▲ 496 ▼ In Major Order, Appeals Court Blocks Student Loan Forgiveness And Lower Payments For 8 Million Borrowers (www.forbes.com) submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world [M] to c/news@lemmy.world 87 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 206 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children) The lengths people will go through to stop something that hurts nobody, but helps many always astounds me. permalink fedilink source hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 139 points 2 years ago (6 children) The lengths people will go through to stop something that hurts nobody, but helps many always astounds me. I have to credit some rando Redditor for the insight that helped me understand why these people do this. I'll paraphrase because I can't remember the exact prose. Nearly all actions of Conservatives can be explained by their two implied core principles: All policies are zero sum. For you to gain something means I am losing something. There is a naturally occurring societal class-based hierarchy system, and you are required to stay at your level, never rising. So the reason conservatives oppose student loan relief applies to both rules. If student loan borrowers are having debts forgiven (they are getting something) that MUST mean the conservative is losing something. If they had to take loans for school because they couldn't afford to pay for it outright, then they should stay in their economic station. Forgiving these loans may allow them to advance beyond their current class, which cannot be allowed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] ramble81@lemm.ee 62 points 2 years ago (7 children) Which number 2 blows my mind as they constantly vote for things which benefit those well “above their station” because they think they’ll be there someday. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] lmaydev@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago "I'll be rich one day and then people like me will have to watch their step!" permalink fedilink source parent [–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 19 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can't change social class. Only I get to change social class. - Conservatives permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago I don't believe conservatives are trying to argue they need to change their class. They just assume they are already the highest, and its some other group's fault that the conservative is poor. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago See rule 1: if you go up in class, then I must be going down in class. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ElJefe@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) My friend ran into a mutual acquaintance; dude’s now a majorly homophobic, anti trans, anti lgbtq, far right, freedumb convoy supporting redneck. You know the type. He’s ranting about how social programs need to be defunded and all the gays do is take and don’t contribute. My buddy then goes “so anyway, how’ve you been?” Dude says “oh I’m great! I got laid off so now I’m on employment insurance.” Their hypocrisy and tone deafness know no bounds. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Asafum@feddit.nl 8 points 2 years ago I hate those kinds of people so much... I had a coworker like that too. Would argue any Democrat proposal was communism and absolutely terrible. Then he took paid family leave for 2 months when he had a kid, came back, and said "man that was great, I went snowboarding for 2 months while wifey stayed home with the baby. See? That's why this is bad!" It's bad because you're an asshole? permalink fedilink source parent [–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago because they think they’ll be there someday. Sadly, I think its even worse than you're describing. They think they are at that higher station now and its rule #1 that is preventing them from actualizing it. As in "I'm not experiencing a luxurious lifestyle because Group X is taking my share". permalink fedilink source parent [–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think it's even that anymore. I think it's just genuine fawning sycophancy towards their "betters." They think privileged people deserve even more privilege by virtue of having "won," even at their own expense. It's sick and psychotic and completely foreign to my way of thinking, but I don't think I'm wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* You are wrong though. The reason we can't understand it is they are being manipulated. Christians in particular have made themselves vulnerable, purposefully. Just go back to your Sunday school days and if you didn't have them listen to the TV preachers in earnest. They are the sheep, they are being led. I'm not trying to be offense it's just the facts. Even the trumpers who are church adverse fall for similar structures. Usually satellites of the church at large. Biggest facet I can think of is the gun nuts. It's basically religion. In the 2A they trust. The overlap of the church gives them the same structure. Making them vulnerable to manipulation. You and me too though. We just kinda sweep it under the rug. We let our phones run our lives. We feed on dopamine hits all day everyday. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 5 points 2 years ago Or they think that the people above their station deserve those benefits--they genuinely think and support the rich getting richer is a good thing, regardless of whether they'll see any benefit themselves. It's the mirror image of the progressive mindset of voting to raise their own taxes to help the needy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] azimir@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Not really as much as I feel we think. Having read more about Authoritarian mindsets, which includes the rank and file authoritarians, not just the leadership, they're actually happy to be reinforcing the hierarchy regardless of their position in it. They're happy to know their place and to ensure the ranks are kept in place. It brings comfort to many people to know that their position, regardless of how awful it is, is being maintained properly. This means that they're entirely okay with a dictator and/or an oligarchy as long as the people on the top are "supposed" to be there. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago* (1 child) As Voltaire said: "The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor." The idea broadly underpins modern capitalism, and it sums up why liberal politicians (whether left or right wing) do nearly everything they do. Democratic liberals want to keep the lower classes at least somewhat happy by throwing them scraps from time to time, while Republican liberals will only ever do just enough to keep the lower classes pacified. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Almost all the quality of life in the US is at the expense of the real global poor. Even our american minimum wage workers going into debt, living paycheck to paycheck actually live a life of privilege compared to billions despite the perceived suffering. