be happy at minimum wage.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    122. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by afgam28 · · Score: 1

      If you think about the residual value of "the iconic Mercedes S Class", it sounds great, doesn't it? Mercedes is a great brand, and the S Class is their best luxury sedan!

      But here's the thing about luxury cars (and this applies even more to higher end luxury cars, like the S Class): no one buys them used. If you're rich enough to buy an S Class, you buy it new. If you can't afford a new one, you probably can't afford the maintenance costs, and so used ones have to be heavily discounted to make up for this.

      A Corolla or a Civic on the other hand, is something that the used car market goes after. These cars have strong resale value because they are cheap to run and maintain.

      The S Class has one of the worst resale values of any car. Tesla claiming that their Model S will have the same residual value percentage is at best an admission that the resale value will be terrible. I wouldn't call that "standing behind" a product.

    123. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by thoth · · Score: 1

      How are you going to stop the wealthy from getting better services? Will you shut down the Harvards and Yales? Force them to teach who you deem worthy?

      First, are you asking what I would do, or are you asking me to be a devil's advocate of what the free market "should" do, with or without government assistance (i.e. government loans versus no government loans)?

      Personally, I would fund education using the same attitude that funds wall street bailouts and bs foreign wars - an educated population is the foundation of a 21st century superpower. You know, investing the resources of the country into its citizens as a primary goal. Now if you're OK with the U.S. sliding into some eventual 3rd world shithole, you could take a different strategy.

      I wouldn't stop the wealthy from getting better services, the goal would be to provide a baseline of services to those who can't afford them.

    124. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I mean that the state is an investor in it's citizen as opposed to a private corporation. With this, they claim rights over the individual much like a corporation would if the state permitted.

      The state of Maryland invested a lot in my, my K-12 education plus a free ride at the University of Maryland. The state dosn't make any claim on me that they don't make on everyone else living here, whether they went to school here or not.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    125. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ebno-10db · · Score: 2
      Out of curiosity, what post were you replying to? Where did I say that people should be forced to go to college, or that everyone, regardless of academic ability, should be funded to go? And when is calling the fire department an example of government force? Your "reply" is almost random, standard issue, libertarian talking points rather than a coherent rebuttal.

      of Government force

      Hint: in the English language only proper nouns are capitalized.

    126. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      As unfortunate as it is, some people don't want to be educated

      And when you're an adult, capable of having meaningful wants, you don't have to be. The "wants" of children, on the other hand, are substantially less meaningful. And if parents don't want their children to be educated, that's child abuse.

      If you want to improve education in the US, start by fixing the dismal quality being offered in the K-12 arena.

      K-12 education is good where there is money and bad where there is not. We don't have a public school system in the U.S., we have thousands, run at the local level; some are excellent, some are crap, and there's a pretty good correlation between poverty and crappy schools.

      I know it's fashionable to bash public schools, but the bashing is largely unjustified: the fact is that public schools have equal or better performance to private schools with similar per-student spending.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    127. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      So if you qualify for the credits (by "buying a car for business" and "primarily driving an electric car daily"), and if the credits total more than $10k, and if you're approved for the $10k down payment, and if you pay more than $10k in taxes, then you get a refund for the down payment (and the income tax you paid on the money used for the down payment). That's a lot of conditions.

      Or in other words, meet a bunch of criteria showing you're doing "good" things, and the government will cut down your tax bill. This is no different from any other tax credit, and certainly not worth the sensationalism pushed by the summary.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    128. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, claiming that the only way to ensure accountability is the profit motive is claiming that government itself doesn't and can't work.

      You're right as far as I'm concerned. Once you decide government by its nature can't be held accountable, then nobody can be ultimately because government (or anything in its stead) perform similar roles and similar accountability issues whether for profit or not.

      I'd say that the accountability problems of government are less due to the profit motive (though it does help) and more due to the vast size and complexity of modern governments.

      For example, the UK government recently implemented changes in their disability benefits laws. They implemented some stringent medical tests (as I understand it) for determining whether someone had sufficient disability to qualify for incapacity benefits (which I gather among other things meant too disabled to work).

      The end result was about two thirds of people came off the rolls completely (which ended up being more than 2% of the UK's total population!). More than half of those (878,000 people) excluded chose not to go through the tests at all. So how much of this was expected?

      Apparently, the UK government had determined that more than a billion pounds were lost over six years due to fraud.

      According to this news story, the average cost of incapacity benefits were almost 4,400 pounds per claimant per year. That ends up being about 3.8 billion pounds per year saved from the people who chose not to undergo the new tests for incapacity. It's possible that a measurable portion of that wasn't fraud, but I suspect most of it was fraud of some sort. Meaning the government was off in its estimates of fraud by probably a factor of 20.

      This is what I think accountability means in a modern government. No one knows how much fraud there is, even to an order of magnitude. But when they put in accountability for it, a lot of the consumption magically goes away.

    129. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by thoth · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I'm saying - this feeding off government guaranteed loans that aren't dischargeable via bankruptcy is total BS. I'd like to see colleges forced into actual free market competition, the kind where they aren't guaranteed payment under all circumstances for merely enrolling bodies, where they have to control costs and so on.

      As for scholarships, there are ~17.5 million college students in the U.S. in 2012. If we got rid of government backed loans, that money would need to be replaced. Let's say each student needs an average scholarship of 10K for 4 years (probably a huge underestimate these days), above and beyond their family's savings, what they earn working as a student, and so on. That's only 175 billion a year. I'm thinking the available scholarship money just isn't that high. Therefore the government/public whatever you want to imagine, needs to play a role in funding eduction.

    130. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a point for collective protection, then there is a case of educating people who neither deserve it nor want it.

      2 things.

      1) It doesn't sound like anyone is advocating to force people to go to college.
      2) How in the fuck do you decide who "deserves" education? The very fact that you appear to be advocating for educating only people who "deserve" it, really throws into question your true motives here.

    131. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.
      I don't think Socialism is 'scary', it's just stupid and encourages people free-riding on the system. Nobody is a more cheerful free-rider than university students.

      If we had a rigorous process by which people were vetted for their qualifications for college (and I don't mean politically-correct melanin-based diversity qualifications; I mean color-blind intellectual qualifications), I'd have no problem with publicly funding higher-education; we do through high school today and I personally believe that further education is required beyond the 19th-century standards our current public system is based on.

      However, having also spend a fair amount of time at a couple of European universities I don't see them as producing particularly better students. There, you have a (metric) crapton of free-riders who don't really belong at a University, hiding there as long as they possibly can delay their maturation process - pretty much just like in the USA. However, in the US it used to be $-based, meaning at least somewhere in the process someone had to have accomplished something and earned enough $ to fund it. In Europe, it's just the constantly-milked-harder taxpayers who subsidize it all.

      Now, quite frankly, considering the college-grant systems in place, the gross levels of loans given to students, and the current administration's policy capping loan repayment levels and forgiveness after 10 years (regardless of amount owed), the US system is nearly as socialized as the Euro system anyway, albeit warped substantially in favor of teachers and their unions ... unsurprising since they are one of the most reliable Democratic electorates.

      --
      -Styopa
    132. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0

      Yes, everything should be static and people should all be 100% identical. Why should people desire to be better tomorrow than they are today, all that does is breed envy and jealousy. The state should just mandate a standardized set of living instructions that everyone must follow. Makes a lot more sense that way.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    133. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's stop the silliness.

      "Let's"? That is a contraction for "let us", which implies you and me both are silly.

      But... I'm not the one being silly.

      I realize some people such as yourself stop thinking the moment someone says words like "market".

      See? You arguing from bad faith. You're looking down on those you reply. That's you being silly, and disrespectful.

      Today's markets aren't the bizaars of old. Electronic, near instantaneous, high information, that kind of thing.

      Never said otherwise, silly. I simply said the concept of the market is old, and not some modern response.

      Corporatism and imperialism are just ways to co-opt resources from others, just like socialism and communism.

      Nope, not the same. Corporatism and imperialism are about the rich and elites co-opting resources from others. Socialism and communism is about the mob co-opting resources from others.

      The former is better than the latter because the rich and elites generally know better than the mob in how to allocate resources. This is evident in how Imperialist and later Corporatist Western civilization became the dominant first world, whereas the socialist and communist states tend to shut themselves in as the second world. Only by copying the Western world is China catching up.

      And all four are rather poor at what they do.

      Nonsense. All four of them are VERY good at what they do (imperialism/corporatism being better). Again, Western civilization rose to be dominant by co-opting all the resources of the world. Socialist and communist regimes also have very tight control over the resources of their own countries.

      I wouldn't be so quick to pick favorites.

      I'm not the one being quick to pick favorites. You're the one who picked "the market" and claimed nothing is better. I should be the one saying let's not be quick, and looked at history.

    134. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ixuzus · · Score: 1

      The repayment terms should be based on a percent of the students income for a fixed number of years.

      So you want the kid who works hard, pulls overtime, and gets promotions and bonuses to pay an order of magnitude more for the same education as compared to the one who puts in an indifferent effort at a mediocre job? That sounds fair.

    135. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the thing, the free market isn't some magic fairy that shits pots of gold and sprinkles rainbow dust everywhere.

      You do realize that's a really stupid thing to say right?

      You do realize that's a really stupid thing to say right?

      And what system distributes available resources better? Some system where students are leaching from "the public"? No way.

      I would argue that the market is the 21st century way to distribute resources, that there isn't anything better out there, and I would be right. We've done "the public" approach to distributing resources, that leads to things like corporatism because specialized rent seekers of the form of profit, incorporated businesses are more efficient at getting funds from "the public" than anyone else is and mooching, because getting funds from "the public" in exchange for a vote is easier than working.

      I guess your education didn't teach you the difference between "leach" and "leech". Or that we went the market route for the latter part of the 19th Century and were sufficiently dissatisfied that a Republican president (Theodore Roosevelt) became famous for putting reins on it.

    136. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by eltonito · · Score: 1

      True, true. Hyundai did something very similar to this not so long ago to boost shore up confidence in their reliability/resale value and it worked well. It is a shrewd move and I give them props for the plan.

      After looking at their website and running the calculations, I concluded the deal is most definitely not for me. Ironically, my fairly short commute is what kills it. Oh well... there's always the pedestrian Leaf and a 5-Series for the weekends, I suppose.

    137. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by thoth · · Score: 0

      I would argue that the market is the 21st century way to distribute resources, that there isn't anything better out there, and I would be right.

      You would be most incorrect. The free market works great in specific instances, where there is perfect knowledge in the customer base, infinite competition, completely fungible products that aren't necessities, etc. Things like the market for cars, where I have a zillion choices, tons of companies are competing for me, and I can avoid the purchase if nothing meets my various criteria.

      Education is not such a product. Neither is healthcare for that matter, but that's a different rant. Going without is unacceptable. The free market does NOT guarantee everybody that needs a product, gets the product. People may not want the product, but that's different, those people exist all the time. The free market guarantees some people do not get said items, since if there isn't enough for everybody, prices rise until some folks drop out due to lack of money. That is not a way to run the foundation and future of a modern superpower, blowing off chunks of the potential of the country due to the circumstances of their birth. That shit might have worked in the 1850's when rugged individualists farmed their own crops and just needed to count, when we had limited interaction with the rest of the world due to communication and travel limitations of the era.

      that leads to things like corporatism because specialized rent seekers of the form of profit,

      Yes, the for-profit motivation is the shitstain on the fabric of modern society - it taints everything. And that's the problem - somehow dozens of other countries manage to distribute needed resources to their population (healthcare, education) without it disappearing into the craphole of corporate/capitalistic skimming. We should figure out how they are doing it, and replicate it. If that means some folks don't get to scam the rent they are used to, then too goddamn bad.

    138. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about no college student left behind?

      Part of the issue is *everyone* can go basically at this point. Not everyone should go. The other issue is for those that should not go, the lower school system is failing and hard so they have to go to some level of college now (2yr or 4yr).

      Money is a real problem at this point. It is like our networks but instead of 'bufferbloat' we have 'moneybloat'. Money is spent on whatever instead of what is needed to produce a better education.

      But a few scant years ago I got my CS degree. The building was borderline awful most of them were (except the business one). Went back to visit a couple of years ago. Seriously I want to move in... Very nice. Same teachers and same classes. Which makes you wonder what really changed?

    139. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Socialism, in the end, begets Fascism.

      I'm sure that sounded much more profound in your head. Do you plan on actually arguing that point, or are you just going to let it be an axiom and work off the presumption that it's as universal of a truth as 1=1? Your argument would be a lot less retarded if it were actually an argument rather than a unsupported statement and a couple of delusions.

      alot

      alot

      alot

      Actually, just die in a fire.

    140. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No one underwrites the losses. That's what the interest and fees are for. Or do you think that 4% + 7.9% should be entirely risk free for the lender?

      Yeah, but college students usually have very little In the way of a credit history, which usually means that the risk is higher so the interest will be way more.

      Part of the interest rate is due to the risk - and students don't have enough of a history to tell you if they're likely to default or not. In fact, the government typically underwrites the loan in order to reduce the interest rate - otherwise a student loan would be fairly high risk.

      Think about it - you're loaning something easily $150K, and they have little to no credit history, and they won't even BEGIN to repay the loan until 4 or 5 years down the road. AND there's no collateral. It's an unsecured loan for a fairly large sum of money for a long period of time with nothing to judge who likely the person you're loaning money to will repay you.

      All for a 4% fee and 7.9% ROI (that often begins accumulating only AFTER the education is over - so it's interest free while enrolled). Most lenders won't touch that with a 10 foot pole.

      Credit cards don't loan out that much money (probably 5% of what a student loan would have) and they still charge high rates of interest.

      Student loans are risky from the investor point of view - there are way better investments one could put that sum of money in and earn similar returns.

      If a lender were to "free market" a student loan, 30+% APR would probably be the norm given the risks, putting education in the hands of the rich (who can probably avoid needing a loan).

      And that's why the government underwrites the loan - the lender is only out the interest should the student default - the principle is protected. Otherwise they won't readily put up what a house costs (for the most part) on something so risky - they'd probably make more money buying and selling houses with less risk.

    141. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by thoth · · Score: 1

      You do realize that's a really stupid thing to say right?

      You do realize that blind obedience to the free market is really stupid, right?

      Forgot to include that in my other response.

      incorporated businesses are more efficient at getting funds from "the public" than anyone else is and mooching, because getting funds from "the public" in exchange for a vote is easier than working.

      It just might be that our system (government, economic), by which I mean the U.S., while pretty decent, isn't perfect and the end-all and be-all of sovereign organization. Perhaps the role of politics and government and cash should be heavily examined and revamped to include benefiting citizens as a primary goal, not skimming and extraction rent and transaction fees for corporations.

    142. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, in the U.S., I fear this would result in a situation where "everyone gets an associates or technical degree", and these programs would end up getting dumbed down so "everyone gets an associates or technical degree" in the interest of "fairness, diversity, and inclusiveness" - just like our K-12 system has. Then, the two year degree would be worth what a HS degree is now - not much.

      I think the U.S. should be seriously considering something more like the German system. Put students on one of a few tracks early (maybe fifth grade?). One of these would be a strong academic track which is intended to end up with at least solid STEM MSc or a PhD in one of the "softer and in less demand" disciplines (such as Ancient History). At the other end of the spectrum would be trade oriented curriculum with students learning skills necessary for basic life (some accounting, enough math to figure out interest, basic understanding of government, basic writing skills) and skills specific to a group of trades and including apprenticeships in HS.

      If you've ever worked with fifth graders, it's pretty obvious which ones will never be on the academic the track or the one just "below" it. If, in spite of being exposed multiple times to it, they haven't figured out how to compute 6.9 × 0.042 or 42.42 ÷ 0.1, they are extremely unlikely to catch up and even survive Algebra 2 a few years later. However, generally students should be given the benefit of the doubt and put into a higher track if they are "on the bubble" and then be aggressively reevaluated every six months to determine if they should be moved to a less academically demanding track. The requirements and expectations of the tracks should not be adjusted to match the students, the students should be placed in the track that match their motivation, intelligence, and interests.

      I know you think you have a good idea here, but it would have failed me. My grade school teachers said I was stupid, as in literally, to my parents. I couldn't do any of those things in 5th grade. We had timed tests back then, I hated those, I probably never managed to finish one, in fact, I doubt I finished half the page most of the time.

      Yet, I managed to get National Merit Commended Student in high school, got nice SAT scores, went to a locally prestigious university, got a Comp Sci degree with Math and French minors (qualified for BS and BA, took the BS), I've been developing software for years, since before the .COM crash, in fact, you've probably used some of it.

      So I can't say how many would fall through the cracks with your method, but I would have, I have a suspicion that many with unrecognized disabilities, family issues, or a whole host of other problems also would. I know the grade school teachers I had weren't qualified to evaluate me, do you think most grade school teachers are qualified to evaluate all children or even most of them?

    143. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by lgw · · Score: 1

      Have you read anything by Orwell? Most of his later writing was intended as a specific warning to other Socialists that Socialism, in the end, begets Fascism. While he still supported Socialism, he had seen Franco's Spain first-hand, and seen exactly what the road from Socialism to Fascism would look like, and how easy that road would be to travel.

