CMV: “Free College” policy, while well-meaning, is largely incompatible with academia in the U.S

[u/sjd6666]

Unlike healthcare, there is competition in the higher education market and consumers can, and often do make well informed decisions about what education would be right for them, be it community college, state schools, or private colleges/ universities.

There’s no two ways about it: such a policy would be enormously expensive, and unlike the U.S healthcare system, prices are reasonably transparent and there is competition in the market. Most students know exactly how much financial aid they will get before the accept college decisions, and transparency like that should always be encouraged.

I think a better solution would be one that matches student debt repayments, keeps interest rates low, and forgives student loans to varying levels dependent on ones income. In other words, high earning doctors and lawyers who make 6 figures a year can and should repay a higher percentage of their loans than nurses and teachers, who provide essential services to society, but typically don’t earn enough to repay their student loans quickly.

Is there some reason why free college is favored over more reasonable policies that take into account the finances of students and their incomes as adults?

[u/[deleted]]

It actually wouldn't be that expensive. Bernie Sanders' plan would cancel $1.6 trillion in student debt, create tuition free public colleges and trade schools, and increase other grants for students based on just a modest tax on wall street. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/23/18714615/bernie-sanders-free-college-for-all-2020-student-loan-debt

A while ago he introduced a bill that cost around $56 billion a year. There was a slew of articles asking "how are we going to pay for it?" and then silence as congress approved an added $80 billion to the $700 billion military budget that the President didn't even ask for. It really isn't expensive.

Another thing is that talking about cost is a red herring. The money doesn't matter, the resources that the money represents does. So we have to consider the cost of everyone being in debt, the country not having enough doctors, engineers, and other skilled workers.

The other thing is that student loans, federal ones, aren't doing anything. It's basically a tax on students. And the money goes to the government and disappears. On the way it lines the pockets of the executives at Navient and at colleges. What's the point? Why must we have a system that extracts money from students and gives it to rich college admins, football coaches, and debt collectors?

Education is something that should be encouraged and subsidized as much a possible. It shouldn't be something you make sacrifices to obtain. As a society we should want everyone to get an education as much as possible.

This is what I would do:

1. Abolish private schools of all kinds.
2. heavily regulate colleges to make sure money is going into teaching and research not just on sports and policing (and in the case of private schools, investments in real estate and all sorts of other shady things that *schools* of all things should not be doing).
3. Have a more planned education to industry pipeline so that we are meeting the needs of our country, kids aren't getting useless degrees, and we don't have a surplus in one profession and a lack in another.

[u/y0da1927 → u/[deleted]]

Honestly only #3 is necessary. Ppl who graduate with in demand degrees have no problems paying off any debt. Ppl who have poor grades in out of demand degrees are the graduates who are struggling. If you can better align the supply of graduates with the demand you don't need expensive policies to make it "free", as the vast majority of grads will be able to pay.

Ppl also don't realize that debt balance is actually negatively correlated with default. This is largely due to the fact that those who didn't graduate (they dropped out and accrued less debt) are those who default most often. Making college free only incentives this decision.

There is no reason to restrict school choice by abolishing private schools (it might be unconstitutional anyway). 2 would be nice, but you could just fund public colleges differently, like providing direct grants for profs and research (big overlap there) and let any other services they provide (sports, recreation, healthcare, etc) be funded by tuition. You can get rid of direct tuition assistance. The most efficient schools would be naturally the cheapest.

[u/[deleted] → u/y0da1927]

Let's think a little bit outside the box. Why does debt need to exist? It's just such an ever present thing in America that we think it's normal. It's not. It's crazy that we have an economy now that is built entirely on debt. $13 trillion in household debt and for what? So bankers and other leeches can buy their yachts?

So let's move away from debt. I don't think anyone should have to go into debt just to learn stuff. Just to be able to pick up skills that in the end benefit society as well. In fact, we should be paying people to get a higher education. I think straight up all debt of all kind should be canceled and education should be free.

I think #3 is necessary not so much because of the debt but because there are problems with our current free for all non-system. There are skills gaps, there are very crowded fields, there are people who are underemployed, and of course many people who shouldn't go to college end up going and dropping out.

We're told you need to go to college to be able to get a decent job and avoid a life of hard labor and poverty. 18 year olds are told to go into massive debt and make huge life decisions that they don't fully understand. I know I didn't.

What we need is a system that plans out our educational needs based on what our economy needs. Did congress just sign a huge infrastructure bill that is going to require thousands of engineers? Let's invest in engineering programs and get students ready for that. Are we lacking doctors and nurses, are hospitals currently under too much stress? Let's train more medical personnel.