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago You're not wrong at all. I also don't think your analysis is incompatible with what I said above, either. Unless, that is, that you're saying that no one should have a right to complain unless they have it worse than everyone else. American hegemony as practiced by US liberal politicians, in service of capital, is one of the primary drivers of the issue you're describing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't forget cruelty. If you aren't in their circle or above it's also about cruelty. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago Thats built into #2. If your station is low enough, you should expect to endure cruelty. Its your station after all...is their implied position. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wogi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Fun fact, in the 1920s a high caste Indian man sued the US for the right to naturalize arguing that he was white. Arguing that he was verifiably genetically pure because of his caste and descendant from the Aryans. The Supreme Court, 9 old white dudes, decided that he didn't look white enough to be white. And so he wasn't white, and denied him the right to naturalize. 'murica permalink fedilink source parent [–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I don't know about the second one, that one sounds like left fan fiction, but #1 is absolutely true. As #2 I'd put "If something bad happened to you, IE student debt, it's your fault so you should be punished. If something bad happens to me, it's bad luck or societies fault, therefore I need help." permalink fedilink source parent [+] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [+] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 42 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] MagicShel@programming.dev 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) It hurts everyone relying on debt and poverty to force people to accept inequitable exploitation of their labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* Its beyond fucking evil. Nouveau scourgeoisie permalink fedilink source parent [–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago Look up SLABS. If you think something that's being stopped hurts nobody, it probably hurts somebody with financial interest. permalink fedilink source parent [+] ValorieAF@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [+] AmidFuror@fedia.io -33 points 2 years ago (5 children) Someone has to pay. Whether that is distributed to many or a few, a lot of people lose a little or a few people lose a lot. Someone has to lose something for someone else to gain it in this scenario. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 30 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Ok, how about people with more money they could possibly spend multiple lifetimes??? How about we tax billionaires so everyday citizens can have a decent education without being indebted for the rest of their god damn lives!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Sure. The billionaires would be hurt, but the pain would be negligible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Won't someone think of the poor billionaires? permalink fedilink source parent [–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) If that's the case, why is college so much cheaper in other countries? Why is it just the U.S. where education cost has skyrocketed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] capital_sniff@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Because Reagan opened the flood gates on raising the cost of higher education. Then the boomer generation, well known for pulling the ladder up behind themselves, saw this and ran with it. Also they aren't the ones going to school anymore. Combine that with the general hatred for education and science republicans have and we have super expensive schools. My last two years of college had over 10% tuition increases to pay for a new stadium... permalink fedilink source parent [+] AmidFuror@fedia.io -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) No one is suggesting the colleges lose the money. They already got it. So what does their gouging have to do with it? Even if they had to pay off the loans, it would hurt them. Maybe they deserve to be hurt, but giving back money you thought was yours still hurts anyway. What a bunch of bizarre responses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* What does their gouging have to do with it? Everything. The point you seem to be missing is that college doesn't actually cost as much as U.S. institutions are charging. They're robbing people blind, and that needs to stop. permalink fedilink source parent [–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago Someone has to pay. Actually, no: it's an investment that pays off in term of expansion of the whole economy. Literally everyone is wealthier at the end than they would've been for not doing it, so in net terms nobody had to pay anything. permalink fedilink source parent [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You need better sources before arriving at a conclusion on this one. This is a topic that has been discussed at great lengths by people from nonprofits and activist organizations on many podcasts. I’m sure their info exists in written form if you look for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -5 points 2 years ago (3 children) The money came from banks and went to the colleges via the students. If you take the money from the colleges, they will be "hurt." They will lose something they had before. If you take it from the banks, the same. If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere. If you raise taxes, then the money is reaped from whomever has their taxes raised. If you print the money, then everyone pays a little through inflation. Someone gets hurt. I already said the hurt could be distributed. It could also be levied on people with vast resources who would notice it the least. Can you summarize the podcasts and writings that suggest no one loses money when a loan is forgiven? Separately, why is a clear statement of fact controversial? You don't have to believe that loan forgiveness hurts no one to think it's a good policy to put in place. So why the weird reaction? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere. Not true in the US (and a few other countries). The US has economic sovereignty. This means that the federal government primarily owes it's debt to itself, and only a very small percentage is owed to other countries. The fed also relies on a fiat currency, meaning that money has value because the federal government says it does. These 2 facts mean that the only limit to US spending is the amount of labor and resources available to the government at any given moment (please note that this is not true for state/local government). Haven't you ever wondered why we have unlimited funds for the military but it's austerity for everything else? It's because conservatives in government want to hide these facts to continue pushing their agenda. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago I understand your point but there are many other things that factors at play besides where the loans originated. For example interest rates are appalling on many of these loans. These are arbitrary factors that don't hurt the lenders. They can still make a profit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You don't understand this at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your contribution to my understanding so far has been zero. There are some podcasts on pedagogy. You should look into it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago It's not my job to educate you when you're wrong. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Based on your upvote/downvote ratio it looks like basic economics is not very popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago It's my mistake. I should have just realized that whoever is losing out on the money can just write it off. Bam! Nothing lost. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago You must be new here permalink fedilink source parent
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 139 points 2 years ago (6 children) The lengths people will go through to stop something that hurts nobody, but helps many always astounds me. I have to credit some rando Redditor for the insight that helped me understand why these people do this. I'll paraphrase because I can't remember the exact prose. Nearly all actions of Conservatives can be explained by their two implied core principles: All policies are zero sum. For you to gain something means I am losing something. There is a naturally occurring societal class-based hierarchy system, and you are required to stay at your level, never rising. So the reason conservatives oppose student loan relief applies to both rules. If student loan borrowers are having debts forgiven (they are getting something) that MUST mean the conservative is losing something. If they had to take loans for school because they couldn't afford to pay for it outright, then they should stay in their economic station. Forgiving these loans may allow them to advance beyond their current class, which cannot be allowed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] ramble81@lemm.ee 62 points 2 years ago (7 children) Which number 2 blows my mind as they constantly vote for things which benefit those well “above their station” because they think they’ll be there someday. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] lmaydev@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago "I'll be rich one day and then people like me will have to watch their step!" permalink fedilink source parent [–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 19 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can't change social class. Only I get to change social class. - Conservatives permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago I don't believe conservatives are trying to argue they need to change their class. They just assume they are already the highest, and its some other group's fault that the conservative is poor. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago See rule 1: if you go up in class, then I must be going down in class. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ElJefe@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) My friend ran into a mutual acquaintance; dude’s now a majorly homophobic, anti trans, anti lgbtq, far right, freedumb convoy supporting redneck. You know the type. He’s ranting about how social programs need to be defunded and all the gays do is take and don’t contribute. My buddy then goes “so anyway, how’ve you been?” Dude says “oh I’m great! I got laid off so now I’m on employment insurance.” Their hypocrisy and tone deafness know no bounds. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Asafum@feddit.nl 8 points 2 years ago I hate those kinds of people so much... I had a coworker like that too. Would argue any Democrat proposal was communism and absolutely terrible. Then he took paid family leave for 2 months when he had a kid, came back, and said "man that was great, I went snowboarding for 2 months while wifey stayed home with the baby. See? That's why this is bad!" It's bad because you're an asshole? permalink fedilink source parent [–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago because they think they’ll be there someday. Sadly, I think its even worse than you're describing. They think they are at that higher station now and its rule #1 that is preventing them from actualizing it. As in "I'm not experiencing a luxurious lifestyle because Group X is taking my share". permalink fedilink source parent [–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think it's even that anymore. I think it's just genuine fawning sycophancy towards their "betters." They think privileged people deserve even more privilege by virtue of having "won," even at their own expense. It's sick and psychotic and completely foreign to my way of thinking, but I don't think I'm wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* You are wrong though. The reason we can't understand it is they are being manipulated. Christians in particular have made themselves vulnerable, purposefully. Just go back to your Sunday school days and if you didn't have them listen to the TV preachers in earnest. They are the sheep, they are being led. I'm not trying to be offense it's just the facts. Even the trumpers who are church adverse fall for similar structures. Usually satellites of the church at large. Biggest facet I can think of is the gun nuts. It's basically religion. In the 2A they trust. The overlap of the church gives them the same structure. Making them vulnerable to manipulation. You and me too though. We just kinda sweep it under the rug. We let our phones run our lives. We feed on dopamine hits all day everyday. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 5 points 2 years ago Or they think that the people above their station deserve those benefits--they genuinely think and support the rich getting richer is a good thing, regardless of whether they'll see any benefit themselves. It's the mirror image of the progressive mindset of voting to raise their own taxes to help the needy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] azimir@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Not really as much as I feel we think. Having read more about Authoritarian mindsets, which includes the rank and file authoritarians, not just the leadership, they're actually happy to be reinforcing the hierarchy regardless of their position in it. They're happy to know their place and to ensure the ranks are kept in place. It brings comfort to many people to know that their position, regardless of how awful it is, is being maintained properly. This means that they're entirely okay with a dictator and/or an oligarchy as long as the people on the top are "supposed" to be there. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago* (1 child) As Voltaire said: "The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor." The idea broadly underpins modern capitalism, and it sums up why liberal politicians (whether left or right wing) do nearly everything they do. Democratic liberals want to keep the lower classes at least somewhat happy by throwing them scraps from time to time, while Republican liberals will only ever do just enough to keep the lower classes pacified. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Almost all the quality of life in the US is at the expense of the real global poor. Even our american minimum wage workers going into debt, living paycheck to paycheck actually live a life of privilege compared to billions despite the perceived suffering. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago You're not wrong at all. I also don't think your analysis is incompatible with what I said above, either. Unless, that is, that you're saying that no one should have a right to complain unless they have it worse than everyone else. American hegemony as practiced by US liberal politicians, in service of capital, is one of the primary drivers of the issue you're describing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't forget cruelty. If you aren't in their circle or above it's also about cruelty. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago Thats built into #2. If your station is low enough, you should expect to endure cruelty. Its your station after all...is their implied position. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wogi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Fun fact, in the 1920s a high caste Indian man sued the US for the right to naturalize arguing that he was white. Arguing that he was verifiably genetically pure because of his caste and descendant from the Aryans. The Supreme Court, 9 old white dudes, decided that he didn't look white enough to be white. And so he wasn't white, and denied him the right to naturalize. 'murica permalink fedilink source parent [–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I don't know about the second one, that one sounds like left fan fiction, but #1 is absolutely true. As #2 I'd put "If something bad happened to you, IE student debt, it's your fault so you should be punished. If something bad happens to me, it's bad luck or societies fault, therefore I need help." permalink fedilink source parent [+] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 62 points 2 years ago (7 children) Which number 2 blows my mind as they constantly vote for things which benefit those well “above their station” because they think they’ll be there someday. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] lmaydev@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago "I'll be rich one day and then people like me will have to watch their step!" permalink fedilink source parent [–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 19 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can't change social class. Only I get to change social class. - Conservatives permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago I don't believe conservatives are trying to argue they need to change their class. They just assume they are already the highest, and its some other group's fault that the conservative is poor. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago See rule 1: if you go up in class, then I must be going down in class. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ElJefe@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) My friend ran into a mutual acquaintance; dude’s now a majorly homophobic, anti trans, anti lgbtq, far right, freedumb convoy supporting redneck. You know the type. He’s ranting about how social programs need to be defunded and all the gays do is take and don’t contribute. My buddy then goes “so anyway, how’ve you been?” Dude says “oh I’m great! I got laid off so now I’m on employment insurance.” Their hypocrisy and tone deafness know no bounds. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Asafum@feddit.nl 8 points 2 years ago I hate those kinds of people so much... I had a coworker like that too. Would argue any Democrat proposal was communism and absolutely terrible. Then he took paid family leave for 2 months when he had a kid, came back, and said "man that was great, I went snowboarding for 2 months while wifey stayed home with the baby. See? That's why this is bad!" It's bad because you're an asshole? permalink fedilink source parent [–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago because they think they’ll be there someday. Sadly, I think its even worse than you're describing. They think they are at that higher station now and its rule #1 that is preventing them from actualizing it. As in "I'm not experiencing a luxurious lifestyle because Group X is taking my share". permalink fedilink source parent [–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think it's even that anymore. I think it's just genuine fawning sycophancy towards their "betters." They think privileged people deserve even more privilege by virtue of having "won," even at their own expense. It's sick and psychotic and completely foreign to my way of thinking, but I don't think I'm wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* You are wrong though. The reason we can't understand it is they are being manipulated. Christians in particular have made themselves vulnerable, purposefully. Just go back to your Sunday school days and if you didn't have them listen to the TV preachers in earnest. They are the sheep, they are being led. I'm not trying to be offense it's just the facts. Even the trumpers who are church adverse fall for similar structures. Usually satellites of the church at large. Biggest facet I can think of is the gun nuts. It's basically religion. In the 2A they trust. The overlap of the church gives them the same structure. Making them vulnerable to manipulation. You and me too though. We just kinda sweep it under the rug. We let our phones run our lives. We feed on dopamine hits all day everyday. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 5 points 2 years ago Or they think that the people above their station deserve those benefits--they genuinely think and support the rich getting richer is a good thing, regardless of whether they'll see any benefit themselves. It's the mirror image of the progressive mindset of voting to raise their own taxes to help the needy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] azimir@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Not really as much as I feel we think. Having read more about Authoritarian mindsets, which includes the rank and file authoritarians, not just the leadership, they're actually happy to be reinforcing the hierarchy regardless of their position in it. They're happy to know their place and to ensure the ranks are kept in place. It brings comfort to many people to know that their position, regardless of how awful it is, is being maintained properly. This means that they're entirely okay with a dictator and/or an oligarchy as long as the people on the top are "supposed" to be there. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lmaydev@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago "I'll be rich one day and then people like me will have to watch their step!" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 19 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can't change social class. Only I get to change social class. - Conservatives permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago I don't believe conservatives are trying to argue they need to change their class. They just assume they are already the highest, and its some other group's fault that the conservative is poor. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago See rule 1: if you go up in class, then I must be going down in class. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago I don't believe conservatives are trying to argue they need to change their class. They just assume they are already the highest, and its some other group's fault that the conservative is poor. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago See rule 1: if you go up in class, then I must be going down in class. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ElJefe@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) My friend ran into a mutual acquaintance; dude’s now a majorly homophobic, anti trans, anti lgbtq, far right, freedumb convoy supporting redneck. You know the type. He’s ranting about how social programs need to be defunded and all the gays do is take and don’t contribute. My buddy then goes “so anyway, how’ve you been?” Dude says “oh I’m great! I got laid off so now I’m on employment insurance.” Their hypocrisy and tone deafness know no bounds. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Asafum@feddit.nl 8 points 2 years ago I hate those kinds of people so much... I had a coworker like that too. Would argue any Democrat proposal was communism and absolutely terrible. Then he took paid family leave for 2 months when he had a kid, came back, and said "man that was great, I went snowboarding for 2 months while wifey stayed home with the baby. See? That's why this is bad!" It's bad because you're an asshole? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 8 points 2 years ago I hate those kinds of people so much... I had a coworker like that too. Would argue any Democrat proposal was communism and absolutely terrible. Then he took paid family leave for 2 months when he had a kid, came back, and said "man that was great, I went snowboarding for 2 months while wifey stayed home with the baby. See? That's why this is bad!" It's bad because you're an asshole? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago because they think they’ll be there someday. Sadly, I think its even worse than you're describing. They think they are at that higher station now and its rule #1 that is preventing them from actualizing it. As in "I'm not experiencing a luxurious lifestyle because Group X is taking my share". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think it's even that anymore. I think it's just genuine fawning sycophancy towards their "betters." They think privileged people deserve even more privilege by virtue of having "won," even at their own expense. It's sick and psychotic and completely foreign to my way of thinking, but I don't think I'm wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* You are wrong though. The reason we can't understand it is they are being manipulated. Christians in particular have made themselves vulnerable, purposefully. Just go back to your Sunday school days and if you didn't have them listen to the TV preachers in earnest. They are the sheep, they are being led. I'm not trying to be offense it's just the facts. Even the trumpers who are church adverse fall for similar structures. Usually satellites of the church at large. Biggest facet I can think of is the gun nuts. It's basically religion. In the 2A they trust. The overlap of the church gives them the same structure. Making them vulnerable to manipulation. You and me too though. We just kinda sweep it under the rug. We let our phones run our lives. We feed on dopamine hits all day everyday. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* You are wrong though. The reason we can't understand it is they are being manipulated. Christians in particular have made themselves vulnerable, purposefully. Just go back to your Sunday school days and if you didn't have them listen to the TV preachers in earnest. They are the sheep, they are being led. I'm not trying to be offense it's just the facts. Even the trumpers who are church adverse fall for similar structures. Usually satellites of the church at large. Biggest facet I can think of is the gun nuts. It's basically religion. In the 2A they trust. The overlap of the church gives them the same structure. Making them vulnerable to manipulation. You and me too though. We just kinda sweep it under the rug. We let our phones run our lives. We feed on dopamine hits all day everyday. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 5 points 2 years ago Or they think that the people above their station deserve those benefits--they genuinely think and support the rich getting richer is a good thing, regardless of whether they'll see any benefit themselves. It's the mirror image of the progressive mindset of voting to raise their own taxes to help the needy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] azimir@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Not really as much as I feel we think. Having read more about Authoritarian mindsets, which includes the rank and file authoritarians, not just the leadership, they're actually happy to be reinforcing the hierarchy regardless of their position in it. They're happy to know their place and to ensure the ranks are kept in place. It brings comfort to many people to know that their position, regardless of how awful it is, is being maintained properly. This means that they're entirely okay with a dictator and/or an oligarchy as long as the people on the top are "supposed" to be there. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago* (1 child) As Voltaire said: "The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor." The idea broadly underpins modern capitalism, and it sums up why liberal politicians (whether left or right wing) do nearly everything they do. Democratic liberals want to keep the lower classes at least somewhat happy by throwing them scraps from time to time, while Republican liberals will only ever do just enough to keep the lower classes pacified. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Almost all the quality of life in the US is at the expense of the real global poor. Even our american minimum wage workers going into debt, living paycheck to paycheck actually live a life of privilege compared to billions despite the perceived suffering. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago You're not wrong at all. I also don't think your analysis is incompatible with what I said above, either. Unless, that is, that you're saying that no one should have a right to complain unless they have it worse than everyone else. American hegemony as practiced by US liberal politicians, in service of capital, is one of the primary drivers of the issue you're describing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Almost all the quality of life in the US is at the expense of the real global poor. Even our american minimum wage workers going into debt, living paycheck to paycheck actually live a life of privilege compared to billions despite the perceived suffering. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago You're not wrong at all. I also don't think your analysis is incompatible with what I said above, either. Unless, that is, that you're saying that no one should have a right to complain unless they have it worse than everyone else. American hegemony as practiced by US liberal politicians, in service of capital, is one of the primary drivers of the issue you're describing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago You're not wrong at all. I also don't think your analysis is incompatible with what I said above, either. Unless, that is, that you're saying that no one should have a right to complain unless they have it worse than everyone else. American hegemony as practiced by US liberal politicians, in service of capital, is one of the primary drivers of the issue you're describing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't forget cruelty. If you aren't in their circle or above it's also about cruelty. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago Thats built into #2. If your station is low enough, you should expect to endure cruelty. Its your station after all...is their implied position. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago Thats built into #2. If your station is low enough, you should expect to endure cruelty. Its your station after all...is their implied position. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Fun fact, in the 1920s a high caste Indian man sued the US for the right to naturalize arguing that he was white. Arguing that he was verifiably genetically pure because of his caste and descendant from the Aryans. The Supreme Court, 9 old white dudes, decided that he didn't look white enough to be white. And so he wasn't white, and denied him the right to naturalize. 'murica permalink fedilink source parent
[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I don't know about the second one, that one sounds like left fan fiction, but #1 is absolutely true. As #2 I'd put "If something bad happened to you, IE student debt, it's your fault so you should be punished. If something bad happens to me, it's bad luck or societies fault, therefore I need help." permalink fedilink source parent
[+] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 42 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) It hurts everyone relying on debt and poverty to force people to accept inequitable exploitation of their labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* Its beyond fucking evil. Nouveau scourgeoisie permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* Its beyond fucking evil. Nouveau scourgeoisie permalink fedilink source parent
[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago Look up SLABS. If you think something that's being stopped hurts nobody, it probably hurts somebody with financial interest. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] AmidFuror@fedia.io -33 points 2 years ago (5 children) Someone has to pay. Whether that is distributed to many or a few, a lot of people lose a little or a few people lose a lot. Someone has to lose something for someone else to gain it in this scenario. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 30 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Ok, how about people with more money they could possibly spend multiple lifetimes??? How about we tax billionaires so everyday citizens can have a decent education without being indebted for the rest of their god damn lives!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Sure. The billionaires would be hurt, but the pain would be negligible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Won't someone think of the poor billionaires? permalink fedilink source parent [–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) If that's the case, why is college so much cheaper in other countries? Why is it just the U.S. where education cost has skyrocketed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] capital_sniff@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Because Reagan opened the flood gates on raising the cost of higher education. Then the boomer generation, well known for pulling the ladder up behind themselves, saw this and ran with it. Also they aren't the ones going to school anymore. Combine that with the general hatred for education and science republicans have and we have super expensive schools. My last two years of college had over 10% tuition increases to pay for a new stadium... permalink fedilink source parent [+] AmidFuror@fedia.io -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) No one is suggesting the colleges lose the money. They already got it. So what does their gouging have to do with it? Even if they had to pay off the loans, it would hurt them. Maybe they deserve to be hurt, but giving back money you thought was yours still hurts anyway. What a bunch of bizarre responses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* What does their gouging have to do with it? Everything. The point you seem to be missing is that college doesn't actually cost as much as U.S. institutions are charging. They're robbing people blind, and that needs to stop. permalink fedilink source parent [–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago Someone has to pay. Actually, no: it's an investment that pays off in term of expansion of the whole economy. Literally everyone is wealthier at the end than they would've been for not doing it, so in net terms nobody had to pay anything. permalink fedilink source parent [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You need better sources before arriving at a conclusion on this one. This is a topic that has been discussed at great lengths by people from nonprofits and activist organizations on many podcasts. I’m sure their info exists in written form if you look for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -5 points 2 years ago (3 children) The money came from banks and went to the colleges via the students. If you take the money from the colleges, they will be "hurt." They will lose something they had before. If you take it from the banks, the same. If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere. If you raise taxes, then the money is reaped from whomever has their taxes raised. If you print the money, then everyone pays a little through inflation. Someone gets hurt. I already said the hurt could be distributed. It could also be levied on people with vast resources who would notice it the least. Can you summarize the podcasts and writings that suggest no one loses money when a loan is forgiven? Separately, why is a clear statement of fact controversial? You don't have to believe that loan forgiveness hurts no one to think it's a good policy to put in place. So why the weird reaction? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere. Not true in the US (and a few other countries). The US has economic sovereignty. This means that the federal government primarily owes it's debt to itself, and only a very small percentage is owed to other countries. The fed also relies on a fiat currency, meaning that money has value because the federal government says it does. These 2 facts mean that the only limit to US spending is the amount of labor and resources available to the government at any given moment (please note that this is not true for state/local government). Haven't you ever wondered why we have unlimited funds for the military but it's austerity for everything else? It's because conservatives in government want to hide these facts to continue pushing their agenda. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago I understand your point but there are many other things that factors at play besides where the loans originated. For example interest rates are appalling on many of these loans. These are arbitrary factors that don't hurt the lenders. They can still make a profit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You don't understand this at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your contribution to my understanding so far has been zero. There are some podcasts on pedagogy. You should look into it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago It's not my job to educate you when you're wrong. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Based on your upvote/downvote ratio it looks like basic economics is not very popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago It's my mistake. I should have just realized that whoever is losing out on the money can just write it off. Bam! Nothing lost. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago You must be new here permalink fedilink source parent
[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 30 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Ok, how about people with more money they could possibly spend multiple lifetimes??? How about we tax billionaires so everyday citizens can have a decent education without being indebted for the rest of their god damn lives!? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Sure. The billionaires would be hurt, but the pain would be negligible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Won't someone think of the poor billionaires? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Sure. The billionaires would be hurt, but the pain would be negligible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Won't someone think of the poor billionaires? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago Won't someone think of the poor billionaires? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) If that's the case, why is college so much cheaper in other countries? Why is it just the U.S. where education cost has skyrocketed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] capital_sniff@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Because Reagan opened the flood gates on raising the cost of higher education. Then the boomer generation, well known for pulling the ladder up behind themselves, saw this and ran with it. Also they aren't the ones going to school anymore. Combine that with the general hatred for education and science republicans have and we have super expensive schools. My last two years of college had over 10% tuition increases to pay for a new stadium... permalink fedilink source parent [+] AmidFuror@fedia.io -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) No one is suggesting the colleges lose the money. They already got it. So what does their gouging have to do with it? Even if they had to pay off the loans, it would hurt them. Maybe they deserve to be hurt, but giving back money you thought was yours still hurts anyway. What a bunch of bizarre responses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* What does their gouging have to do with it? Everything. The point you seem to be missing is that college doesn't actually cost as much as U.S. institutions are charging. They're robbing people blind, and that needs to stop. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] capital_sniff@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Because Reagan opened the flood gates on raising the cost of higher education. Then the boomer generation, well known for pulling the ladder up behind themselves, saw this and ran with it. Also they aren't the ones going to school anymore. Combine that with the general hatred for education and science republicans have and we have super expensive schools. My last two years of college had over 10% tuition increases to pay for a new stadium... permalink fedilink source parent
[+] AmidFuror@fedia.io -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) No one is suggesting the colleges lose the money. They already got it. So what does their gouging have to do with it? Even if they had to pay off the loans, it would hurt them. Maybe they deserve to be hurt, but giving back money you thought was yours still hurts anyway. What a bunch of bizarre responses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* What does their gouging have to do with it? Everything. The point you seem to be missing is that college doesn't actually cost as much as U.S. institutions are charging. They're robbing people blind, and that needs to stop. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* What does their gouging have to do with it? Everything. The point you seem to be missing is that college doesn't actually cost as much as U.S. institutions are charging. They're robbing people blind, and that needs to stop. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago Someone has to pay. Actually, no: it's an investment that pays off in term of expansion of the whole economy. Literally everyone is wealthier at the end than they would've been for not doing it, so in net terms nobody had to pay anything. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You need better sources before arriving at a conclusion on this one. This is a topic that has been discussed at great lengths by people from nonprofits and activist organizations on many podcasts. I’m sure their info exists in written form if you look for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -5 points 2 years ago (3 children) The money came from banks and went to the colleges via the students. If you take the money from the colleges, they will be "hurt." They will lose something they had before. If you take it from the banks, the same. If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere. If you raise taxes, then the money is reaped from whomever has their taxes raised. If you print the money, then everyone pays a little through inflation. Someone gets hurt. I already said the hurt could be distributed. It could also be levied on people with vast resources who would notice it the least. Can you summarize the podcasts and writings that suggest no one loses money when a loan is forgiven? Separately, why is a clear statement of fact controversial? You don't have to believe that loan forgiveness hurts no one to think it's a good policy to put in place. So why the weird reaction? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere. Not true in the US (and a few other countries). The US has economic sovereignty. This means that the federal government primarily owes it's debt to itself, and only a very small percentage is owed to other countries. The fed also relies on a fiat currency, meaning that money has value because the federal government says it does. These 2 facts mean that the only limit to US spending is the amount of labor and resources available to the government at any given moment (please note that this is not true for state/local government). Haven't you ever wondered why we have unlimited funds for the military but it's austerity for everything else? It's because conservatives in government want to hide these facts to continue pushing their agenda. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago I understand your point but there are many other things that factors at play besides where the loans originated. For example interest rates are appalling on many of these loans. These are arbitrary factors that don't hurt the lenders. They can still make a profit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You don't understand this at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your contribution to my understanding so far has been zero. There are some podcasts on pedagogy. You should look into it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago It's not my job to educate you when you're wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -5 points 2 years ago (3 children) The money came from banks and went to the colleges via the students. If you take the money from the colleges, they will be "hurt." They will lose something they had before. If you take it from the banks, the same. If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere. If you raise taxes, then the money is reaped from whomever has their taxes raised. If you print the money, then everyone pays a little through inflation. Someone gets hurt. I already said the hurt could be distributed. It could also be levied on people with vast resources who would notice it the least. Can you summarize the podcasts and writings that suggest no one loses money when a loan is forgiven? Separately, why is a clear statement of fact controversial? You don't have to believe that loan forgiveness hurts no one to think it's a good policy to put in place. So why the weird reaction? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere. Not true in the US (and a few other countries). The US has economic sovereignty. This means that the federal government primarily owes it's debt to itself, and only a very small percentage is owed to other countries. The fed also relies on a fiat currency, meaning that money has value because the federal government says it does. These 2 facts mean that the only limit to US spending is the amount of labor and resources available to the government at any given moment (please note that this is not true for state/local government). Haven't you ever wondered why we have unlimited funds for the military but it's austerity for everything else? It's because conservatives in government want to hide these facts to continue pushing their agenda. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago I understand your point but there are many other things that factors at play besides where the loans originated. For example interest rates are appalling on many of these loans. These are arbitrary factors that don't hurt the lenders. They can still make a profit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You don't understand this at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your contribution to my understanding so far has been zero. There are some podcasts on pedagogy. You should look into it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago It's not my job to educate you when you're wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago If you pay it from government coffers, then the government has less to spend elsewhere. Not true in the US (and a few other countries). The US has economic sovereignty. This means that the federal government primarily owes it's debt to itself, and only a very small percentage is owed to other countries. The fed also relies on a fiat currency, meaning that money has value because the federal government says it does. These 2 facts mean that the only limit to US spending is the amount of labor and resources available to the government at any given moment (please note that this is not true for state/local government). Haven't you ever wondered why we have unlimited funds for the military but it's austerity for everything else? It's because conservatives in government want to hide these facts to continue pushing their agenda. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago I understand your point but there are many other things that factors at play besides where the loans originated. For example interest rates are appalling on many of these loans. These are arbitrary factors that don't hurt the lenders. They can still make a profit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You don't understand this at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your contribution to my understanding so far has been zero. There are some podcasts on pedagogy. You should look into it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago It's not my job to educate you when you're wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Your contribution to my understanding so far has been zero. There are some podcasts on pedagogy. You should look into it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago It's not my job to educate you when you're wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago It's not my job to educate you when you're wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Based on your upvote/downvote ratio it looks like basic economics is not very popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago It's my mistake. I should have just realized that whoever is losing out on the money can just write it off. Bam! Nothing lost. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago You must be new here permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago It's my mistake. I should have just realized that whoever is losing out on the money can just write it off. Bam! Nothing lost. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago You must be new here permalink fedilink source parent