      Giving the government power is always bad, because there's a cost in liberty paid for every increment of government power. Sometimes there's some social good that exceeds that bad - the government will always insist that's the case in every trade-off - often there's not.

      These days, of course, folks are trying to redefine Fascism and pretend that word means "government in bed with corporations" - just so they can pretend it's the opposite of Socialism. But we already have a word for that: Mercantilism (when the armed forces back up your corporate overlords). But history shows us that Hitler was very progressive (minimum wage, universal health care, government pensions, 102% tax rate on corporations, really the National Socialist party wasn't just a name), and Socialism is quite compatible with totalitarian government control.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    144. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by thoth · · Score: 1

      Sorry about the post spam... at work have to post, leave, etc. And what I wouldn't give for an edit button. ;)

      To be clear, I'm not totally down on the free market. It works, mostly. I just think there are areas it doesn't handle well, and waiting for it to sort out is an unacceptable cost - chiefly healthcare and education "markets". There is also the problem of corporate influence into government process, but that is a separate issue that ultimately traces back to the populace that elects Congress. sigh.

    145. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Oceanplexian · · Score: 1

      Income != Credit.

      FYI, upstart.com, aka lending on a percentage of future income is absolutely insane. It's not like credit is a new concept. If you're creditworthy you get a loan, if you're not, you don't. We don't need more kids getting loans. It artificially increases the costs of tuition so that responsible people who live within their means can't afford college. I scraped together enough money in combo with the Pell Grant to get a very decent education at a local community college. -zero loans-, you can do it working a McDonalds.

      Everybody isn't entitled to go to an expensive school.

      That's cool that people want to get funding for their next big idea, but they should get a SBA loan. That way you're not whoring out your ideas to other people. Plus, the good news is that banks typically don't fund bullshit business models, you can work out better terms, and you're building real credit.

    146. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Cuban education (at least, if you're Cuban) is only free as in beer.

      I'm sure you meant "free as in rum".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    147. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Who actually talks on the phone these days?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    148. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by airdweller · · Score: 1

      Wow. I guess watching Colbert gives you fits :)

    149. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1
      Thinking about it, maybe a less insulting reply would be more productive here.

      And there is a better way to distribute resources called Imperialism.

      Here's my beef with the above statement. Imperialism is about redistributing resources and wealth for the top of a hierarchy. They all start well. That's because in order to move resources and such, you need common standards and widespread infrastructure.

      And they all fail (usually very badly) because ultimately, it's about redistributing resources and wealth for the top of a hierarchy which just isn't and can't be sufficiently competent. It's another centrally managed economy like communism (which BTW consisted almost completely of two empires, China and Russia). They can be quite stable for a while, but that's not the same as good distribution of resources. There's a fundamental conflict of interest which gets resolved typically by dissolution of the empire in question.

      There's are other problems as well, such as poor procedures for determining leadership. Because control is central, it's easy for parties to influence or take over. Meaning that there are far more power struggles in an empire than in a decentralized system. As Pournelle put it (in his short story, "Reflex"):

      Some day they'd get a really bad Emperor. Or three Emperors all claiming the throne at once. Better to put a stop to this now, rather than leave the problem to their grandchildren."

      You looked only at the shiny and pretty head of empire, not the corrupt and twisted tail.

      As to corporatism, I see it as a dynamic when socialism and capitalism are both in play. Certain organizations specialize in and become very proficient at acquiring public resources. In our current developed world societies, those most commonly take the form of incorporated businesses, hence, the phrase, corporatism.

      I believe some modest degree of socialism is required just to prevent those who don't have and are too incompetent to build a stake in society from harming society. They need their bread and circuses.

      As to communism, it started as just a radical socialism-based ideology and detoured into empire building with both the USSR and China indulging in it. I think it's relatively high body count comes from the sheer irrationality of the beliefs combined with typical empire-building approaches. For example, Rome frequently negotiated very one-sided treaties with those it annexed, giving them a degree of self-rule. It understood how far to push and how to get what it wanted in a way that was palatable to its subjugated peoples.

      While Stalin's horrific treatment of the defeated Ukrainians during the Homodor, a genocide via famine, was due in large part to the ridiculous ideology of the Soviets and Stalin's considerable paranoia and ruthlessness. The Romans could and did commit a variety of massacres and such, but they generally understood how to get subjugated peoples to obey without excess bloodshed. The Soviets never picked up that knack. I think that explains the relative differences in the lifespan of the two empires.

    150. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm not the one being quick to pick favorites. You're the one who picked "the market" and claimed nothing is better. I should be the one saying let's not be quick, and looked at history.

      That's because you can't see from my comments, that I have a couple of decades of experience with markets, their operation, and how successful they can be. Nor can you see my extensive readings of history and the building and destruction of empires. So from your point of view, I agree that it would look a bit hurried. But I am in no way being "quick" about my judgment of markets.

      The only value of empires is a quick process for deciding standards and building infrastructure, which tends to be somewhat quicker than democracy-based approaches. The huge downsides are a massive conflict of interest and insufficient competence of the elites that rule the empire and distribute its resources, and the conflicts generated by fighting over control of the empire.

      Markets have none of those issues. They're merely the best approach we have yet discovered for distributing resources.

    151. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      Loans that are backed with public money, and managed by people with no stake in the outcome, most of all.

      Citation needed.

      Seriously. That's a very specific statement about economic behavior, and if it's true that loans make with public funds and managed by disinterested bureaucrats have a high default rate, there should be evidence.

      It does seem that student loan default rates have increased recently, driven partly by the poor economy but also by the rise in for-profit education, where schools -- perhaps I should say "schools" -- deceive students into taking out large loans (publicly or privately backed) with promises of high-income careers. Rather than trying to squeeze the victims of this scam, seems to me that disinterested bureaucrats ought to crush the scammers.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    152. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you'll be amazed, but I agree.

    153. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by asylumx · · Score: 1

      That's because they aren't accountable to anyone, because they have to pay their own bill. As soon as someone else pays their bill, they will naturally be accountable to that person for their education and the rules around it should stipulate that.

    154. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by trout007 · · Score: 1

      The benefit for the student if such a market place existed would be a place to see what majors and schools are the best deal. The % rate for a $10k loan would be significantly less for a school and major that produced high income earners. Another benefit is knowing that no matter what happens you are never on the hook to make payments you can't afford.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    155. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      I guess your education didn't teach you the difference between "leach" and "leech".

      You do realize that we can't correct spelling after posting? There are plenty of misspellings throughout my posts. Feel free to waste your time dissecting them.

      Or that we went the market route for the latter part of the 19th Century and were sufficiently dissatisfied that a Republican president (Theodore Roosevelt) became famous for putting reins on it.

      One doesn't need a completely unregulated market in order to enjoy the benefits of a market route. What's happening these days though is that a lot of people are blaming failures of market regulation on the market not on the regulation. Then they make it worse by proposing even more broken regulation of markets and other things. Until people recognize the positive feedback between bad ideas and bad outcomes, we'll see more of this.

    156. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're neglecting to consider what the outcome of this is though. If few people will be given loans for post-secondary education, the cost of that education will come down to the point where students can pay for it with a part-time job, the way it *gasp* USED TO BE.

      Education costs are so high precisely because the government is guaranteeing loans.

    157. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by thorbsd · · Score: 1

      "If you've ever worked with fifth graders, it's pretty obvious which ones will never be on the academic the track or the one just "below" it."

      When I was in 5th grade (well pretty much up until about grade 10), I was the person you just identified with that statement. There were a few teachers that saw something in me, and I listened to them when they took the time to talk to me, but for the most part, I think my teachers thought I was a slacker, a troublemaker, a delinquent, etc. I never did well academically, always just barely passing.

      I'm in medical school now.

      Perhaps I am an exception to the rule, but there are kids in that grade 5 class that might just do something special.

      I agree that perhaps the current education system could use an overhaul though. Somehow everyone has to get a degree now. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, because having an educated population is really important. There are so many kinds of intelligence though, and so many kinds of absolutely necessary jobs that require skills that you're not going to get from a university or college degree.

    158. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Herr+Brush · · Score: 1

      Not every totalitarian regime is fascist and socialism does not beget fascism. Fascism adopts some socialist and capitalist elements into a totalitarian, nationalistic and militaristic framework.

    159. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      The answer to the above is that there's no incentive to train your own workforce

      Employers have an interest (maybe) in workforce training. They have no interest -- often, a negative interest -- in an educated citizenry.

      Educated citizens tend to be the bane of for-profit companies. They understand science, so want regulation (or lawsuits) against polluters dumping crap in the air, water, and soil. They understand history, they read up on labor movements and find out how to organize for better working conditions and pay.

      Part of the problem here is that we keep confusing education of citizens with training of employees. Employers mostly want competent Gammas; educators want as many Alphas as possible.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    160. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      You would be most incorrect. The free market works great in specific instances, where there is perfect knowledge in the customer base, infinite competition, completely fungible products that aren't necessities, etc. Things like the market for cars, where I have a zillion choices, tons of companies are competing for me, and I can avoid the purchase if nothing meets my various criteria.

      It also works great in cases where that doesn't all hold. I used the market for some recent dental care and that worked fine. I've also been quite successful in my education shopping over the decades. So my personal experiences don't indicate trouble with marketss for education and health care.

      Going without is unacceptable.

      Nonsense. Unless you plan on forcing a degree on everyone whether they work for it or not, then there will be people doing the "unacceptable". Maybe they're not smart enough, maybe they're lazy, or maybe they just don't want to be in a classroom for five more years.

      Yes, the for-profit motivation is the shitstain on the fabric of modern society - it taints everything.

      Not at all. Sounds like you need some more edumacation. For profit ventures have the shining virtue of being positive return on investment. For example, you seem to have this completely unfounded opinion that society would be better off with cheap or free education. Who pays for that and what could they have done with that money instead? What's the benefits of getting a shitty education for free rather than something useful to your life, like five or more years of work experience? Where's the positive return on investment when the costs exceed the benefits?

      And that's the problem - somehow dozens of other countries manage to distribute needed resources to their population (healthcare, education) without it disappearing into the craphole of corporate/capitalistic skimming.

      It's worth noting here that no one has actually solved the problem yet. Everyone is experiencing rapid cost increases (as a share of their GDP) in health care. Just because the US system is profoundly stupid even by the low standards prevalent in health care systems doesn't mean the other systems work. What I see are growing health care costs worldwide with no means to cap those costs aside from some bureaucrats just deciding they're not going to fund beyond a certain point.

      I see no advantage of these systems over having everyone pay their own way. Poor people get worse health care than the rich? That's already the case. But when a person doesn't have to spend their own money, that encourages them to consume as much health care as they can get away with.

    161. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Arrogant+Monkey · · Score: 1

      "I'm happy to pay taxes to educate children and young adults in basic skills such as writing and mathematics." I'm right there with you, but I'd really like to see some transparency on how effective our tax spending here is. We spend $11k/student in the US for elementary and secondary education -- more than any other country (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/figure-ifn-1.asp). Yet we're consistently ranked among the midrange or lower for scientific and mathematic literacy (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/figure-msl-1.asp). That tells me that we're both not getting value for the money being spent, and that the priorities for education (or maybe the cultural priorities of the students) are not aligned with the US's needs.

    162. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How are you going to stop the wealthy from getting better services?

      Why should we?

      Those that keep letting jealousy and spite rule their thinking process are turning themselves and everyone else into slaves.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    163. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by airdweller · · Score: 1

      This is one of the most eloquent ways to describe the main pros and cons of socialism I've seen. Wish I had mod points.

    164. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be naive. The Canadian system is expensive, and getting worse every year. You just don't see all of the costs because they're not up-front in a tuition bill. They're hidden in our taxes.

    165. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm happy to pay taxes to educate children and young adults in basic skills such as writing and mathematics.

      I don't want to send my tax dollars to for profit "colleges" to pay for worthless education and mind-candy degrees.

      You mean like the colleges turning out vast numbers of lawyers that can't find work? I mean if you want a college students with poor job prospects philosophy is a lot cheaper than law. Actually I'd hire a philosophy student over a law student hands down for most work that requires the ability to write and think clearly.

      Any event charging 7% of a loan that can't be discharged via bankruptcy, is abusive. Especially since the government insures it so the bank has zero percent chance of losing money on the loan. Seriously people that think that is okay need to just stick their head in a oven.

    166. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This already exists faggot. We call it a public library. Want to learn? Go to your local library and read a fucking book you worthless whinging piece of feces.
      You slobbering malcontent. You sanctimonious effluence from the backside of a hog. You stinking, rotted out swine carcass. You...oh well, you get the picture, you're worthless.

    167. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      After 36 months, you have the right, but not the obligation to sell your Model S to Tesla for the same residual value percentage as the iconic Mercedes S Class, one of the finest premium sedans in the world, made by Daimler (also a Tesla partner and investor).

      Not only is Tesla guaranteeing that resale value, but Tesla CEO Elon Musk is personally standing behind that guarantee to give customers absolute peace of mind about the value of the asset they are purchasing.

      This part makes me want to buy one. Well, among a lot of other reasons. But largely because I want to reward someone for standing behind their product. You don't see a lot of that, these days. Lots of difficult-to-use warranty's, but little real pride in a product.

      It shouldn't be innovative, or revolutionary; let's face it: this is something lacking from most companies these days.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    168. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I mean 'not free as in freedom' actually.

    169. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Under the current structure it's pay taxes to indoctrinate students with a severely liberal bent in the hope of ushering in a new age of socialism. I'm not in favor of that, and I'd rather not fund it.

    170. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by sjames · · Score: 1

      We do have it. The ENTIRE amount saved in the sequester could be saved without any other cut just by dropping the latest high tech DOD toy. It's like we're eating nothing but worm riddled apples and expired snack cakes so we can save up for a solid gold toilet.

    171. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by snadrus · · Score: 1

      You're just mentioning the current situation.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    172. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      What is it about extreme libertarianism that makes so many people go after it like eccentric Spanish noblemen tilting after windmills?

      I suspect it's the allure of simplicity, and the certainty comes with it. Like an equation that explains half the universe, the idea that everything can be derived from a few simple principles is enticing. Perhaps that's why it seems to have a particular allure for nerds, as people who prefer things systematic and deductive. I prefer things that way myself, but my realist side says empirical data trumps everything.

    173. Re: Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      But aren't K-12 and High Schools totally publicly funded? And look how good they are/how inexpensive/how inefficient/how balanced the pay-scales are. (sarcasm)

      What's strange is that ... I went to one of those private, church/religious schools. Tuition was expensive, but not THAT expensive... and the profs? They make way less than my public junior college economics professor. And they almost all had Ph.D.'s in their field. In fact, every one of my music profs had Ph.D.'s in music, whether it was choral conducting, music education, theory and composition, music history, piano pedagogy, piano performance, etc.

      Yet they worked for significantly less, as did the administrators... and there weren't even that many administrators.

    174. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by dwye · · Score: 2

      Even here in America we now have socialized fire and police departments.

      In point of fact, most US fire departments are staffed almost completely with volunteers. Sometimes a larger fire company might have a paid chief (like Steve Martin's character in the movie "Roxanne"), but only the largest departments are entirely made up of paid employees.

    175. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You disappoint me, Mr Anderson.

    176. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why Education should be funded where the risk is borne by the one making the loan. The repayment terms should be based on a percent of the students income for a fixed number of years.

      This is why Education should be funded by The People. If we took the profit motive out of education we wouldn't have to worry about the "administration" making several times what the instructors do for not even teaching.

      hahahahahahahahahahaha. I hope you're being sarcastic and realize that is exactly what is the situation with public education.

    177. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we just admit having an educated society is a good thing and we make a university education free to those who qualify.

      If education were treated as a public good, we would need to tweak the incentives for allocative efficiency. All else being equal and within a certain scope, the labor of an educated person is worth more than the labor of an uneducated one. An employer that seeks to reap the benefits of that added value should not only provide greater compensation to the individual for their time investment, but also pay additional money to the state that funded the education.

      This means companies should pay higher taxes if they employ more educated workers, beyond the payroll tax. Perhaps it would also induce companies to reexamine their "Receptionist needed. Bachelor's degree required" policies.

    178. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Da, komrade.

    179. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the Cuban model (for doctors, at least) is for the government to pay for all schooling (often abroad) in exchange for a certain number of years of service. They don't want a portion of your income for a fixed number of years, they want your working hours for a fixed number of years.

    180. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where there is "free" education there are not enough seats available. The percentage of students who go to University in the UK is pretty low, because the competion is high for few seats.

      Agreed that the loan lender should take the risk. Have the University back it up. They are the ones making the huge profits. If there grads cannot get hirted and therefor pay, let them eat their own cooking.

    181. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company founder is apparently personally guaranteeing the car's resale value. That's it

      When you lease a car, you are buying the car and buying the option to resell the car at a price negotiated up front. It's just going long with a put option, once you boil away the irrelevancies. This Tesla deal is the same thing wrapped in different language. The only difference is, this option is bundled with the car. You don't have the choice of not buying it.

      Congratulations Elon, you've just removed a little bit of consumer choice and are getting lauded for it. Steve Jobs trained you well.