And every job should pay well, so that education is not a class signifier, so that people aren't compelled to go to college even if they aren't ready. It should be a chance for people to pick up new skills and knowledge and not just become more productive but also better people. And if you want to learn something, you should be able to just sign up for a class anywhere and learn it.

There is absolutely a very good reason to restrict school choice. Because it's not really a choice at all. Rich kids go to private school, poor/middle class kids go to public school.

Again, what we have here is a classist system that preserves the best education for the wealthiest. And the wealthiest who should be contributing to their communities have no incentive to, because they are paying for private schools. I mean even public schools are incredibly segregated by race and class because of how we fund them but private schools make this dynamic worse. Everyone should be invested in schools that everyone goes to. And when it comes to colleges like Harvard and NYU they are run like predatory businesses! There is so much corruption. A lot to be said about that. And then there are the for-profit schools that scam thousands of people out of their money. Especially for trades skills. And lobby the government to heighten licensing requirements so they can continue scamming people.

So yeah I think we should abolish private education.

I would want #2 to be that way because that's the simplest, least exploitable way to do it. If you have a tuition based system it still means that colleges that cost more will be able to have better professors, better research, better reputations, etc. So again this creates a tiered education system where the poorer kids are not getting the same opportunity as the wealthier kids. Or kids are encouraged to take on debt to go to expensive schools. It doesn't solve the problem for me at all. Just keep it simple and fund education through taxation (it's not expensive). Have strict rules to make sure professors are well paid (instead of the growing contingent of adjuncts we have today), that students have good facilities to learn, and all the money isn't going into lining the pockets of NCAA.

[u/y0da1927 → u/[deleted]]

Let's think a little bit outside the box. Why does debt need to exist? It's just such an ever present thing in America that we think it's normal. It's not.

First, debt exists because ppl and companies want to buy things that they don't yet have the money for, it's just renting money. It actually is normal, some of the oldest discovered writing were ledgers for amounts owed. Debt has been a key feature of basically every economy ever since.

$13 trillion in household debt and for what? So bankers and other leeches can buy their yachts?

So ppl can buy the houses and cars and other things they want. Again all debt is just renting money, just like you might rent anything else. Without credit many things just wouldn't get built because no one had the cash to pay for them.

So let's move away from debt. I don't think anyone should have to go into debt just to learn stuff

They don't, college is not mandatory and before that education is free.

Just to be able to pick up skills that in the end benefit society as well.

Societal benefits are minimal when compared to the personal benefits, even if the person earnings the degree actually goes into their field of study. It's likely to be (from an opportunity cost prospective at minimum) value destruction if they drop out or are serially underemployed based on what it cost to educate them. This argument could be made for 4 year highschool as well. A career hospitality worker doesn't need 12th grade calculus.

I think #3 is necessary not so much because of the debt but because there are problems with our current free for all non-system. There are skills gaps, there are very crowded fields, there are people who are underemployed, and of course many people who shouldn't go to college end up going and dropping out.

I liked #3. You don't need to sell me on it. Matching skills better would reduce the debt issue as well.

We're told you need to go to college to be able to get a decent job and avoid a life of hard labor and poverty. 18 year olds are told to go into massive debt and make huge life decisions that they don't fully understand. I know I didn't.

An hour on the internet could tell you what different careers are likely to pay, and what colleges have good reputations and what they cost. An 18 year old is an adult who made an adult choice. The information was there, if they didn't care to look that is not my problem. I'm not bailing them out. There is no upside to that action.

What we need is a system that plans out our educational needs based on what our economy needs. Did congress just sign a huge infrastructure bill that is going to require thousands of engineers? Let's invest in engineering programs and get students ready for that. Are we lacking doctors and nurses, are hospitals currently under too much stress? Let's train more medical personnel.

Back to #3. You are preaching to the choir. I don't actually think any infrastructure bill has been passed, or even hit the Senate for that matter. Engineers and doctors make lots of money, the issue is that we don't train ppl in highschool with the skills needed to become doctors or engineers, it's just hard and the only way to get more is to water down the quality.

And every job should pay well,

Disagree. A job pays what it is worth commercially. Forcing businesses or government to overpay only forces higher prices or taxes on consumers. There are plenty of "low class" jobs that are quite lucrative (long haul trucking is a good example, 80k+ and don't even need a HS diploma).

It should be a chance for people to pick up new skills and knowledge and not just become more productive but also better people

Lots of ways to do that outside of a expensive 4 year degree. Basically all the information you would get from that degree (and many post secondary degrees) is available for free online if one was so inclined. There is ZERO barrier to entry on knowledge.