    182. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by lgw · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We've seen two forms of totalitarian regimes in modern times: Communism, and Fascism. Socialist ideals were central to both. It seems every totalitarian regime since maybe Napoleon has used Socialist ideas to sell itself. "Give up some freedom for a nice check in the mail" seems to sell really well.

      That doesn't mean Socialism must necessarily end in totalitarianism, of course, but it does mean one should be quite skeptical of "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    183. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by trout007 · · Score: 1

      I owe a percent of my income every year in taxes. How is it different?

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    184. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      As a university employee in a country with socialized edication (?), I assure you that you would have to worry about the administration being slow, ineffectice and expensive. That seems to be a constant.

    185. Re: Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asking alumni for gifts and having those alumni influence the direction of the school is now a bad thing? That's what built the Ivies and other elite private universities. UT/A&M are wise enough to have combined endowments for their systems, so younger/regional schools are not unfairly penalized for UT Austin producing more of the rich alumni.

    186. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am making fun of you and your "religious beliefs" in the utopian socialist state you are working so hard to build, and failing at.

      I can present evidence, start with the national debt. This alone is proof that socialism fails utterly and completely anywhere it is tried, and I can go on but I will not.

      Now you present some proof, or even a logical argument, because you have done neither of these things so far.

    187. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's my beef with the above statement. Imperialism is about redistributing resources and wealth for the top of a hierarchy. They all start well.

      The fact they start well is justification enough that they are better. We can only do what we think is best today. Future generations will do what they think is best tomorrow, when those bad things might occur.

      You know, it's the same reason we don't drastically change our economy today just to appease some environmentalists who tell us that something bad (tm) might happen for our grandchildren (and they might even use your Pournelle quote against you)

      And they all fail (usually very badly) because ultimately, it's about redistributing resources and wealth for the top of a hierarchy which just isn't and can't be sufficiently competent.

      That's only a failure of a particular dynasty, not the resource distribution. The resources of the old incompetent dynasty are taken by a newer, more competent dynasty, and it gets distributed better.

      This mechanism is similar to free market competition, where weaker firms go bankrupt, freeing up resources to be redistributed. Letting companies fail lets the economy recover faster than endless bailouts.

      By applying this to a state/government level, Imperialism prevents the rise of communism (where as you pointed out, one empire gains absolute power, tries to prop itself up indefinitely, leading to inefficiency and stagnation). In that respect, "poor procedures for determining leadership" is actually a boon. The lack of stability means no single empire can entrench itself and go communist. And as you said, it's not like stability necessarily means better distribution of resources.

      "The tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time by the blood of tyrants and patriots." Well, with Imperialism it's not so much about liberty, but same idea: sometimes blood has to be shed, the herd has to be culled.

      As to corporatism, I see it as a dynamic when socialism and capitalism are both in play. Certain organizations specialize

      Under corporatism, those "certain organizations" are elites. They aren't just any angry mob who wants free stuff. They need money, which means they need to have some resemblance of competence. These organizations also need to compete with each other (other elites) like the royal families and dynasties of the past. This makes it imperialism, not socialism.

      As to communism, it started as just a radical socialism-based ideology and detoured into empire building with both the USSR and China indulging in it.

      Sure, there was empire building, and it still fits into my point. The difference is WHO was building the empire. With Rome, they had elites. With communism, it was the mob. This further shows how the elites have a better idea on how to distribute resources.

      Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying capitalism is bad at resource distribution. But as you said, you get stuff done faster if you aren't worried about freedom or democracy.

    188. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New facilities can greatly add to instruction value - compare a 1960's concrete blob classroom to a modern classroom designed with instructional technology (projectors, adjustable lighting, better design for classroom demos) and the latter is likely to better serve students. New stadiums/gyms are much more questionable, as is the admin growth.

    189. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by bythescruff · · Score: 1

      This. Education is good for society. It may not be practical to give everyone a PHD, or even a bachelors degree, so you have to choose who gets to go to university. The optimal selection criterion is obviously academic ability. Making people pay means the selection process is at least partly based on how much money a candidates's family has, and that will necessarily result in a less-than-optimal selection, and that means less benefit for society. Oh wait, I forgot, politicians have their *own* best interests in mind, not yours.

      --
      Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
    190. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Been watching that organ repo movie again?

    191. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      They have no interest -- often, a negative interest -- in an educated citizenry.

      That explains why companies look for the degree first.

      They understand science, so want regulation (or lawsuits) against polluters dumping crap in the air, water, and soil. They understand history, they read up on labor movements and find out how to organize for better working conditions and pay.

      You seem to have a problem distinguishing between education and indoctrination. Understanding science doesn't mean that you want regulation against polluters who are already heavily regulated against "dumping crap". Understanding history, doesn't mean you develop a thing for labor unions especially when you see how they operated in practice and how they've fallen in recent decades under powerful labor competition from the developing world.

    192. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by airdweller · · Score: 1

      You seem to be 100% irony/sarcasm-proof.

    193. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice in theory, in practice... at public school systems, administrators generally earn multiples of what the instructors do (it's how they claim they can get the best people when the system is failing and it's such a tough job etc etc)

    194. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by losfromla · · Score: 1

      In point of fact, most US fire departments are staffed almost completely with volunteers.

      citation needed

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    195. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2

      If an education is really that valuable, then they'll find a way to pay for it.

      And those who are unable to find a way to pay for it don't get educated. And businesses who need educated workers will be unable to find them.

      Seems to me like that's a piss-poor way of allocating at least one resource: the workforce. Simply through lack of access to capital, you'd limit the productivity of the workforce.

      This problem is why we have public education, and why it's a good thing (even for those at the top of the economic pyramid).

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    196. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      At this point in time, I don't think we should be funding people's advanced degrees.

      Why the h--- not?!? It's been shown time and again that higher education pays dramatically well. Taken in whole, the money we (the people) stand to make in tax revenue on highly qualified personnel is ridiculously greater than the cost of education.

      Forget the student loan. Take a look at the big picture. Highly educated people, as a whole, create more wealth than poorly educated people. Not only do people who make more pay more taxes, they do so in a disproportionate way.

      People who make big bucks often dip into the 40% (or higher!) tax brackets. As a government trying to grow its own country, this is ridiculously profitable. Since that government is you and me, we're retarded for not doing everything we can to boost our own educations!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    197. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Imagine that. The Center for American Progress doesn't like for-profit education. It doesn't matter if it's a state university or not. They both are happy to take borrowed money for tuition.

    198. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Socialism, in the end, begets Fascism. I think there are alot of things to worry about.

      Whatever education is being financed, it seems history is no longer a part of it.

      I'm calling this out as an AI, it does not pass the/a Turing Test. It just collected frequently used words and hunted the internet for some phrases that used those words, slapped them together and called it a submission. It avoids captcha's by being logged in.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    199. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      We have to pay high interest to cover losses to people who rack up debt studying things like art history, anthropology, and underwater basket weaving.

      Not true. The loans are guaranteed by the government; there are no losses to lenders that you have to cover.

      You pay a high interest rate simply because lenders have friends in Congress who fix the interest rate to ensure high profits.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    200. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I guess these volunteers show up with their own equipment (including fire engines) and pay for their own training.

    201. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by CommanderK · · Score: 1

      They understand science, so want regulation (or lawsuits) against polluters dumping crap in the air, water, and soil.

      Most of them don't, STEM isn't too popular these days. A lot of students go to Humanities & Liberal Arts, where they take very few science classes.

      Employers mostly want competent Gammas; educators want as many Alphas as possible

      Education doesn't turn Gammas into Alphas (that's one of the great fallacies of education, IMHO). A lot of that is genetics (mainly intelligence); schooling a stupid person will not make them intelligent. In most cases, you're only feeding them information, which they absorb without understanding and then apply blindly.

    202. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 1

      The infallibility of the free market is clearly a matter of Faith, as its proponents are impervious to empirical debunking.

      Similar things can be said about those that believe the government has to regulate everything or constantly increase the national debt in an attempt to stimulate the economy, while ignoring empirical evidence that says it won't work.

      The thing is, economics is not a hard science in which you can come up with a theory, test it and find you have a plausible theory or an error in your theory. One theory or model will not always work in every case and, if you look, you can find instances and empirical data the contradicts most models at some point. If there was a perfect model, you would have a lot more people that know exactly how to invest without risk. Faith in a free market is not some delusion as your post implies.... it is just not the cure-all solution that.

    203. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by sp0tter · · Score: 1

      So indentured servitude is what you really mean.

      WTF? People burdened by student loans in this country would kill for a deal like that.

      Not me! I paid off my loans in 18 months...Just thinking about paying them for 10 years makes me want to go suck a tail pipe. Of course I was very careful with how I paid for my education and spent most of my time at low-cost community colleges. Yes I attended more then one.

      --
      you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future--or else you'll get all scratchy
    204. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      The fact they start well is justification enough that they are better.

      No. It's not. You can't hit "pause". Time moves on. Then you have to start dealing with the many problems of empires.

      You know, it's the same reason we don't drastically change our economy today just to appease some environmentalists who tell us that something bad (tm) might happen for our grandchildren (and they might even use your Pournelle quote against you)

      They do tell me this all the time. The only problem is that these environmentalists just don't have compelling evidence of harm. A bad emperor or three bad emperors simultaneously is compelling evidence of harm. We already know from history that those circumstances are bad.

      That's only a failure of a particular dynasty, not the resource distribution.

      Well, given that it is inevitable no matter the dynasty and it becomes a resource distribution failure as well, I don't see the point of your attempt at nuance.

      By applying this to a state/government level, Imperialism prevents the rise of communism (where as you pointed out, one empire gains absolute power, tries to prop itself up indefinitely, leading to inefficiency and stagnation).

      Unless the empire adheres to Marxism-Leninist principles. I already named two empires that did that. Then it's a dive down a very lethal rabbit hole.

      "The tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time by the blood of tyrants and patriots." Well, with Imperialism it's not so much about liberty, but same idea: sometimes blood has to be shed, the herd has to be culled.

      One can say the same of communism. Sometimes you need to off 10% of the population in order to remove counterrevolutionary thought. Still one can't help but wonder if maybe it would vastly better to go with a system, like democracy, that doesn't need so much killing?

      Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying capitalism is bad at resource distribution. But as you said, you get stuff done faster if you aren't worried about freedom or democracy.

      That only works if I'm in charge. If I'm not, then it's not getting done faster. And why the emphasis on "faster" anyway?

      Now, I don't know if you're serious or just yanking my chain, but I simply don't see the value in empire building. Sure, it's nice to be the guy in charge and there are some benefits from the standardization and infrastructure that marks the start of an empire, but it's never done for the sake of the people in the empire. And it always ends in a mess.

      It's worth noting here that there are several democratic republics and democracies currently in existence that have lasted longer than most empires. One of those, the United Kingdom, even willing let go of the empire it had built (which makes the UK one of the few peaceful dissolutions of an empire). In other words, democracy ages better than empire does. And democracies are happier and more just places.

      In summary, I just don't see the point of advocating empire. They're not that efficient, they don't represent the people of the empire, and I'd probably get jailed or worse for the stuff I say on Slashdot. You'll get no support from me.

    205. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by TheRealRainFall · · Score: 1

      I don't think you have any understanding of what is being discussed.

    206. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by TheRealRainFall · · Score: 1

      No, i don't mean Canada. Clearly you don't understand what is being discussed and insist on obfuscating matters for others. It was a comparison to be owned by a third party based on their investment in you.

    207. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait wait wait... you PAY for education over there?

      How quaint! Over here we get paid by the government to take an education, of our own choice of course. Tell us, is it some elaborate psychological way to spur the young mind into a more zealous pursuit of knowledge, knowing that they would loose the escrow if they fail at their chosen education? A very spartan approach is it not?

    208. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      When the law was passed, the default rate for students was 1%. Actually better than for many other forms of debt.

      It's not right that we let 18 year olds sign contracts like this.

      If you could default on these loans, the banks would not loan so much money and tuition would not be as high.

      My entire degree cost me under $20,000 from 1985 to 1993 and lead to six figure salaries. Great investment. Today-- not so much.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    209. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That shot was actually a depiction of your brain after experiencing the American education, not after you realized you were scammed and then refused to pay the con artists...

    210. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Needs to be edited to use present tense.

    211. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, indeed. There are highly paid jobs that require little education, and this is also evident in developing countries where a surgeon usually makes less money than a soccer player or corrupt congressman that barely does any work other than randomly or economically choosing to support or oppose a motion.

    212. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why change the culture when you can just learn Mandarin or something and jump ship to one that's not burning and sinking...?

    213. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Faith in a free market is not some delusion as your post implies.... it is just not the cure-all solution that.

      My post implies no such thing, as it only refers to faith in the infallibility of free markets. Given that, and the last statement in your post, it's hard to figure out what your disagreement is.

    214. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Arrogant+Monkey · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right? How much do you think school superintendents make vs school teachers in primary and secondary education?

    215. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a good plan, if your goal is to make sure that "present business plan and 1st quarter (after graduation) earnings estimate to bank loan officer" becomes a routine part of the college admission process.

    216. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      And those who are unable to find a way to pay for it don't get educated.

      No problem here. They'll find something else to do.

      Seems to me like that's a piss-poor way of allocating at least one resource: the workforce.

      Not at all. When you don't have government running up the cost of education several fold, it'll become quite affordable for the people who want an education to get an education.

      This problem is why we have public education, and why it's a good thing (even for those at the top of the economic pyramid).

      A lot of the current problems are due to the dismal performance of public education. When a diploma isn't worth the paper it's written on, then employers are going to look for stuff that is, such as college diplomas.

    217. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia, the repayment rate for education loans are based on income. No interest on the principle, but the debt is indexed. If you never earn above a certain amount, you never repay the loan.

      http://studyassist.gov.au/sites/studyassist/payingbackmyloan/loan-repayment/pages/loan-repayment#WhenDoIHaveToRepayMyHELPDebt

    218. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by dwye · · Score: 0

      Without subsidized student loans. many trades and professions would be closed to all but the sons and daughters of the very rich.

      True, but do we really need more graduates majoring in French Literature, Black Studies, Women's Studies, or Magic (Isaac Bonewitz, I'm pointing at YOU! Or I would be if you were still alive) or (fill in your worst nightmare major here?

      Which trades require subsidized loans to get into, and is the expense because of the subsidies?

      If studios need more Film Studies majors (like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg) then they can establish their own scholarship committees, just as the various denominations have done for their ministers' educations.

      Harvard is impossible to pay for, even with subsidized loans, because their limit is well below tuition. Except that Harvard has an endowment so huge that it can afford its own loans and grants, so that almost no one EXCEPT the plutocrats' and kleptocrats' children have to pay anything like full freight. Likewise for many other "great" schools. The tuition has been raised to suck up any available outside aid.

    219. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by dwye · · Score: 1

      You forgot logging and furniture construction, and whatever else was in the movie The Shawshank Redemption. Oh, and license plates, of course.

    220. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by cras · · Score: 1

      Dunno how it works in Germany, but I think the people should be able to decide for themselves what kind of education they want, whenever they want (+- a few years). And maybe more importantly: If you decide wrong at some point, you should be able to switch if you're good enough. I think the way it works in Finland is good enough. I dropped out of high school (wanted to code all nights), finished it 7 years later when I had more motivation, had no problem getting into university trying out something new interesting I re-learned at high school (biotech!), then deciding it wasn't really worth the trouble and switching back to computer science and getting a BSc out of it. The high school and college stories I hear from the US are pretty depressing usually.

    221. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the German system, people can move between the (three) levels, based on their performance and preference. I know a guy who went through the college-level school, but didn't take his Abitur, a college entrance test, because he wanted to do something more technical after all. He's doing just fine.

    222. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by lotaris · · Score: 1

      When 66% of undergrads have student loans (http://www.finaid.org/loans/), if we went back to a private loan system with risk to the debt vendors, the higher educational system would implode. No longer able to raise fees at double the rate of inflation or more in order to support sinecure professors and with many fewer students we'd see massive downsizing and closing of schools. The gov't wouldn't like that.

      The federal educational loan system also keeps people out of the unemployment numbers for 2 or 4 or more years. The government likes this.

      http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/student-loan-debt-hell-21-statistics-that-will-make-you-think-twice-about-going-to-college

      For the small percentage of people who actually need a college degree, go for it. For the rest of us, stop wasting time. Find a trade and start working.

      Live with your parents, work and go to a community college for a couple of years, see if you find something you enjoy that will pay more than minimum wage. You might find something that isn't in engineering, medicine or law and doesn't require any more schooling. Get a few years head start on a career. Or at least get all of the general ed requirements out of the way and learn how to study. Transfer as a Junior to a school with a "good" program in the field you want. Leave purdue and the rest to the trust-fund babies.

    223. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Transitioning between the levels in the German system has been made easier than it once was, true and such a program in the U.S. should have the same feature. However, as you say, it's based on PERFORMANCE and preference. The case you describe of course sounds like someone who decided not to go to college even though he was in the college track and (presumably) could have -- of course, no system should force someone to go to college.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    224. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the internet. I did get a chuckle out of that.

    225. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by uncqual · · Score: 1

      At a minimum, we must "track" classes in the U.S.

      In most public elementary schools (and for some purposes/levels, middle schools as well) in the area I live, every kid is pretty much assigned randomly to classrooms (some, who are behind, get additional "special" help in additional classes or sessions -- but it's generally not very effective unless there's an obvious issue like English as a second language).

      So a fifth grade teacher has 25 students in the room ranging from the worst to the best in the school. The teacher has to teach "to the middle" without completely losing the lower kids. As a result, the "middle" students do okay, but are not challenged; the best students are bored (the teachers then often give them other advanced work, but the pace of the class is still MUCH too slow for them and sometimes they begin to goof off due to boredom and a lack of understanding that there ARE more challenging problems to be solving and that they should be solving if they can be considered to be "excelling"); and the worst students learn little and are demoralized. It really doesn't work very well for anyone.

      The 'selecting a path in fifth grade' obviously needs some adaptation. However, I wonder if you and your parents knew that you would have been put in a path after, say, fifth grade, do you think that might have changed the motivation a bit? Most smart people seem to respond to concrete expectations and consequences pretty well but there are few set in elementary school.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    226. Re: Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by dwye · · Score: 1

      Too many schools are begging rich alumni for gifts. At some point, the schools will become more in the service of those alumni than of the public.

      You obviously do not subscribe to Sports Illustrated or watch ESPN, much. Alumni cheating scandals related to the Athletics Department, especially the money-making sports (or as I call them, the Minor Leagues for Football, Basketball, and Ice Hockey)(although I known someone with a pretty big Fencing scholarship) are rampant.

      In a field more of interest, here, why do you think that DEC and later Apple had such huge price breaks for educational institutions (or Unix source licenses, for that matter, which were a couple hundred bucks for educational institutions and fifty thousand or so for commercial one), if not to bribe universities into using their products as opposed to IBM, Microsoft, Cobol, and all the other boring things which have always held the commercial market in thrall?

    227. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that students should be given differing educations based on ability. But your first paragraph shows how out of touch you are. Two year degrees are already useless for determining ability. I believe the differing tracks should be made available to the young as the young choose to make use of them. The predetermination is just a vehicle for abuse. Influential parents will force their less capable children into the finite slots for a fuller education leaving more capable youth to occupy the lesser education and lower class for life. I agree that education should be paid by taxes but reject the manipulative predetermination of the student's futures. I have worked with youth and there are easily determined cases where students will obviously never be intellectually adept. There are also cases where priveleged students are treated as though they have capacity when they have little. Talent was a word for a denomination of currency. Students with talent had money. Keeping this in mind, it is better to allow the student's accomplishment to determine his future rather than some arbitrary fifth grade manipulative abuse prone standard. Making the cut later in the students life will allow mistakes to be noticeable. Those notable mistakes will serve as feedback to improve the system. Grab a student in fifth grade and the damage will reduce the appearance of mistakes allowing for a smug and abusive overconfidence.

    228. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      You do realize that blind obedience to the free market is really stupid, right?

      Of course. But then why ask the question? A market is just another tool. I'm no more capable of obeying it than I am a screwdriver.

      It just might be that our system (government, economic), by which I mean the U.S., while pretty decent, isn't perfect and the end-all and be-all of sovereign organization. Perhaps the role of politics and government and cash should be heavily examined and revamped to include benefiting citizens as a primary goal, not skimming and extraction rent and transaction fees for corporations.

      I have a solution. Let's have a less "imperfect" government and society here. There is, as I noted earlier, a lot of room for reduction of imperfection.

    229. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I buy a fancy car, I benefit from owning it, showing it about, etc. It is, indeed, property that can (and should) be repossessed if I renege on my obligation. But if I buy a quality education, the benefits are far more diffuse. It is likely that my life will be far richer in every sense if I make the most of it. But what I give back to society at large is a benefit worth investing in. It makes perfect sense for the government to bear at least some, if not a significant portion of the risk, and to indemnify the individuals who may or may not be able to pay back that loan for reasons entirely beyond their power to control.

    230. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is nothing preventing government funded schools from being ruthlessly competitive. You just have to limit how many there are, and not treat your preferred secondary education as some kind of right.

      How does limiting the amount of school-level competition make it "ruthless"? I think rather the other way around works better.

    231. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they ruin your credit rating, and since pretty much every company now runs credit checks in addition to background checks when they are considering hiring you, you just won't be able to get any job besides burger flipper.

    232. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      I guess you meant ruthlessly competitive for students. I just don't see the reason for it when you can just pay and get what you want, an education.

    233. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Student loans capitalize immediately - they don't just start "4 or 5 years down the road." What you are forgetting is that the government pays the interest (for subsidized loans) until 4 or 5 years down the road, when it all drops in your lap.

    234. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      Therefore the government/public whatever you want to imagine, needs to play a role in funding eduction.

      Or we could make do with less than 17.5 million college students. Lower demand means lower prices. I see no need for government to be involved.

    235. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      the goal would be to provide a baseline of services to those who can't afford them.

      I suggest bread and circuses be the baseline. Anything past that can be paid for at the private level.

    236. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      Our public universities don't have a profit motive, but they're the worst offenders. They consume all the resources they can- state subsidies aren't used to lower tuition, but hire more administration, build fancy new facilities (that don't add to the instructional value.), or just have fun with the college kids at taxpayer's expense.

      If they're getting state money, is there some particular reason why the state can't simply order them to lower tuition, or better yet remove it completely?

      There isn't, hence the need to revamp the whole system. Texas is moving towards the $10,000 bachelors degree on this basis.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    237. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      "Our public universities don't have a profit motive" You don't follow college sports, do you?

      I don't, but I'm under the impression that major sports programs often bring in surplus funds to the university, such that they wouldn't have an adverse affect on tuition rates.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    238. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's been shown time and again that higher education pays dramatically well. Taken in whole, the money we (the people) stand to make in tax revenue on highly qualified personnel is ridiculously greater than the cost of education.

      Why wouldn't we also provide seed money for corporations, then? After all, corporations are on balance profitable enterprises that will provide us with more tax revenue.

      I think that government subsidies should be as limited as possible. Otherwise, you end up creating incentives that were unintentional. Look at the way Stafford Loans allowed colleges to become so built-out and expensive... the idea itself is sound, but the rising cost of college was unintentional. People are only just now getting wise to it - you saw the recent pressure on the for-profit universities as their graduates started defaulting on loans. The other universities won't be far behind if tuition continues to rise at these rates. A program designed to make college affordable to the middle and lower-middle class is instead burying that same demographic in debt and making the college equation less favorable.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    239. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by coopersnick · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much what the Australian government does for education fee loans - they are funded through the government and paid back by the individual when they earn enough money. The individual effectively has a higher tax rate until the loan is paid off. When I went through the scheme was called HECS. I think it's now called studyassist? It's important to change the name every 10 years or so.

    240. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to know that you in particular would have a hard time learning information if you knew the profit motive was gone from the educational industry. It's better to know that there are many, many, MANY people who wouldn't worry about it, get educated, and contribute to society instead of the current system that is designed to ensure a good amount of people HAVE to fail.

      We will be waiting for you in the 21st century!

    241. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      The high school and college stories I hear from the US are pretty depressing usually.

      How so?

    242. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Failing that, they should be expelled and expect no government benefits at all. Why should society pay for assholes to be assholes?

      I'm sure that, having been judged "assholes" by some government employee, those folks will then quietly and peaceful starve to death without making trouble for any of us. A minimal package of welfare benefits is generally cheaper than jail.

      If you want to play the property game -- if you want the state to mark off some piece of land, or objects made from raw materials extracted from the land, and enforce your "ownership" of it -- the ante for the game of excluding others from the free use of the material world is seeing that their basic needs are met. Even if they are assholes.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    243. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      No problem here. They'll find something else to do.

      OK, so you don't care about efficient allocation of resources. Fine. There go half your economic beliefs. Or you just don't care when that resource is educable labor? Why the discrepancy?

      Not at all. When you don't have government running up the cost of education several fold, it'll become quite affordable for the people who want an education to get an education.

      I question this pithy assumption, big-time. And even if it were true, it would still limit education on the basis of access to capital, so it doesn't solve the problem, it simply shifts it a little.

      A lot of the current problems are due to the dismal performance of public education. When a diploma isn't worth the paper it's written on, then employers are going to look for stuff that is, such as college diplomas.

      Which just reinforces my point that public college education is necessary, and useful, both to individuals and to employers.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    244. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the quickest way to remind people what effect government guaranteed education has on the vestiges of the freed and unfettered marketplace of society:

      Spending money to train those who would be otherwise trained for 'free' is a good way to go out of business.

      And this is the quickest way to remind people what effect government guaranteed education has on students:

      www.google.com/search?q=tuition+rates+increase
      www.google.com/search?q=greece+college+graduate+employment

    245. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Jiro · · Score: 1

      I guarantee that if you cure cancer you'll make as much as a basketball player.

      Presumably you're referring to someone who cures one case of cancer. If a doctor manages to cure a patient of cancer, that's a good thing, but it's still one patient. The basketball player entertains, which is something worth much less--except although it's worth much less it's multiplied by the ability to entertain tens of millions of people at a time. It doesn't matter that basketball is worth less than curing cancer, because the basketball player makes it up in volume. Much less valuable thing times tens of millions = much more valuable thing.

    246. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by khallow · · Score: 1

      OK, so you don't care about efficient allocation of resources.

      I don't get it. Why do you think it's not more efficient?

      I question this pithy assumption, big-time. And even if it were true, it would still limit education on the basis of access to capital, so it doesn't solve the problem, it simply shifts it a little.

      It shifts it to the potential students themselves where it has always belonged. They're quite capable of paying for their own education. And honestly, what other explanation is there for college costs going up much faster than regular inflation
      for the last twenty years.

      I did the calculation based on that table for the period 1958-1979 (took the 1958-2001 period and divided out by the 1979-2001 period). Tuition inflation (which you might not necessarily consider inflation) was about 6.6% increase per year for the period. "Normal" inflation was 4.6%. That's significantly higher tuition than normal inflation, but nothing compared to the 1979-2001 period which saw 7.37% increase per year for tuition, but only 3.96% normal inflation. The subsidized student loan program started kicking in after a 1965 law. So a portion of the 1958-1979 period is before the start of the federal student loan programs. And there were expansions of the loan programs apparently around 1986.

      I've tried looking for better data, but I can say is that there has been a remarkable increase in tuition costs relative to regular inflation at a time when student loans were kicking in. That fits my model of subsidy-driven price increases in education.

      Which just reinforces my point that public college education is necessary, and useful, both to individuals and to employers.

      Unless it's not up to the task. The US spends considerable sums per student on K-12 education and gets poor results comparable to developed world countries that spend much less per student. I think it's because too many things have higher priority than what the students actually learn.

      Now, what's going to keep the same dynamics from screwing up college level public education as well? For example, if in twenty years everyone is required to have a high school diploma and a college degree, yet most such graduates are only comparable in education ability to a high school student who graduated in 1960, how is that a good use of public funds or the time of the students?

      This is why I don't buy into the public education thing. It's not working now. So how will extending it, that is, creating the same problem over for college level education, make it better?

    247. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by dwye · · Score: 1

      And I guess these volunteers show up with their own equipment (including fire engines) and pay for their own training.

      Yes. They are, of course, charities, just like many ambulance services, and accept donations, hold fund raisers, etc. Their budgets are not backed up by the right to seize the property of non-contributors, nor do they refuse to put out fires of non-contributors' properties, unlike the fire company organized by Marcus Crassus of First Triumvirate fame.

      After the volunteers start a company (which of course happened years ago, few towns aren't older than a few generations, after all), the fire company pays for someone to get trained, then he teaches the other members of the company, etc. Likewise, the fire company originally buys one or two pieces of equipment, usually used from other companies (including the "socialized" fire companies), and over time tries to upgrade. Sometimes it can take a while for the new equipment (our local company still has one red engine left, frex, rather than the "modern" yellow-green).

      If you get a decent fire, a volunteer company might have to call another fire company for assistance, sometimes repeating for other companies. I can recall one case, locally, where five different volunteer companies eventually had to respond.

    248. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the German system is too rigid. Should your performance in the 5th grade determine the path of the rest of your life?

      A nice feature of the german system that most critics ignore: while it is rigid you can switch almost every other year or just add one or two years at the end to get a higher degree. (I actually gained a year by dropping out of the Gymnasium and going Realschule -> Fachoberschule others went Hauptschule-> M-Zweig (one year extra) -> Fachoberschule)

    249. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Very good point...
      With a car loan, the car is collateral. If you default, they can take back the car.
      With a student loan, what are they going to do? Cut out sections of your brain?

      ...and with this loan, you can discharge the balance in bankruptcy.

      Therefore, I can't figure out if this is a good idea or a bad idea. Tax money being used to support a business where the money will either be properly returned with interest, or the buyer will default and probably declare bankruptcy to avoid wage garnishment... in an economic downturn... and all of this on a vehicle which costs an arm and a leg to maintain, totally aside from the purchase itself.

      This just looks like a really bad logical idea. "Revolutionary", maybe. Technically, the only two modifiers from "past loan methodology" are the 15,000 up-front stipend possibility and the no-sales-tax option. I mean, come on.

      The old saying is "When something seems to good to be true...."

    250. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're either joking or a total fool. We're buried in "the written word" these days. The irony of publicly complaining that you aren't allowed to complain is really precious. You can even post anonymous anti-government screeds on widely-read websites.

    251. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Tax money being used to support a business where the money will either be properly returned with interest, or the buyer will default and probably declare bankruptcy to avoid wage garnishment...

      You can't do that with the student loans and the Tesla loans are not supported by Tax money. So I'm guessing you were confused by the summary.
      There is a $7,500 federal tax credit for purchasing hybrid and electrical cars and various states also have tax credits and/or a waver of sales tax for the same, but that's a different issue and not at all unique to Tesla.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    252. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's not. You can't hit "pause". Time moves on. Then you have to start dealing with the many problems of empires.

      You can't hit "pause" under any system. No system is perfect and there are always problems that will come and bite you.

      A bad emperor or three bad emperors simultaneously is compelling evidence of harm.

      That is as compelling evidence as having a bad CEO/company means capitalism is bad. If a few bad companies isn't compelling evidence that capitalism is a bad idea, then a a few bad emperors isn't compelling evidence that Imperialism is a bad idea.

      Well, given that it is inevitable no matter the dynasty and it becomes a resource distribution failure as well, I don't see the point of your attempt at nuance.

      You cannot see the sentence that followed right after what you quoted?

      I said: "The resources of the old incompetent dynasty are taken by a newer, more competent dynasty, and it gets distributed better."

      The resource distribution didn't fail. The resources are transitioned to a new dynasty, who distributes it better.

      Unless the empire adheres to Marxism-Leninist principles.

      Ok, so first you missed the sentence that followed, now you're missing what you directly quoted. In what you quoted, I already said: "(where as you pointed out, one empire gains absolute power, tries to prop itself up indefinitely, leading to inefficiency and stagnation)"

      I already acknowledged what you pointed out and bolded. Thing is, your statement is just a tautology. If a society goes communist, it's communist and all the bad things about communism happens? NO DUH. I also heard that capitalism is great... unless it turns communist, then it's a dive down a lethal hole!

      One can say the same of communism.

      Sure. Difference is, as I've already noted, under communism it's just the mob deciding who to kill, as opposed to the elites.

      Still one can't help but wonder if maybe it would vastly better to go with a system, like democracy, that doesn't need so much killing?

      I'll answer your question with this quote: give me liberty, or give me death

      Living in a democracy is rather meaningless if you're oppressed by the tyranny of the mob.

      At least with Imperialism, you're only oppressed by a minority of elites. It's easier to evade the elites (like how the Americans got away from Imperialist Britain... and became oppressors themselves on the Indians but that's another can of worms) than it is to evade the oppression of the mob

      Then there's today's corporatism, where you get the best of both worlds. Nobody's being killed when a corporation dies, and corporations are mostly free from the mob.

      That only works if I'm in charge. If I'm not, then it's not getting done faster.

      Then it's up to you to make sure you get in charge. It's one thing imperialism/corporatism shares with capitalism: personal responsibility. If you think things will go faster with you in charge, then get in charge. It's up to YOU to put yourself in a position of power, not the state (that would be communism and socialism)

      And why the emphasis on "faster" anyway?

      Because, as you said, time moves on. You can't hit pause. Time is money friend.

      but it's never done for the sake of the people in the empire.

      Of course it's not. That's just human nature, nothing to do with Imperialism.

      "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

      And it always ends in a mess.

      Of course, but that's true for all mortal things. Nothing lasts forever. Even mighty free market capitalist US ceased to be. So I don't see the point of your attempt at nuance.

    253. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Malcolm Gladwell book "Outliers" he describes a University of Michigan Law School study where over the long term they compared their expectations of students careers based on college entrance scores versus their actual "success" (IIRC Gladwell does not describe the metric used, but he does say that the University does have a metric they commonly use to judge lawyers' success).