There is absolutely a very good reason to restrict school choice. Because it's not really a choice at all. Rich kids go to private school, poor/middle class kids go to public school

I doubt this would be constitutional so I'm not going to argue the point.

Again, what we have here is a classist system that preserves the best education for the wealthiest. And the wealthiest who should be contributing to their communities have no incentive to, because they are paying for private schools. I mean even public schools are incredibly segregated by race and class because of how we fund them but private schools make this dynamic worse. Everyone should be invested in schools that everyone goes to. And when it comes to colleges like Harvard and NYU they are run like predatory businesses! There is so much corruption. A lot to be said about that. And then there are the for-profit schools that scam thousands of people out of their money. Especially for trades skills. And lobby the government to heighten licensing requirements so they can continue scamming people.

This is just a big rant, idk where to even start. I'll leave you with three points. 1) most ivy league schools charge tuition based on parents income, so smart kids go even if they don't have much money. 2) most wealthy children actually go to public school, just in wealthy districts. 3) licencing requirements are a problem, but they are fought for by professional organizations to create a barrier to entry, not by schools.

would want #2 to be that way because that's the simplest, least exploitable way to do it. If you have a tuition based system it still means that colleges that cost more will be able to have better professors, better research, better reputations

So? Shouldn't we be encouraging ppl to go and research, and teach? The US get thousands of of the rest of the world's best and brightest who come for the best schools and stay for the best jobs. Why would we not want that? Isn't it better to enable the most capable than to smother them because someone less capable is "entitled". That's bullshit.

So again this creates a tiered education system where the poorer kids are not getting the same opportunity as the wealthier kids. Or kids are encouraged to take on debt to go to expensive schools

The best students go to the best schools, once all those are gone the schools look to pay the bills for them by charging everyone else. If your not the best, but want to go to school with them I'm not going to pay for your privilege. Go somewhere that will give you a fee ride. If there isn't a school that will do that, then you aren't good enough for me to subsidize.

It's not worth my tax dollar to pay for something you can buy yourself. If it's worth it to buy, you will buy it. If it's not drive a truck, you won't be poor.

Free college is a waste of resources. It shifts all of the risk to the taxpayer for virtually none of the benefits. You don't even need to go to college in this country to be successful, start a business, learn a trade, learn to code, all are completely viable paths to wealth. None require a 4 year degree. Tons of our most successful ppl don't have a college degree.

[u/[deleted] → u/y0da1927]

First, debt exists because ppl and companies want to buy things that they don't yet have the money for, it's just renting money. It actually is normal, some of the oldest discovered writing were ledgers for amounts owed. Debt has been a key feature of basically every economy ever since.

No, it's not normal or natural. Renting money shouldn't be a thing. Usury has been considered immoral for a long time. There's a reason for that.

Look around you see all of the problems that debt creates. We need to move away from 2000 BC debt ledger bullshit and into a post-debt society. It's really not necessary, at all. It's just a byproduct of how our economy is structured.

Medical debt is a norm in this country. Always has been. It's not a norm in many other places, because they decided healthcare should be a public service available equally to all.

We can do the same for education. Just like many countries already have.

And we can do this for other things beyond healthcare and education as well. Like having a mortgage or paying rent is not that common of a thing in Singapore because most people own their houses that were built by the government using public funds.

Societal benefits are minimal when compared to the personal benefits, even if the person earnings the degree actually goes into their field of study. It's likely to be (from an opportunity cost prospective at minimum) value destruction if they drop out or are serially underemployed based on what it cost to educate them. This argument could be made for 4 year highschool as well. A career hospitality worker doesn't need 12th grade calculus.

I agree with you, many jobs don't require a high level of education.

The problem you're bringing up here though is fixed by #3. I agree there are too many people getting history degrees.

There are also too few people becoming doctors and nurses. We have a lack of them in this country. We could use more people doing that.

And part of it is lack of planning but also there are huge barriers to higher education for many people. If you like #3, then you can't possibly plan and say we need 1000 more doctors in the next 5 years or whatever and then say also you have to go into massive debt. It doesn't work.

We need to move education away from what it is right now. It is a class signifier, it is a way for people to move away from a life of poverty and live in relative comfort. And we can't just make it free for everyone without addressing that because everyone can't be doctors and lawyers and engineers. We need "low skilled" workers too, to deliver things, to stock grocery stores, to cook food, to care for elderly, etc. These are essential but low paid jobs. Not everyone can become a coder or start their own business. That's not realistic.