      This study was done when they adapted their entrance requirements to include affirmative action. Gladwell writes that the University expected to see a correlation between their entrance scores and their success, meaning the students who came in under affirmative action would be expected to do well, but not necessarily as well as their counterparts who entered with higher test scores and other factors the university uses for admission.

      The reality was that there was not a correlation, students did well regardless of their entrance scores. Gladwell hypothesizes (again, IIRC) that this is because some student's prior educational experiences were not really reflective of their overall potential, and having had better opportunities allowed them to become more successful.

      In other words, fuck limiting someone's opportunities because of how they do in 5th grade. Have high standards, sure, but treat this like an ideal situation where everyone's experiences are the same, or that we can rely solely on a quantitative measurement to judge someone's prowess, and you're not only discriminating against students who've had less opportunities than others to date, but you're depriving our country of people who can be just as useful to us as the "smart" school kids, if given a decent chance.

      And IAAPublicSchoolTeacher.

      m!

    254. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      If you want education to be taken seriously we have to change our whole culture.

      Basketball players make more money than people who cure cancer, kids know this. People who make sex tapes get on TV, people who educate are mocked on TV.

      And is that different than any other country? Nope. Entertainers and cultural 'stars' are always going to make more money than scientists. However that doesn't mean that a society can't fund education better, or even make higher education free like many European countries have done.

      What the US seems to fail at, is looking at real facts and evidence, and making proper policy decisions based on that evidence. There are a ton of studies showing that education basically pays for itself when all those educated people start working and paying taxes. Yet each recession we seem to cut state and federal education funding.

    255. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

      $150K in debt is much higher than the typical student debt for an undergraduate or even masters degree. At least in the US, $26500 is the figure cited for a bachelor's degree. Still a fair amount -- but usually government subsidized or backed somehow.

      --
      Howdy howdy howdy
    256. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're merely the best approach we have yet discovered for distributing resources.

      Of course, that's why the world is so equitable right now, thank goodness your extensive study of markets and empires has equipped you so well intellectually.

    257. Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if it's a state university or not. They both are happy to take borrowed money for tuition.

      Except that in the case of the state university, there are no parasitic investors in the loops skimming off unearned wealth, no profit motive to distort the process. If you fail out of the University of Maryland, you've just wasted people's time; if you fail out of Forprofit U., you've fattened someone's pockets.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  3. So what? by bistromath007 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't really have a problem with this. Everyone knows that a car, even considering that they quickly depreciate, is much more valuable to the average person than most college degrees.

    I defy you to prove me wrong. :|

    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I defy you to prove me wrong. :|

      I don't need to. You have only stated an opinion, not presented any data for why you are right.

    2. Re:So what? by hackula · · Score: 1
      You have to be kidding me. The data shows quite the opposite:

      "Average annual earnings of individuals with a bachelor's degree are more than 75 percent higher than the earnings of high school graduates. These additional earnings sum to more than $1 million over a lifetime."

      http://www.aei.org/article/education/higher-education/how-much-is-that-bachelors-degree-really-worth/

    3. Re:So what? by ozydingo · · Score: 1

      Actually, he stated a claim, that everyone knows such and such (regardless of the fact that such and such included the evaluation of a subjective opinion, his was still a factual claim). But since you didn't know what he was talking about, I take that as proof that he was wrong.

    4. Re:So what? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Depends which car we're talking about, there are plenty in the 7-digit range. Although yes that is more than a Tesla, however I think that this may be another instance of the mean vs. median problem with a few hyper-rich people skewing the average upwards.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no degree and a Tesla S, so ...
      True in my case.

    6. Re:So what? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The problem with that kind of data is that it is fairly restrospective, and college tuitions have risen VERY quickly.

      If you're talking about a college education from the 80s followed by the job market of the 90s, there is little question that the education was worth it. However, students today don't get to pay 80s tuitions, and when they graduate they don't get to work in the 90s job market.

      Due to the huge expansions in loans colleges charge WAY more today, and they accept many more people than they used to. I'm not convinced that anybody who can get accepted to college is better off taking $150k in loans to do so, no matter what their career plans or abilities are.

      Having seen many kids make college plans today, I'm greatly concerned that college is just another four years of high school for them. I don't really see the value in that kind of education - why not just improve our high schools?

    7. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those "additional earnings" are dwarfed by the amount of money you would make if you would take the money spent on a degree and invest it over you lifetime.

    8. Re:So what? by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      That only accounts for people with degrees who can actually get a job. This is currently very far from a sure thing. Do you not read the news?

    9. Re:So what? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      The problem with statistics like that is that it is next to impossible to compare like with like.

      Sure people with a bachelor's degree earn more money than those who only graduated high school. However, the bachelor's degree group is going to be composed of smarter and wealthier people - since those help significantly in getting such a degree. So is that lifetime income increase due to the degree, or is it due to being smarter/wealthier to start with?

      Being able to complete college probably means the person in question can self motivate enough to do some work and follow instructions and so on - so is it the college degree causing the income jump or is it that qualities that help in getting a degree also help in earning more money and it's those qualities not the degree causing the income difference?

    10. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet mr. college degree fancy lad doesn't know what a causitation vs correlation fallacy is. HAHAHAA!!!!!

    11. Re:So what? by hackula · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the OP was saying that a car was a better investment than a degree, not just any investment. I am certain that there are many investments with higher ROI than a degree, but a car seems unlikely to be one of them.

    12. Re:So what? by hackula · · Score: 1

      The average value of a new car purchased is around 25k in the US. No way will that be a better investment than a 25k degree from a state uni in some reasonable major.

    13. Re:So what? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      You have to be kidding me. The data shows quite the opposite:

      "Average annual earnings of individuals with a bachelor's degree are more than 75 percent higher than the earnings of high school graduates. These additional earnings sum to more than $1 million over a lifetime."

      http://www.aei.org/article/education/higher-education/how-much-is-that-bachelors-degree-really-worth/

      ...and the *initial* sex appeal of a male with an expensive-looking (or seeming) car is far greater than one with a standard-mid model car.

      So basically, that would say that younger males would rather have really expensive (or expensive-looking) cars to get some quick sex than older males, and younger males would be less likely to want an actual large income because they're more interested in sex than logical life-living M.O.

      Just saying... Better income and education is a better idea, but that doesn't make it more of an applied idea due to Human nature.

    14. Re:So what? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      The problem with that kind of data is that it is fairly restrospective, and college tuitions have risen VERY quickly.

      You bring up a very good point there. Since tuition has climbed, young males (primarily) would be much more interested in a seemingly guilt-free and positive benefit behavior of purchasing an expensive car without a college degree to 'look' more impressive to the females, rather than to actually have the money to support a lifestyle with them.

      Not intentionally off-topic, but on that note, I predict divorce rates are to go up.

    15. Re:So what? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      You bring up a very good point there. Since tuition has climbed, young males (primarily) would be much more interested in a seemingly guilt-free and positive benefit behavior of purchasing an expensive car without a college degree to 'look' more impressive to the females, rather than to actually have the money to support a lifestyle with them.

      Based on my observation, at that age the last thing the females you're talking about are worried about is whether the males have much in the way of money, beyond whatever money is being immediately spent on them (and while that money is required to sustain a relationship, it does little to get one started).

      From what I've seen, about the only thing that matters in impressing the sort of young girls you're talking about is charisma. Money is just something their parents use to pay their bills for them - of little consequence.

      Now, once you get into the late 20s and 30s things change. After the first divorce, or experience with being a single parent, or just being tired of living with their parents for a decade or having to pay the bills attitudes change. At least, for those women who are not self-sufficient (not knocking them, but they're not really the target of the comment I responded to - they certainly won't be impressed by somebody who went into debt for a fancy car and no future).

      Oh, and this is by no means intended as suggesting that the males that age are on average any better. It is more a matter of kids having no sense of long-term value than a male/female thing.

  4. Lease Tesla by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sell Tesla.

    Use funds for college.

    1. Re:Lease Tesla by coinreturn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sell Tesla.

      Use funds for college.

      Minor detail: if you have a loan against that car, they hold the pink slip. Good luck selling it without one.

    2. Re:Lease Tesla by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this should be reversed.

      1. Buy Tesla
      2. Lease Tesla to person of questionable credit at slightly higher rates (owing to their low credit score)
      3. Refinance Tesla (repeat as necessary)
      4. ???
      5. Profit!

      Wait, where would education fit in there...?

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    3. Re:Lease Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to sell it legally that's true, but if you sell it to a "enterprising young urban individual" and report it "stolen" then the insurance company picks up the tab. It's brilliant really.

    4. Re:Lease Tesla by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this should be reversed.

      1. Buy Tesla
      2. Lease Tesla to person of questionable credit at slightly higher rates (owing to their low credit score)
      3. Refinance Tesla (repeat as necessary)
      4. ???
      5. Profit!

      Wait, where would education fit in there...?

      I don't know on 5, but I can fill in 4. for ya - make sure you have the necessary physical skills to beat the living shit out of the young male with poor credit who just lost his job, won't pay on the car, and is trying to keep it hidden from repo. :)

  5. consumer army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need consumers!

    Those consumers don't have to rely on such costly things as JOBS... and definitely not any job that corporation needs to pay for.

    NAW! Let them sell their organs.

  6. Purdue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why was Purdue singled out? how about Stanford, MIT, or some of the other strong STEM schools? College is a scam, its not just Purdue...When I have kids, I will advise them to avoid college unless we get some real changes in the system.

    1. Re:Purdue? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      College isn't a scam, but you have to know what you want out of it. If you don't know what you want to do yet when you graduate high school, you should probably get some employment experience in fields that interest you. You should still take some base level courses at a community college (and do well in them)... all of the 101 courses will probably transfer into whatever you end up doing - but there's no sense in going into deep debt without a clear goal in mind.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Purdue? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      College isn't a scam, but you have to know what you want out of it. If you don't know what you want to do yet when you graduate high school, you should probably get some employment experience in fields that interest you. You should still take some base level courses at a community college (and do well in them)... all of the 101 courses will probably transfer into whatever you end up doing - but there's no sense in going into deep debt without a clear goal in mind.

      I agree, except you are not going to get hired for a job in a college-educated field without a college education. There are exceptions, but this is the base reason why so many "undeclared major" kids get into university. Maybe if there was some way to do a"1st year of University you do some internship work at several companies to figure out what you want to do". While most schools have mandatory internship programs (which I thoroughly support), these are usually held at the end of school one the student is years-invested into the education. A lousy time to find out you hate the line of work.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:Purdue? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Yes, my school had a co-op program, and I think it was a fantastic experience. While it was great to get money, the real benefit was finding out that I wanted to change majors after the first co-op! Since the co-op program was baked-in, we got three 6-month co-op terms starting our sophomore year.

      I agree that it can be difficult to find work in a relevant field before you have a college degree. However, agreeing to do some unpaid intern work while enrolled in a community college is something that many companies would be amenable to. You'll come out ahead in the end, since I made nowhere near enough during my co-op to cover the costs of school.

      Of course, if you are smart or athletic enough to get a free ride, the economics change :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  7. Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla is a JOB CREATOR. Can't say that about your fancy edjucasion, now can you?!

  8. Easy: buy a tesla, go to school by getuid() · · Score: 1, Insightful

    1. Buy a tesla
    2. Sell the tesla for 90% of its market value
    3. ???
    4. Profit from a government-financed education at 2.95% (minus 10k or so "lost in transaction")

    1. Re:Easy: buy a tesla, go to school by DigitalReverend · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apparently you have never financed a vehicle. The bank holds the actual title, you only get a certificate of registration. You cannot sell the car without the title, and the bank will not release it without the loan being paid off.
      So if you tried to sell the car, the bank would take the money and you'd end up with nothing.

      --
      I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
    2. Re:Easy: buy a tesla, go to school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sublease the car with an option to transfer ownership for $1 at the end of the lease.

    3. Re:Easy: buy a tesla, go to school by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Problem: loan will come due on sale, and the lender won't give you the title until it is satisfied.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Easy: buy a tesla, go to school by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      That likely invalidates the loan note and it would come due the minute the sublease starts. Car loans are different based on if this is your personal car or to be used as a business tool/asset.

    5. Re:Easy: buy a tesla, go to school by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Who is going to buy second hand from you at 90% when they could buy it new and get the $7500-$15000 government incentives for buying a new one?

      And of course those government incentives you are using don't apply to vehicles bought for resale - good luck with the IRS audits.

    6. Re:Easy: buy a tesla, go to school by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Apparently you have never financed a vehicle. The bank holds the actual title, you only get a certificate of registration. You cannot sell the car without the title, and the bank will not release it without the loan being paid off.
      So if you tried to sell the car, the bank would take the money and you'd end up with nothing.

      So you're saying the rich could get richer but the middle class couldn't execute on this idea? ;)

  9. There is a simple reason for this: by fredrated · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It benefits the wealthy. That is what America does: increase the value of the already wealthy, while the rest of us can suck garbage out of a landfill.
    Welcome to America! Land of the greatest disparity between the wealthy and the rest of us.

    1. Re:There is a simple reason for this: by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Exactly, if you're a rich bastard what are you gonna tell the politicians to do, give you a price break on your decadent toys, or make it easier for the peons to get an education, increasing the pool of people who could potentially be a threat to your corporate empire and decreasing the educated workforce's dependence on debt?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:There is a simple reason for this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great as the disparity may be, we still have the richest poor people in the world.

    3. Re:There is a simple reason for this: by Jay+Juch · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Let's not get carried away. It's shameful to say such things while we have countries like North Korea.

    4. Re:There is a simple reason for this: by Saethan · · Score: 1

      So, what's the right amount of income disparity? And we're far from having the greatest income disparity.

    5. Re:There is a simple reason for this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell from the way you use the term "the wealthy" as an epithet that you are a socialist marxist faggot. There is no such thing as "the wealthy." There are only moochers, ie you, and job creators. The wealthy are hindered by you moocher. If it weren't for moochers like you demanding fair pay, health care, retirement, paid time off, and other fascists marxist anti-American garbage we'd be a paradise like China. Plenty of jobs there and they all LOVE those jobs. Love em. Every chinese citizen willing allows their land and home be taken by the job creating class there, and in turn, the people receive great jobs.

      I guess what I'm saying Karl Faggot Marx, is that if you weren't a moocher you'd move to China for work or allow the job creators, or as you disparagingly call them "the wealthy," turn America into what the Founders wanted: us to be China. So go fuck yourself big government libtard.

    6. Re:There is a simple reason for this: by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

      To be fair, we have a ton of extremely wealthy people in the U.S. How many billionaires live in Afghanistan? The U.S. has a decent sized middle class and a large social support system, although there is room for improvement. I would suggest traveling if you really think the 'rest of us suck garbage out of a landfill'. Our garbage is full of food & useful gadgets an average north korean would kill for.

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    7. Re:There is a simple reason for this: by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Exactly, if you're a rich bastard what are you gonna tell the politicians to do, give you a price break on your decadent toys, or make it easier for the peons to get an education, increasing the pool of people who could potentially be a threat to your corporate empire and decreasing the educated workforce's dependence on debt?

      This must have happened because one of the bank higher-ups got talked into Tesla cars by a young girl he's trying to keep.

      Oh, and the girl is also in bed with someone in the treasury department. She's paid by...... OOH! Who could it be, who could it be? Nah, Tesla wouldn't pay for anything like that. I mean the company Tesla, not the dead man, god rest his soul.

      Oh, come on. Sometimes humor is the gateway to truth. ;)

  10. Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The risk of a personal loan is greater than a car loan.

  11. Not really the same by mschiller · · Score: 3, Informative

    While it would be easy to say Government just prefers the sheeple broke and stupid... These really aren't the same. Cars can be repo'ed.. Your education can't be repo'ed.. Further from a Govt perspective the return in tax income from your education is risky.. You might never finish school. Might end up working in India and not paying taxes.. You might never repay those loans if given the choice because you won't lose anything.. The car might seem like a loss, but you will definitely pay taxes on stuff for the car like tires, registration and property taxes etc the employees who built the car will pay income tax etc. Plus there is the political side of green jobs.....

    1. Re:Not really the same by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 0

      Though what is being passed off as "education" is more or less specific job training and nothing to do with education, and this is especially true at the high school level and the "make education relevant to jobs" crowd would LOVE to see it totally apply to colleges.

      If you teach people in college how to be good workers with Microsoft office their "education" is irrelevant in less than two years.

    2. Re:Not really the same by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      A problem is the fact that the only alternative that some posit is a 'take more classes, and then even more' scenario, where the only possible outcome is to apply for grad school to take yet more classes. When the subject of study doesn't lead to an endpoint where the student can gainfully leave the campus eventually, it instead leads to masses of students scrabbling to be the among choice few who get to keep on studying indefinitely. Scholasticism can't be it's own end indefinitely for every student.

    3. Re:Not really the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it would be easy to say Government just prefers the sheeple broke and stupid... These really aren't the same.

      Exactly; it's a pretty pointless comparison. There is a lot better evidence than this to show that the government strategically gives freebies to groups of people to buy or keep their vote, the beneficiaries differing depending on the party in power. The fact that they have no real insentive to promote any sort of educated electorate is clear.

    4. Re:Not really the same by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      A problem is the fact that the only alternative that some posit is a 'take more classes, and then even more' scenario, where the only possible outcome is to apply for grad school to take yet more classes. When the subject of study doesn't lead to an endpoint where the student can gainfully leave the campus eventually, it instead leads to masses of students scrabbling to be the among choice few who get to keep on studying indefinitely. Scholasticism can't be it's own end indefinitely for every student.

      You make it sound like a bubble. :/

  12. Not exactly by Adifex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nissan took 1.4 billion from the feds for the Leaf and produced laughable results. Tesla took a third of that and produces the Motor Trend car of the year, and is set to pay off the loan early. I don't blame the DOE for wanting to help them out some more. Note: from a student with a non-dischargeable 7.9% loan.

    1. Re:Not exactly by SJHillman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a former student with a non-dischargeable 6.8% loan (due to finally be paid off in two weeks, yay), I agree. Sure, the Tesla might be aimed at Rich Guys right now, but that's the way most new technology goes - especially in cars. How many standard features in this year's Focus or Camry used to be exclusive to high-end cars a few decades ago or less? Quite a few. If you get Rich Guys to make it profitable in the beginning, those technological advancements will become affordable and even standard within most of our lifetimes.

    2. Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with everything you've said. The thing is, the infrastructure for electric cars just isn't here yet and won't be for quite a while to make it feasible for someone like me. Until there's a charging station off of every exit, electric cars won't work for me. And trip planning is like making a flight plan.

      For the foreseeable future, Tesla cars are going to be toys for rich folks and early adopters.

      I think Tesla will eventually go the way of the DeLorean. The big car makers are the ones who will have to pick up the ball and keep it rolling because they have the financial and political clout.

    3. Re:Not exactly by polar+red · · Score: 2

      "charging station" Funny dat. A charging station for an electric car is orders of magnitude cheaper than a petrol station.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    4. Re:Not exactly by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Most people are not you, shocking I know.
      Most families have two cars, and making one of them electric would not be a hardship if they were similarly priced. If I could get a new electric car for ~$20k I would buy one today. Hell, if I could find a used Leaf within driving distance I would be interested. They are pretty much perfect, but the closest one I can find is a 6 hour drive away. I drive less than 5 miles to work, an electric car would be great.

    5. Re:Not exactly by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Citation needed. Full supply chain, please. Scaled up, not some little stand-alone example.

    6. Re:Not exactly by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1
      I also thought that there's a bigger problem with electric cars (and hybrid cars) in that their efficiency and capacity/range decreases permanently as the batteries deteriorate over time. If you're leasing the car, that cost is just part of the lease and depreciation. If you're purchasing the car, then you have to consider the cost of replacing the battery-pack-system after X years. Tesla shows the battery pack replacement prices as being $8000 for the 40kWh pack, $10k for the 60kWh, and $12k for the 85-kWh pack at http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options . However...
      .
      that optimistic pricing plan does not say how much Tesla will charge you to perform the battery pack replacement, or that those $8k to $12k battery pack prices must be purchased as an option within 90 days of the purchase of the car as article at says: ...much be purchased within 90 days of taking ownership, but only will be honored âoeafter the end of the eighth yearâ of ownership, according to Blankenship.
      ...In other words, folks taking ownership, and paying for the replacement coverage now, will not be eligible for the replacement until the end of 2020. So Tesla's calculation to some degree represents an assessment of where battery prices will be in the next decadeâ"not where they are right now.

      And if you look at what Toyota did with the Prius battery system: they initally sold the car as getting 50 mpg, but they noticed that the battery systems got run down quickly, so they reconfigured the car computer so that the battery systems are used less and thus will last longer. But this decreased usage of the battery system greatly decreases that promised high mileage efficiency. So now the battery lasts longer, but you're not saving as much gas as they promised you would. Some people are just getting a little over 35 mpg, which they could get with a pure combustion engine alone.

    7. Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I look out the window and see several Nissan Leaf's in the parking lot today. Saw several on the road on the way to work... The restaurant I went to last week had a charging station. I'm not laughing.

    8. Re:Not exactly by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      You ever seen a charging station before? It should be obvious that they're FAR cheaper.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    9. Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your bias against Nissan is silly. All the car companies sticking their neck out for future technologies should be commended. The leaf may not be as "cool" as Tesla, but understand there's more than one market out there.

        To help keep that in perspective: Nissan just announced today that they sold 2236 Leaf cars for the month of March. ( http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/03/nissan-leaf-has-best-ever-sales-month.aspx )
      Tesla, on the other hand sold 2650 model S's for the entire YEAR of 2012
      http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312513067177/d462441dex991.htm

      Not saying the Leaf even hold an LED candle to Tesla performance wise but you must put all of this in the proper perspective. Having the most powerful car isn't necessarily what's best for developing the industry. It's getting customer acceptance of alternative fuels, and providing a wide variety. I am glad Tesla is a success, but I am glad Nissan is too.

    10. Re:Not exactly by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      What about the expanded power grid to handle the level of energy that will be consumed when it scales up to equivalent energy usage with what is now used for gasoline? The expanded electricity generating capacity needed when every household is consuming whatever multiple greater of electricity per day than they are at present? It's probably a multiplier greater than one. The local connector to transfer the stored energy to a car is a trivial part of the equation.

    11. Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      80% of the DOD's budget is used to protect oil reserves ... back to you.

    12. Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried walking / running / cycling to work?
      5 miles = 8km
      You could get your daily exercise; save the cost of a vehicle; admittedly spending some saving on appropriate footwear, cycle tyres and / or clothing.
      Glenn.

    13. Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nissan took 1.4 billion from the feds for the Leaf and produced laughable results. Tesla took a third of that and produces the Motor Trend car of the year, and is set to pay off the loan early. I don't blame the DOE for wanting to help them out some more.

      Note: from a student with a non-dischargeable 7.9% loan.

      I can't trust what was said as honest and complete from someone with a nickname that begins in "Ad" and sounds like "Ad Effects (or Affects)", oh Adifex.

    14. Re:Not exactly by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      "charging station" Funny dat. A charging station for an electric car is orders of magnitude cheaper than a petrol station.

      Yes. Energy from a charging station comes from thin air. It's magic.

      Hmm, now I know where the company came up with the name "Tesla".
      </snark>

    15. Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed. Full supply chain, please. Scaled up, not some little stand-alone example.

      When "Green" is talked about, you don't get full supply chain data. Unless it's weed, of course. Wait, you don't even get that with weed, not in the U.S. anyway.

    16. Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, stop! You can't present good data and make sense when it comes to "Green" solutions like electric-powered automobiles. It's analogous to blasphemy!

      That was a sarcastic compliment in case you didn't catch that. ;) Good information, thank you!

    17. Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, and oil comes from thin air.

  13. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The difference between the to loans is the collateral. In the case of the tuition loan your promise that eventually you will turn into gainfully employed person and not a worthless slack is all the creditor has, hence the higher interest rate and protections for the creditor. In the case of the car loan, there is the car serving as a collateral that the creditor can reposes and sell to cover in full or in part his losses.

    Having said that I am in the strong opinion that higher education should be 'free', meaning that tuition should be paid by the government on merit basis. I also strongly disapprove of the practice to use loans as means to avoid taxes.

  14. Hold on there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elon Musk is not the second coming of Christ? But but but private space colonies!

    1. Re:Hold on there by hackula · · Score: 1

      Elon Musk == Space Jesus

    2. Re:Hold on there by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I though he was the dude from PayPal, which we hate.

  15. also need to cut fluff and filler from Education. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    also need to cut fluff and filler from Education.

    The non-dischargeable in bankruptcy leads to lot's of joke majors and lot's of iffy schools that spend more ad's then Education.

    Also more non college options need to be hear as well as more apprenticeship / trades / tech schools that don't take 4+ years of pure class room.

  16. Saw that on Bloomberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You basically lease a Model S for $500 a month and trade it in for a Class S Mercedes-Benz at the ed of the leasing period.

    Where do I sign????

  17. Grow up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Welcome to the real world kiddies.

    It's not just the corporate elites. It's the elites period. Once day you'll be one of them. And you will shit on your fellow man with just as much disdain as the current batch of elites do now.

    The only fair system is the one that does nothing equally for everyone, when it doesn't people pick favorites, and there is nothing in this world like being the adopted, bastard, redheaded stepchild in the family.

    1. Re:Grow up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Listen, you ass...

      The elite's number one priority in the U.S. to to make sure there aren't too many elites. 99.99% of the people reading this will never be any sort of "elite." You are apparently the one who hasn't "grown up" and realized what is going on in this country right now.

    2. Re:Grow up. by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not just the corporate elites. It's the elites period. Once day you'll be one of them. And you will shit on your fellow man with just as much disdain as the current batch of elites do now.

      No, you won't. That's the Big Lie: if you put up with being shat upon for now, you get to do the shitting one day. You won't. It's just a lie to keep you sitting there in a shower of shit rather than fight those who shit on others. It's that simple.

      Besides, if by some miracle you actually became an elite yourself, is getting to shit on others really such a desirable goal? How about you grow up, or at leat try to get past your anal stage?

      The only fair system is the one that does nothing equally for everyone,

      And that's another lie.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:Grow up. by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      OMG what in the fuck....

      So electric vehicles are the best thing in the world hands-down; people will even take punches in the gut to defend it. Then, government and banking get involved to help those in the wealth bracket that the middle class detests, and now it's a bad idea?

      It was a fucking bad idea from the beginning! GREAT idea in the head, somewhat good on paper, BAD in execution, worse post-execution.

      It takes income/wealth separation for people to see the forest for the trees (no pun intended at all)??

    4. Re:Grow up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He ain't heavy, he's my brother."

  18. slow news day.... by mhsobhani · · Score: 1

    so is it news or is it rhetoric?

    --
    Trust me, I'm an engineer.
    1. Re:slow news day.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it doesn't even say where we can eat Teslas. There's this one from 2008, but I couldn't find a model S. Is there a new 3d printer that can print edible Teslas?

  19. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2

    It's always funny to hear your illiterate, anti-education rants. Maybe if you had taken some of those "fluff and filler" classes that maybe you could form cogent sentences?

  20. Tesla Loan is BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Man geeks are drinking the Tesla Kool-Aid.

    The Tesla program costs about $1,100/mo even for their cheapest model and the $15,000 only applies for people in West Virginia.

    The $500/mo pricing they keep quoting is a huge fabrication based on "total cost of ownership". Even with their calculator, and assuming the lowest model, you would need to drive that sucker to it's max range 5 days a week every week for three years to actually make the ownership cost $600/mo less than a gas car.

    1. Re:Tesla Loan is BS by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      "Hey guys look! This guy's never bought a BMW before".

      Like it's some strange ridiculous thing to spend 1k/month on a car.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    2. Re:Tesla Loan is BS by degeneratemonkey · · Score: 1

      While not uncommon, I will contest that it is in fact both strange and ridiculous.

    3. Re:Tesla Loan is BS by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Its not strange when most of your lease payment is a tax deduction.

      Drive a beemer, pay for a corolla.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    4. Re:Tesla Loan is BS by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      "Hey guys look! This guy's never bought a BMW before".

      Like it's some strange ridiculous thing to spend 1k/month on a car.

      Whaa? Um, I believe it is for those who don't make enough money, even having college degrees and top-notch skills and recommendations, a ridiculous thing to pay ~= $1000/mo for a fucking civilian automobile.

      If you were being sarcastic, good one.

  21. neither should receive government support by stenvar · · Score: 1

    A larger fraction of the US population has college degrees than in most other industrialized nations. Encouraging more people to get college degrees will not raise the standard of living or incomes, it will simply mean that we end up with more waiters and cab drivers with college degrees. Subsidizing more college degrees with public funding or loans will mean that tuition rates will keep rising and more and more jobs will require college degrees even though they don't need it.

    As for electric vehicles and subsidies for them, it's unclear what purpose these subsidies are supposed to serve. The Tesla is not a mass market car, and no amount of subsidies is going to help it develop the economies of scale to bring the price down. Either electric vehicles make economic sense, in which case subsidies aren't needed, or they don't, in which case subsidies are wasted.

    1. Re:neither should receive government support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A larger fraction of the US population has college degrees than in most other industrialized nations.

      Source please?
      According to higheredinfo.org the US looks to be #13 out of 30. That's pretty close to the middle; not bad, but not representative of your statement.

    2. Re:neither should receive government support by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      A larger fraction of the US population has college degrees than in most other industrialized nations. Encouraging more people to get college degrees will not raise the standard of living or incomes, it will simply mean that we end up with more waiters and cab drivers with college degrees. Subsidizing more college degrees with public funding or loans will mean that tuition rates will keep rising and more and more jobs will require college degrees even though they don't need it.

      Where are you getting this information from? Granted, the US is like in the top 5 of nations with college graduates, but there are many European nations with free or almost-free college programs, the education is every bit as good as a US university (In some cases better - I studied abroad for a while), and it seems that there is roughly a similar ratio to college versus non-college jobs (at least you don't have to apprentince in the US).

      Granted, though, many European countries have higher tax rates than the US.

      I am working in a job in my field, still working on paying off student loans, so after paying my student loans every month, my income is similar to a non-college degree person. Granted, once I get those loans paid off, I will be significantly better off. I get asked all the time by friends without college degrees why I have such a such a hard time making it when I make as much as I do, to which I respond with telling them what my student loan payments are every month. Their eyes pop out of their sockets, and then come back with "Holy crap! How are you getting by at all! That's a mortgage payment!" to which I respond "why do you think I am living in a cheap, crappy one bedroom apartment"

      Tuition rates are ridiculous. The university I went to and graduated from just 11 years ago has quadroupled in their tuition rates. I haven't seen income rates quadrouple, cost of living quadrouple, (gas prices have, though), food costs quadrouple, or anything else. They have benefactors and trusties who donate money to the school for new buildings and renovations. The professors salaries haven't gone up THAT much. So, the question is, what justifies the cost of the raise by that much?

      Many of my relatives and acquaintances that are just now or have recently guaduated high school are electing NOT to go to college, because they have seen how I struggle, and then how much tuition rates have gone up since I graduated. Those that are going have elected to go to community colleges ($100 a semester hour versus $1000 a semester hour. Hmmm, no comparrison). No, the number of people I see entering college, at least from my demographic, has gone way down. The reason? Cost!

      One of two things need to happen:1) Colleges and universities need to dramatically cut the costs of tuition, or 2) the government needs to start subsidizing education more, otherwise we are going to find ourselves as a nation of undereducated people. As a conservative, I opt for the first option, but after seeing how higher education works overseas, and with struggling myself, option two is looking pretty attractive.

    3. Re:neither should receive government support by lahvak · · Score: 1

      So, the question is, what justifies the cost of the raise by that much?

      I don't know if that applies to your school, but most public universities state funding got severely slashed during the 11 years. I do not know the exact numbers and am not going to spend time to look them up for a slashdot comment, but roughly our school went from about 80% state, 20% tuition funded to 20% state 80% tuition funded in the last perhaps 15 or 20 years.

      There are other factors that contribute the growing tuition (and you are right, professor salaries are not among them :(, I can attest to that), but the drop in state support is definitely a huge one.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:neither should receive government support by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Granted, the US is like in the top 5 of nations with college graduates, but there are many European nations with free or almost-free college programs

      No, they are not "free". They don't have tuition, but people still need to live somehow, and they take on student loans for that.

      I am working in a job in my field, still working on paying off student loans, so after paying my student loans every month, my income is similar to a non-college degree person. Granted, once I get those loans paid off, I will be significantly better off

      Sounds to me like the student loan program is working as it should for you.

      Many of my relatives and acquaintances that are just now or have recently guaduated high school are electing NOT to go to college, because they have seen how I struggle, and then how much tuition rates have gone up since I graduated.

      Sounds like economics is working the way it should: you go to college if the money you pay for it is made up for by higher income later on.

      One of two things need to happen:1) Colleges and universities need to dramatically cut the costs of tuition,

      Why would they do that? They charge what the market will bear.

      2) the government needs to start subsidizing education more,

      More subsidies means that costs will go up even higher. Remember: they charge what the market will bear.

      otherwise we are going to find ourselves as a nation of undereducated people

      You don't need college degrees to be educated.

      As a conservative,

      Maybe you're socially conservative, but you're clearly economically left-wing.

      after seeing how higher education works overseas, and with struggling myself, option two is looking pretty attractive.

      Yeah, because what America needs is vast numbers of art history and social studies majors educated at the tax payer's expense!

    5. Re:neither should receive government support by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      So, the question is, what justifies the cost of the raise by that much?

      In my state, a lot of it is decreases in state funding. Interestingly, the peak state funding for Rutgers in NJ was in 2000, around when you went to school. Now the state funds less than they did in 1995. Not sure if other states have similar trends as NJ in funding higher education, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

      Costs are up in other ways, too... inflation hits the budget of colleges and universities as much as individuals.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:neither should receive government support by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      One of two things need to happen:1) Colleges and universities need to dramatically cut the costs of tuition, or 2) the government needs to start subsidizing education more, otherwise we are going to find ourselves as a nation of undereducated people. As a conservative, I opt for the first option, but after seeing how higher education works overseas, and with struggling myself, option two is looking pretty attractive.