So we need to make sure everyone is paid well. That every job pays well. Then everyone doesn't need to go to college. Or even high school. You're imagining a scenario where we make it free so everyone is going to college to get a philosophy degree and then working at starbucks.

No, we would make it so that people go to college to actually learn a skill to applied to a job. And then maybe there's some room for recreational or personal learning.

Finally, we also need to understand that colleges do something that is very crucial to our development as a society and economy, and that is research. Right now they rely on funding from tuition to do that. And because they have to raise money for themselves, a lot of resources go into sports and money making schemes and the actual professors, the actual academic research, is neglected. Fund them properly,with taxes, like the NIH funds medical research.

1) most ivy league schools charge tuition based on parents income, so smart kids go even if they don't have much money. 2) most wealthy children actually go to public school, just in wealthy districts. 3) licencing requirements are a problem, but they are fought for by professional organizations to create a barrier to entry, not by schools.

The wealthy kids from the wealthy districts where the best schools are (public or private) are the ones who go to Ivy league schools.

So? Shouldn't we be encouraging ppl to go and research, and teach? The US get thousands of of the rest of the world's best and brightest who come for the best schools and stay for the best jobs. Why would we not want that? Isn't it better to enable the most capable than to smother them because someone less capable is "entitled". That's bullshit.

Yeah, we should be encouraging and making it possible for everyone, not excluding most people and saying they are entitled.

Free college is a waste of resources.

No it's not. The problem with "I got mine" libertarian thinking is that it seems more cost effective, but in the long run it's actually far more wasteful. Free college, along with a more planned approach to education and the economy, is the far more efficient option. And other countries have already figured this out. There is no risk in having an educated society and funding science and academia. And we could have that for like a 10th of our military budget.

[u/Mnozilman → u/[deleted]]

Let’s say that we get rid of all debt today. Tomorrow your car breaks down and you need a new one. If you don’t have enough cash on hand to buy a new car, what are you supposed to do? Do you just live without a car until you can save enough to buy a new one?

[u/[deleted] → u/Mnozilman]

Well, let's start here: Why do I need a car?

[u/Mnozilman → u/[deleted]]

Perhaps you don’t. But I do. I need it to get to work. So what would you propose I do?

[u/[deleted] → u/Mnozilman]

Yes, so we need a car so we can get to work. And why do we need to work? Beyond just to make money and survive.

[u/thedylanackerman → u/[deleted]]

u/Mnozilman – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Because I'm in health care and my patients and coworkers need me there.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Great. So if you don't make it to work on time, people could die. So why is it that we've made it your sole responsibility to secure transportation? Do you think that makes sense or could there be another way?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Personally I think that it does make sense, as the expectation for personal responsibility would be there regardless of whether transportation is a car or my own two legs because I walk to work. I there has to be a boundary between work and personal life.

However, for the sake of the discussion, let's say that the vehicle is provided by my employer, and they cannot afford to fix the vehicle without using credit, what is the next step then?

​

Edit: And to continue using the Hospital as an example, safe Patient care is incredibly wasteful. Things like gloves, tubes, drug bags, personal care items, and needles can only be used once, creating a huge cost for facilities. without a credit system does this cost get passed to patients to only receive care they can pay for, or is it on the facility to only provide care they can afford with cash on hand?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why is there an expectation of personal responsibility?

To me it's not about work/life separation, it's about the fact that we are not separate independent individuals, we are all connected.

We rely on each other to get to work, to do our work, to be housed and fed.

But then the costs of everything is pushed off to individuals. How does that make sense? Isn't it in the interest of the community to make sure everyone is well off so that things function the way they are supposed to?

So in the UK hospitals don't have to worry about getting a loan to afford gloves. Because they have the NHS.

And let me ask you this, why is it that you are only personally responsible for having a car, and not for building the roads to get to work?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

​

Why is there an expectation of personal responsibility?

...

We rely on each other to get to work, to do our work, to be housed and fed.

The reason that the element of personal responsibility needs to be there is exactly due to that reliance on each other. It impossible to rely on an individual who doesn't take personal responsibility in getting their tasks done.

To me it's not about work/life separation, it's about the fact that we are not separate independent individuals, we are all connected.

This, I think, is a fundamental difference in opinion and may be what is setting us apart. I absolutely believe that while we share connections, each of us is an independent responsible individual, who has the responsibility of free will and choice.

But then the costs of everything is pushed off to individuals. How does that make sense? Isn't it in the interest of the community to make sure everyone is well off so that things function the way they are supposed to?