      1.) That will not happen because once the rich become rich, they refuse (sometimes to the death) to surrender it for any cause (sometimes even saving the life of a relative). The only people that will are the ones that are so rich there's nothing they can possibly ever, EVER do with their money (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt). Those are only historical; current rich people won't part with their money.

      2.) We already are "undereducated" per capita. The number of jobs -vs- number of people ratio is not a positive one during this downturn. Until the economy picks up, government subsidies are not a financially sound idea from any perspective but the consumer (or educated in this case). We'll regret the decision when the next recession hits even more. Hell, we're overdue for the next "Great Depression".

      OMG, what am I saying? U.S. money is already "fake" and not backed by anything tangible, realistically, anymore.

  22. Tesla's going to track your every move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They tipped their hand when their loudmouth CEO went after the NY Times reporter. Every move you make in that car is logged by GPS and instrument recordings and is uploaded to Tesla's servers for analysis, and yes, they know exactly who you are.

    So if you stop at a strip club for a night, well....

    1. Re:Tesla's going to track your every move by DigitalReverend · · Score: 1

      It is not uploaded until the reporter brings it back to the factory. They already stated that they only do this for the vehicles they loan out for reviewers.

      --
      I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
    2. Re:Tesla's going to track your every move by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      well what?
      They are going to tell someone I went to a legal establishment and paid for legal services?

      They already stated they disable this logging on customer cars, but even if they did not who cares if I went to a strip club?

  23. Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing like facing bankruptcy for buying a goddamn car.

  24. Re:Good luck selling it without one by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    You sir, need some more Business classes! : )

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  25. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    I was with you until the end, I have seen tech school output and it sucks.

    Sure they know a couple software products, but nothing of what is going on under the hood. They can tell you what a subnet mask is but not why or how it works. They think packet captures are black magic and that reboot is the solution to all tech problems. They have no idea at a basic level. I had one recently try to claim his network speeds to a host on the same subnet and the same switch changed when he changed the gateway. He had no concept of why that is. That is the difference between knowing what button to push and why you would push that button. A few years down the road and they are totally useless since the products they learned on are now out of the market. Since they have no basic understanding moving on to the next product is a huge struggle.

  26. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    Dammit slashdot let me edit!

      "He had no concept of why that is" should have been "He had no concept of why that is wrong."

  27. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by paiute · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe if you had taken some of those "fluff and filler" classes that maybe you could form cogent sentences?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  28. Stop whining, use the arbitrage opportunity. by macson_g · · Score: 1

    Just take the loan, buy the car, sell it for cash and pay your tuition fees. Easy-peasy :)

  29. Re:Good luck selling it without one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But he always travels Economy class, you insensitive clod!

  30. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by drakaan · · Score: 1

    All right, I can't stop myself (and I tried, believe me). Don't you mean "coherent"?

    The word "cogent" might fit there, but it sounded like you were irritated by poor grammar, rather than the post being generally unpersuasive...

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  31. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by drakaan · · Score: 1

    That was awesome. Also, now I have a new Wikipedia page to share.

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  32. Guess what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you stop paying for the car, they take the car. If you stop paying for the education, you keep the education. That's why you can't get rid of the debt in bankruptcy.

    If you are a bright kid and study engineering at Purdue, the government's support of new investments in technology will provide you with 1) direct employment opportunities from the program in the short-term and 2) hopefully provide long-term employment opportunities by building a successful self-supporting industry. Those benefits, I might add, accrue probably to engineers more than any other group, so it's sort of a weird choice for someone hoping to go into engineering.

    Looking at the bigger picture, the U.S. government has a large interest in reducing its/your use and dependence on oil. Oil is dirty (affecting air and climate that you, as a young bright kid, will be using for a long time) and requires a huge amount of money to ensure a stable supply (see: U.S. Military). The "market" doesn't see either of these things (as the costs are not borne by those who pollute / use oil) so the government is subsidizing energy/transportation technology that has less of those costs hoping it can ultimately be supported by the market.

    Should the US subsidize a college diploma to a greater degree? Probably, but let's not pretend that the Tesla support is because it's a luxury good. The US government supports expensive electric cars because electric cars are expensive. Some work can be done in the lab, but some real-world experience and production is important too.

  33. And people with CS degrees can be just as clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And people with CS degrees can be just as clueless or are loaded with theory but little to no of the skills needed to do a job day to day.

  34. Real cost of lease by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Actually, the lease is over $1000/month. The $500/month figure is a made up number that comes from applying savings they are wanting you to think you'll make. But the assumptions behind the putative savings specify how much you drive, what your time is worth (assumption being $100/hour), an average price of gas being $5/gallon, and that electricity prices remain stable, and that electricity doesn't suddenly acquire a road tax to make up for the fact that you're using the roads, but not paying for them like the rest of us.

    Bottom line, though, is you'll be putting out over $1000/month on that lease for those thirty months if you take the deal as advertised. Whatever your circumstances.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  35. This reminds me of a quote by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    from King of the Hill: "That guy's done more in a quarter mile than I've done in my entire life."

  36. Re:And people with CS degrees can be just as cluel by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    CS degrees have nothing to do with what I just discussed. Believe it or not their are universities that have IT and Network administration(Not active directory, actual network stuff, windows people) programs.

    Theory and having learned how to learn will mean they can pick up job skills quickly. A lack of theory means those tech school grads will likely never know why or the best way just the way the book says to do it.

  37. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Priceless.

  38. Re:And people with CS degrees can be just as cluel by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    s/their/there/

    Slashdot, please let us edit our posts for a couple minutes at least.

  39. It's a tax not a loan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The education loan is a tax. The only reason it is not called a tax is because you can't collect taxes when people leave the country, but you are still in obligation to a debt.

  40. Car loan != Student loan by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

    They still aren't really comperable. Even with this sweeheart loan deal, you are going to be out 85 grand in an "investment" that will depreciate down to nearly $0 in 10-15 years. In the mean time you get transportation that you could have had with a couple of $5-10K used cars. That's a whole lot of money down the toilet.

    For the student loan, you get an education, which cannot be taken from you by a bankrupcy court either, and is a ticket to the upper 60% of the job market, culminating in 1.6 to 3 times the expected lifetime earnings (depending on how much education you get).

    If you have to pick only one, take the student loan.

  41. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    also need to cut fluff and filler from Education.

    Why? Seems to me like trust fund kids wasting seven years in pursuit of a communications degree generates a lot of income for the school.

    Granted, that's probably wasted on new lockers for the football team rather than a scholarship for smart kids getting engineering degrees, but that would be true even if you cut down all the joke majors. The executive types would just take a pay increase.

    I do think a lot of fluff and filler will be cut from education through online courses. I expect that universities will try to take bigger cuts of research grants and offer even less to researchers in return. So that's going to be awesome for everyone for a while.

  42. Already Subsidized by unixcorn · · Score: 1

    What bugs me about the whole higher education mess is that all public colleges and universities are already heavily subsidized by our government in some way or another. I live in a town with a land-grant university and I can tell you that nothing is more important than sports with increasing enrollment a close second. Nobody seems to realize that education has no economies of scale so budgets are consumed by new construction of better and fancier facilities.
    What higher education really needs is to be modeled after a business. It should be light on management, heavy on instructors and facilities should be just adequate. Maybe then the subsidies would be enough and insane borrowing by students who are there to learn instead of for the college experience would be minimal.

  43. A Little Perspective by Zape · · Score: 2

    Disclaimer: I would love a Tesla model S, but even with the mentioned loans could not possibly justify buying one over saving up for my children's education.

    It is ridiculous to try to prop up the success of a company by government backed loans. If electric cars will succeed, let them do so on their own. I personally hope they do, but think that X-Prize style awards for better batteries/chargers is the best way to do that.

    However, I think student loans are one of the worst things our government has ever backed(worse than the Tesla loans). By providing them we encourage an already existing problem of people getting degrees when they should be learning a trade instead, and mounting up debt that will take them twice as long to pay back. Scholarships and Pell Grants already exist as an excellent tool for providing assistance to the most needy, and the most deserving. Furthermore, working your way through college is not only doable, but builds character while reducing the amount of trouble students get in to. For those instances where there is a real need for a loan, such as medical school, the government isn't really needed. In addition to grants, the government already provides assistance for those who have served (GI Bill) and those who will promise to serve (ROTC Scholarships). There is some of that in the private sector (hospitals, chick-fil-a, etc.), but I'm all for the government encouraging more of it.

    Finally, if we did a better job at the grade school level we wouldn't be trying to squeeze unprepared students into college curriculum while they are building up tremendous debt attending institutions they won't be able to graduate from. The real problem with government assisted student loans (and most risky/payday loans in the private sector, but that is a separate gripe) is that they are an attack on those the current system has already failed while giving an empty promise of an easy out.

  44. force feeding you loans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    force feeding you loans on stuff you don't ever need and will be a useless piece of junk within 10 years when you can't afford a battery replacement...
    this cycle of promoting crap behavior just has to end, it's causing thousands of people to commit suicide and it's just not smart on any level...

  45. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buying one of these cars is more useful than some idiot going to college and getting a degree in liberal arts.

  46. Um what? by tgd · · Score: 1

    The "innovative" financing is a lease.

    A lease on ANY car is a low-interest loan paying for the depreciation of the vehicle.

    Monkeying with the residual value is how *all* lease deals work.

    And *all* leases allow business owners to write off the lease, because you can always write off the depreciated value of a company asset.

    So, basically, you're comparing a student loan to exactly how nearly half the vehicles in the US are "sold" to people.

    So you're basically comparing an unsecured loan to a secured lease. That's comparing apples and cheeseburgers. No wonder they don't stack up.

  47. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    I think Johnny 5 speaks very well for a four day old.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  48. Re:And people with CS degrees can be just as cluel by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    You just have to slow down a bit there nate.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  49. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by uncqual · · Score: 1

    Did someone forget that it's April 3, not April 1?

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  50. I would still take the Purdue degree by frinkster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am biased as I already have a Purdue degree, earned 12 years ago. It was far cheaper back then - tuition and fees were less than $7500 per year. Add in the cost of housing and food and I was all in for around $50000. My first job after college paid more than that per year.

    Now, 12 years later, I have three quarters of a million dollars in the bank and a six-figure job. I can write a check for a Tesla sedan without flinching. And as the years pass, I will continue to increase my financial standing.

    On the other hand, if I were to buy a Tesla sedan and use it for 12 years I would have an obsolete car with a severely diminished battery. Now, don't think that I dislike Tesla. I have high hopes for them. I made a lot of money buying long-term call options several years ago - in fact it was when the Model S was announced and everyone thought they would be out of business in a year. I put my own money on the line, in the face of overwhelming negative opinion.

    I think that electric cars will prove to have far lower operating costs than IC cars - and the benefit gets larger the longer you own and the more miles you drive. But let's be perfectly honest. A degree helps you make money. A car costs you money.

    1. Re:I would still take the Purdue degree by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      A degree helps you make money.

      What a quaint notion.

    2. Re:I would still take the Purdue degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last paragraph would have been sufficient.

    3. Re:I would still take the Purdue degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what was your major? I graduated from Purdue with a Master's degree in engineering 12 years ago, and I don't have anywhere near $750k in the bank. Did you start your own business or something?

    4. Re:I would still take the Purdue degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well aren't you wonderful.

  51. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Probably they tried to type 'coherent' but a spell-checker misfired without them noticing in time. With auto-spellcheck it happens all the time if you don't carefully review before clicking 'submit.'

  52. Re:And people with CS degrees can be just as cluel by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    My first name is not Nate. It starts with an S and is probably the most common english name to start with that character for a male.

  53. Re:And people with CS degrees can be just as cluel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twice in one hour? Use the damn preview, that's what it's for.

  54. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    also need to cut fluff and filler from Education.

    The non-dischargeable in bankruptcy leads to lot's of joke majors and lot's of iffy schools that spend more ad's then Education.

    Also more non college options need to be hear as well as more apprenticeship / trades / tech schools that don't take 4+ years of pure class room.

    Here is an interesting point that I am not sure if you intended to make.

    We say that education debt is non-dischargeable because the student has all the liability, takes no risk, and has nothing to repossess. However, should we be holing the schools responsible for talking people into pursuing joke majors for students that have no hope of actually graduating or for fields that have no hope of making enough money to repay the loans? I can remember when getting into university was a big deal with difficult entrance exams and whatnot. Now it seems that at least some school will take anyone in as long as they are paying.

    Universities that offer masters in basketweaving should be held accountable. Trade schools that offer training in specific skills that transfer directly to job skills should be more treated more leniently.

    The issue here, of course, is that the onus is on the student to get a job in their field, how can we fault the university if a student graduates and is simply too lazy to get a job. Additionally this would mean almost nobody would offer any Fine Arts degrees... though some people would be happy with this, I think it would degrade the total knowledge of society.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  55. Paying back the loan is only part of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government's indiscriminate college loans push a flood of money into the education system.
        This opens up what a college can get away with charging.
            Which makes the price of college climb much higher than inflation.
            This makes it difficult for someone willing to work to fund their own education without any lingering debt.
            It also puts a perverse incentive on the college to just take money without producing educated kids.

    The best way I've seen to date to work with the current system is to be a perpetual, life long student.
          I think this lets you both live large off the loans and delay paying them back until just after you're gone.
            You probably have to actually attend a class and get a degree occasionally, but think of that part as entertainment.

    Just another case of your government here to help, move along.

    (Similar story in medical, housing, and probably other markets?)

  56. Re:And people with CS degrees can be just as cluel by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    I did, preview is nearly pointless anyway. You can just reread it in the edit window. What we need is the ability to edit for X amount of minutes.

  57. get rid of 1 size fit's all and the any degree ide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get rid of 1 size fit's all and the any degree ideas.

    Some Degrees should only be 1-3 years and some need to be a hard and upfront 4.5-6.

    Why does med and law school need a full 4 before it?

  58. It's not "the government" but the Lobbyists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The lobbyists for the vested interests are the ones who make congress do these things. Why? Elected officials need money. Why? because one group of elected officials supported the unlimited money policy while another doesn't.

    Voting has consequences

  59. "free" ha? by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Free"? As in: somebody else picks up the tab, even if that somebody never actually has gone to a university himself?

    I can see how this is in line with the kind of thinking that never caused any problems, like: everybody should have an affordable house, everybody should have social security, everybody should have medicare, everybody should have risk free bank deposits, everybody should have minimum wage, everybody should have this and that, yeah, that always works in the long run, all of it is a great idea and it doesn't cause damage to the economy in reality by completely misallocating resources and causing massive moral hazards.

    1. Re:"free" ha? by fascismforthepeople · · Score: 1, Troll

      "Free"? As in: somebody else picks up the tab, even if that somebody never actually has gone to a university himself?

      And now roman_mir bring us more fascist hypocrisy. Roman, we all know that you went to the University of Toronto, which is one of the largest state-run universities in the western hemisphere. You benefited greatly from the taxpayers paying to fund your educational pursuits (even though you failed all your science courses, and never took economics, history, or math).

      But now, you are trying desperately to ensure that nobody else can claim the same benefit you pursued earlier. You want to make sure that others cannot access education, health care, housing, fair wages, clean air and water, reasonable living conditions, and legal protection unless they have sufficient stockpiles of pure gold to pay for those things with.

      You are, of course, trying to ensure that power is held only by the wealthy - even though you provide no explanation for why such people would give a shit about someone like you. You want to see that benefits are only for the wealthy. Your dream state of hyper-concentrated power is known as fascism, you want to bring fascism for the people.

    2. Re:"free" ha? by asylumx · · Score: 1

      "Free"? As in: somebody else picks up the tab

      Actually, free as in everyone picks up the tab, including the person receiving the benefit.

    3. Re:"free" ha? by airdweller · · Score: 1

      I bet he had indignantly rejected any "free handouts" and paid for everything himself. Doing otherwise would surely be hypocritical, which he is definitely not. Right?

  60. To many people are going to universities and it's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To many people are going to universities and it's running up the loans and filling classes with people who should not really be an university. But will do better in a trades / tech school.

  61. Just what we don't need ... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... even more stupid people going to college to get degrees in things they have no talent for. I see them all the time, developers with 'degrees' who can only code if you put a spec in front of them, they are incapable of creative thought and have no real-world experience to pull from.

    I went for a job interview last week, and the hiring VP said their biggest problem is finding developers who know how to program instead of just knowing how to code. Programmers who actually understand things like operations and systems. Programmers who are capable of seeing the big picture and coding at the systems level instead of at the method level.

    These days that type of programmer is hard to find, because the days of becoming a computer programmer by starting as an operator or trainee are over. No one will hire anyone without a degree now. And no developer with a degree is willing to start as an operator, they all want $100k/year to pay off their debts. And of course, no one will hire a programmer with a degree as an operator because they are overqualified.

    Yet some of the brightest programmers I know don't have degrees. They started at the bottom and worked up. They attended classes here and there, either at school or online, to learn what they needed to learn. They bought books and learned new tech.

    But back when I started, companies were willing to hire someone simply because they were smart, creative, and had a great curiosity about how things work. People with good work ethics that worked smarter, not necessarily harder, than their peers.

    And we do none of it now because we have been lied to that programming requires a degree. Bullshit. Programming is one of the easiest things in the world to do. I've seen 10 year old kids write code without ever having been to a class. Simply because their brain works a certain way. I've seen programmers learn new styles of programming over a weekend simply be reading a book. Their biggest stumbling block wasn't not going to college, they understood how to do things. But they didn't know the fancy words for everything. They just programmed and got the job done without worrying about technical mumbo-jumbo that really doesn't mean jack squat. Like how 'initialization' was change to 'instantiation'.

    If all we want is code monkeys who need a complete spec before writing anything, go ahead. Keep sending them to school. Continue to let the government subsidize people who really have no business writing code because their brain just doesn't have the spatial aptitude that is required for programming. Because they thought it was just a great way to make a buck. Continuing only hiring people based on a piece of paper that only says they know how to pass tests.

    Now .. I'm not saying that some truly great people have not come out of college and done great things. I know some people far smarter than me that have degrees and will always make more than me. And no matter how much college I had, I would never have been them. They had the talent already.

    It wasn't college that made them successful, it was themselves. College was just a tool they chose to use because it served a purpose. They already had the ability, college was a different way of getting the information.

    Starting at the bottom is not a bad way to learn. Sure, it sucks at first. But in 3 or 4 years, you get 3 or 4 years of experience and little or no college debt. Many companies will help with tuition. Granted, it cuts out a lot of companies that will only hire if you have a degree. And it can take a lot of time to find someplace that will do it. But someone that has been writing code at home or part-time for friends and family, and knows how to write a resume, should be able to find something if they truly have talent and interview well. If you don't interview well .. go to college.

    But really, do you want to work for a company that is so procedure oriented that they won't look beyond the resume to what a pe

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    1. Re:Just what we don't need ... by PPH · · Score: 2

      Like how 'initialization' was change to 'instantiation'.

      Oh, but there is a difference. Any CS graduate would be happy to explain it to you. And in the hour or so that this takes, you and I could get a couple of hundred lines of code written.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Just what we don't need ... by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, variables are initialized and objects are instantiated.

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    3. Re:Just what we don't need ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and in the real world if you do not set them to something sane you get crazy results ;)

    4. Re:Just what we don't need ... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      I'm sure a CS freshman could also explain it. In fact, I'm sure someone who read the Java book could explain it. And if it takes you an hour to explain it, and you are a graduate, it's a good thing you didn't become a professor.

      Doesn't really make any difference. Inventing a new word to describe a precise action doesn't make it necessary. Except to people trying to justify their waste of money on college or sound more intelligent than they really are. I know people who use more words than necessary to sound more important then they really are. They are usually called 'blowhards'. I'm sure there is another word that means basically the same thing but is a lot more precise, but blowhard works just as well and usually gets the point across.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  62. So, buy a tesla.... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Lease it out, and go to college.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  63. I doubt these facts by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just bought a Tesla. I paid sales tax (a lot). I got a 1.9% loan from BofA that wasn't subsidized by anybody. My accountant would laugh if I suggested that this would be deductible. The federal grant is $7500, there may be a little more from Illinois. From what I understand, what is "revolutionary" is Tesla and Elon Musk personally guaranteeing the resale value of the Tesla as part of their new financing plan. The taxpayer isn't on the hook for that - Elon Musk is. Frankly, if I wasn't planning on keeping the car for 8 years with it's "everything but tires" warranty option, I'd jump on this new deal if I could. As for the subsidy, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Any reasonable person has to agree that we cannot burn gasoline in our cars forever. But there is a chicken and egg problem. A completely free market will likely fail to protect the environment for our children. Alternative fuel cars are prohibitively expensive and always will be without the economy of scale. The government's role is to to serve the long term public good and the tax break's intent is to resolve the chicken/egg problem.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:I doubt these facts by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Let us know how it goes. I would love to buy one but it is not the right time for me. I need a car that handles well in the snow so if I bought one, it would be a "pleasure" car.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    2. Re:I doubt these facts by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      I got it last Saturday. It's hard to overstate how awesome this car is. It is a masterpiece. Driving this car is an exhilarating experience. I'm confident that unless you are racing against a professional, it is the fastest car on the road. It is a luxury sedan with the quietness, craftsmanship and quality comparable to the best Lexus, Mercedes or Porsche have to offer. It is by far the most technologically advanced car on the road. It is not a cheap car, but in this case you certainly get what you pay for and then some. Forget the nonsense about government subsidies and financing gimmicks. All that detracts from what this car represents. This is the car of the future that you can have today. Where I live in Illinois, I can purchase green generated electricity where I can drive for 250 miles for $3.60. My car has an 8 year, everything but tires warranty that even includes the annual check ups. The best cars I've owned have only needed gas, oil and brakes - the Tesla doesn't even need that. I don't have to stop for gas; I just pull in to my garage and plug in the cord which takes only seconds. I don't pollute the environment operating my car. I think these things matter. I'm not wealthy but for me its an affordable indulgence. If enough people like us buy these cars, the economy of scale will allow everyone to enjoy cars like this. I cannot say how the Tesla handles in the snow. It does however have a suspension that raises and lowers the car automatically but can be overridden to raise it up for deep snow conditions. That along with the traction control and ABS would probably make it one of the better cars for snowy conditions, bested only by AWD SUVs, Trucks and Audi Quaatros. As I said before I don't think this can be my only car; my other card is an AWD Mercury Mariner Hybrid which had no problem at all when we had a 22" snowfall :-) Warning - If you test drive this car, you will want it so badly that you will find a way to do whatever it takes to buy one.

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    3. Re:I doubt these facts by strikethree · · Score: 1

      It sounds pretty sweet. Thank you for your review.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  64. Loans driving up costs by Maudib · · Score: 1

    Government guaranteed loans are responsible for the increased cost of education. The best thing for students would be to eliminate the cheap loans. Way too many of the degrees given out are completely useless. Why would you borrow 100k to get a degree that will barely assist you in getting a 40k a year job? You will never pay it back. The notion that this encourages upward mobility is a complete myth. It myers people in debt.

    We need to take the money out of higher education. At least for liberal arts majors. Eliminate the incentive for schools to spend wildly on gyms and sports and campuses, force them to focus on competing to deliver quality instruction in useful skills. This means turning the tap of unlimited student loan money off. No government guarantees, treat it like normal debt and leave it to the private sector to price debt based on actual risk.

    1. Re:Loans driving up costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The notion that this encourages upward mobility is a complete myth. It myers people in debt.

      It mires people in debt.

  65. I'm sorry... by Bartles · · Score: 1

    ...did someone make the claim that Fascism makes sense? I must have missed it.

  66. You need to learn Wall St. tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Tesla guarantee is essentially a put on the value of the car. Once you realize that, the proposition is simple:

    1. Convince Tesla through a subsidiary that they should market the put options separately.
    2. Sell more puts in the open market than there are actual cars. Secure it with cash borrowed from the Fed at zero percent.
    3. Repackage it so you can convince banks and retirement funds the puts are AAA bonds.
    4. If it blows up somehow, get the government to bail you out.
    5. No ???. Just pure, evil, profit.

    My first thought was to buy up the vehicles, go long the puts, and trash them. The trouble with that is that the put is a non-standard option with a clause that says you can't trash the car. Tesla isn't stupid. OTOH, maybe, just maybe there could be some kind of loophole involving a bunch of vehicles on a lot and lots of fire; but that's just boring old insurance fraud. Anybody could think of that. True Wall St. scams involve derivatives, leverage, and several layers of indirection and a few politicians and/or regulators you went to Hahvad with. Have fun.

  67. Farking False Dichotomies, How Do They Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously man, how do they work?

  68. Tangible vs. Intangible by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    My father always told me to get the best education possible because nobody can take it away from you. Excellent advice. That said, because it's intangible, nobody can take it away from you when you default on your student loan, declare bankruptcy, and stick the taxpayers with the bill. Nice work if you can get it. Perhaps if people actually studied for a marketable skill, they wouldn't wind up working at job that requires no thought or training, making an average salary, and stuck with a $200k loan. On the other hand, if the universities did a better job of training students for skills that will be relevant in four years, we'd all be better off. As an engineer graduating in the late 80s, I was taught things that were relevant for the early 80s instead of cutting edge technology. An ultra-left-wing friend of mine once boasted that she spent a semester in Australia and it only cost $150. I said "So let me get this straight: you got a semester of education for $150 but the professors all made much more than that as did all of the support staff but you didn't stick around in the country long enough to contribute to the tax base." She bleated "Well, how do you know I won't go back there?" To which I responded "That was 30 years ago. You're not going back and even if you did, you still wouldn't earn enough to offset the cost of your education."

    But a great example from history of why we're doing it wrong can be seen in the episode of Connections entitled "The Long Chain". In essence, Burke discusses the Victorian British system of education versus the German system when the chemical industry was just getting started. The Germans' priority was to open technical schools but to the Brits, training for a career was considered "lower class". The Germans also accepted students based on merit rather than because of their family background. The Germans encouraged links between universities and industry. A practice that was unheard of to Victorians. So when the British had a golden opportunity to get in on the ground floor of the fledgling chemical industry, they scoffed at it, preferring the easy profits from the colonies. It seems that we're seeing a version of this chapter in history being replayed here in the U.S. We accept people in universities because of their background rather than on merit but instead of it being the elite upper class, it's now to satisfy "diversity". In addition, too many schools spend too much time, money, and energy on athletics instead of skills that have value in the world economy.

  69. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lot's of joke majors and lot's of iffy schools

    Yes, it's apparent that you hate education. Lot's? Jesus, you illiterate little fuck! What are you doing at slashdot, where lots of readers hold PhDs in "joke" majors like astrophysics? You just come to troll? How about you just STFU and GTFO. Slashdot is for the educated, not those who hate learning.

    Hint: they teach what apostrophes are for in what, the third grade? Fucking idiot, get your GED.

  70. Tesla and Expensive US College a Waste by saintmess · · Score: 1

    You want a Tesla car but you do not need one. You want a college degree but it does not have to be expensive. I graduated from a University that only charged $2000/yr. Now I earn 6 figure/yr from consulting and contracting.

  71. Recoverable assets by MacColossus · · Score: 1

    I'm a big proponent of education. However I am guessing that the banks see a car as a recoverable asset as college tuition is hard to repossess. More risk in the financial world usually equals higher interest rates.

  72. It is Microsoft's fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is clearly Microsoft's fault! Not sure how they did it but I am sure that M$ had something to do with Tesla pricing, tax policy, education loans and global warming. Damn them! Damn these greedy monopolist bastards!
    What was the topic?

  73. clawback by h8sg8s · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see a system where graduates could seek financial redress from the university they graduated from if they can't find work after say, 2 years of looking. Why not have the USG seek repayment directly from the school in that case for the federally backed loans given to so many students? Schools would change overnight and they'd focus on 'hirable' graduates PDQ.

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
  74. Not quite a valid point by omarius · · Score: 1

    I see your point, and the summary makes for good hyperbole, but the average student at Purdue (Main campus, 2011) who qualifies for grant aid received $5,496 in Federal grant aid, $5,158 in State / Local grant aid, and $5,405 in institutional grant aid. That's $16,059 a year, x 4 years = $64,236. Only 44% of students took out loans in 2011, at an average of $6,480 each, extrapolating to $25,920 borrowed over 4 years--which is less than many car loans, I'd imagine.
    Data is from NCES IPEDS. http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/
    Most students DO NOT pay the sticker price for higher education.

    1. Re:Not quite a valid point by omarius · · Score: 1

      I should have also mentioned that educational expenses and student loan interest confer tax benefits as well. Cheers.

  75. Pretty slanted article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Theodp, nice construction of your worst case...

    1) First of all PLUS loans are for the PARENTS of students... that's why the fees are so high. It's to stick it to you if you were stupid and didn't plan to help your kids through college and now suddenly do. Note this is no a collateral loan... most parents would get a second mortgage instead. It's far cheaper ( though variable ) and you can write off the interest. Regular student loans would be to apply for the direct subsidized loans which is only 4.8% ( +1% orig fee ) but those are generally for tuition only.
    2) Also, you don't have to go to an out of state school... no one is twisting your arm.
    3) You don't have to have full room and board. There are plenty of housing alternatives.
    4) You can do the federal work study program or can work a part time or even full time job
    5) You can apply for grants to offset your costs
    6) You can try a private lender ( Sallie Mae is currently 5.75% fixed rate for 15 year loan, private loan craziness applies )

    While the cost of $100K is indeed surprising, when I was an undergrad at Purdue in the early 90's, it was around $54,000 for 4 years... so... the 1993 MSRP for the Didge viper was an even $50K. And IIRC they offered an unheard of 72 month financing on them. "Let them eat Vipers" ?

  76. Re:And people with CS degrees can be just as cluel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any ability to edit will open the doors to gaming the moderation system. Just proofread FFS.

  77. Re:And people with CS degrees can be just as cluel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about instead of sucking editor cock, you sit the fuck down and press the preview button?
    Proof read your posts you stupid fucking whore.

  78. Let's Go Back to the Intelligent Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about we just figure out who should pay for it when it is free? That's the bigger question. Teachers have families too. Labs and facilities just don't get put together and then maintained by volunteers.

  79. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

    No I meant cogent. He doesn't make a very convincing or persuasive argument against education when he can't write any better than an elementary school kid.

  80. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

    And that applies to my post how? What error did I supposedly make?

  81. Parent links Progressives with Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That particular definition of Fascism that you dislike was promulgated by Benito Mussolini. He should know.

    The road from Capitalism to Mercantilism is so short as to be non-existent. And am I more free when I am equally oppressed by a corporation as opposed to a government?

    Also, Godwin.

  82. Trade, tech schools & apprenticeships need res by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trade, tech schools & apprenticeships need more respect and not all jobs need a BA/BS but due need some post high school Trade, tech schools & apprenticeships.

  83. Re: if parents don't want their children to be edu by drainbramage · · Score: 2

    "if parents don't want their children to be educated, that's child abuse."
    When well funded school systems 'pass' students that cannot read or write, that's child abuse.
    When well funded school systems refuse to use standardized tests because their students always fail them, that's child abuse.

    Yes, I know what teachers and administrators get paid, that data is freely available.
    Claiming that the education failures in the U.S.A. are because there isn't enough funding is like listening to the alcoholic complain that she just needs more booze.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  84. Re:And people with CS degrees can be just as cluel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    try using the fancy preview feature

  85. "Let them eat testes." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but that's what I read. I cringed.

  86. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by biek · · Score: 1

    If you have to carefully review what you typed then why bother with a spellchecker in the first place?

  87. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by jayveekay · · Score: 1

    he can't write any better than an elementary school kid.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

  88. Can't happen anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The economic interests (the *real* power) that own the government will not allow power to be stripped from "their" government. It's a prime asset, and it facilitates diversion of increasing fractions of our nation's wealth to those interests. Think about it: economic interests have captured all effective regulatory agencies, the Supreme Court, the MSM, etc. Those economic interests will not vote against themselves, nor will they allow effective countermeasures to arise within the system they own. How will this situation change? History doesn't suggest an orderly, peaceful resolution.

  89. Re: if parents don't want their children to be edu by toadlife · · Score: 1

    Claiming that the education failures in the U.S.A. are because there isn't enough funding

    This is not exactly what the post you replied to claims.

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  90. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

    And that applies to my post how? What error did I supposedly make?

    It's always funny to hear your illiterate, anti-education rants. Maybe if you had taken some of those "fluff and filler" classes that maybe you could form cogent sentences?

    --
    Stop! Dremel time!
  91. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been my exact experience with anyone who has ever suggested Windows as a solution to anything. Tis why I screen them out during interviews; they will be in WAY over their heads, with no chance to actually know how things work!

  92. Re:also need to cut fluff and filler from Educatio by dwye · · Score: 1

    Let's face it, using apostrophes for plurals and choosing the wrong homophone is something that should have been handled in grade school, or high school at the latest.

    OTOH, I used to work with a couple of people who moved to the USA from West Germany in their teens (following their parents, or rather their jobs). They had no trace of accent by the time that I knew them (while the younger one was still in his PhD Math program) but neither could spell as well as Davy Crockett, let alone Joe_Dragon above. Maybe it isn't his or his schools' fault, since it seems that there is a window for learning the tricks of English grammar and spelling, just as there is for becoming literate or learning to speak. Show me his first grade attendance record from Normal, KS and I'll blame him, again.

  93. Underpant business model by pikine · · Score: 1
    • Step 1: Buy a Tesla.
    • Step 2: ???
    • Step 3: Profit!

    Actually step 2 should be quite obvious. Sell the Tesla and use the money to pay for tuition, and then you default.

    --
    I once had a signature.
  94. They have found "the solution" by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    That is awesome. They have finally found the way to encourage purchase of electric vehicles by offsetting the INSANE MAINTENANCE COSTS with TAX DOLLARS. Go Tesla! (and not the real Tesla, may his soul rest in peace and not roll over too much further in the grave)