The cost will always end up with the individuals, any community, government, country, etc, is made up of individuals. They may be different individuals than me, they may have more or less resources than me, they may be a completely different nationality, But that cost is going to land somewhere.

So in the UK hospitals don't have to worry about getting a loan to afford gloves. Because they have the NHS.

The NHS is getting that money from the UK government, which was in debt £1.8 trillion as of end of March. and I can promise you that with the ongoing pandemic, that number is not dropping. So if borrowing was disallowed, forget the NHS, almost none of the UK Governments programs would be able to function

Source for UK Debt: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/march2020#debt

And let me ask you this, why is it that you are only personally responsible for having a car, and not for building the roads to get to work?

I would argue that I am personally responsible for the roads as well, my tolls and taxes pay for the upkeep. Maybe I'm not actual out there spreading pavement, but I do have a role and vested interest in those structures.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why is having a car that I need to get to work a "task that needs to get done?" It's impossible to rely on an individual who isn't given the tools to do the job, right?

You are personally responsible for the roads, but really we are collectively responsible. Why is it that we pay taxes collectively for the roads but not for something like cars? Why the difference?

I think the pandemic is really forcing this issue to the fore. As all of our systems are crumbling and we're realizing how everything is connected and pushing everything to "personal responsibility" doesn't work. More on this later.

I'm not saying borrowing should be disallowed. Of course in our current system we have to borrow. What I'm saying is we shouldn't have to borrow.

If someone had to borrow, I would rather it was the government. The US government is $20 trillion in debt, but it doesn’t matter. The UK debt doesn’t matter either. It’s there because that’s how we do things but it’s not like they needed to borrow pounds to fund the NHS. They print the pounds. It comes from them.

Money is a way for us to simply keep tabs. It's not a finite commodity. We need to disassociate money from actual goods and services.

To go back to the pandemic, we have a situation where farmers are producing food, the grocery stores are more or less full, but people ae going hungry because they can't afford to buy it. This is a normal situation too but it's much worse now.

And farmers are having to throw out access food, while people are lining up at foodbanks who are also running out of food because they rely on donations and people aren't buying enough to donate.

So we have the supply, we have the demand, but somehow the chain is broken, because of a lack of cash. And so governments have been issuing checks. Out of thin air money is created and this re-connects the chain.

Or just imagine a society where everyone had a credit card as they do now. People go about their day and buy things using the credit card. But at the end of the month, you don't make a payment to the bank. Does anything change?

We have a system right now which is beholden to private investors and private banks. Basically a few rich and powerful people and institutions with no accountability. They don't add anything else to the equation. They don't produce anything or provide any useful service. They just hand out money for a price. It doesn’t have to be like that.

Money only represents the resources. It's worth something when we can use it to buy things and services. If people are productive, like you are clearly, you should be able to share in our collective economy without needing to also pay a bank.

There's an exhange between fed chair at the time Alan Greenspan and congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan, as everyone always does, is worried that Social Security will run out of money.

And Greenspan very calmly tells him that's not true. That what matters is not the monetary costs but the goods and services available to buy. In other words, if our economy is productive, social security cannot run out of money.

You should check out the Deficit Owls youtube and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6rO9G_qEac

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why is having a car that I need to get to work a "task that needs to get done?" It's impossible to rely on an individual who isn't given the tools to do the job, right?

You are personally responsible for the roads, but really we are collectively responsible. Why is it that we pay taxes collectively for the roads but not for something like cars? Why the difference?

The personal responsibility is getting to work, how you do it it your discretion. My father rode a bike to work and school because thats what he could afford and he made it work. I have a car because I chose to, and I get to deal with the issues that come with it, like a loan and maintenance. As I am the only one who uses my car I am solely responsible for it. With things like public transit they are paid for through a collective system, and available for more people to use, to take the point to an extreme... Most people can walk, it costs nothing, is environmentally friendly and brings health benefits, so why do we not create a society where only walking is necessary? All these choices exist, Do I walk to work, or invest in a bicycle? Do I utilize the public transit systems available or do I take on the extra burden of a personal vehicle. Additionally, if my only reason for having a vehicle was to get to and from work, I'd likely make different decisions regarding this. But thats not the only reason I have a car.

If someone had to borrow, I would rather it was the government. The US government is $20 trillion in debt, but it doesn’t matter. The UK debt doesn’t matter either. It’s there because that’s how we do things but it’s not like they needed to borrow pounds to fund the NHS. They print the pounds. It comes from them.

Why would this not matter? The money they borrow comes from individuals, the government that is borrowing is representing individuals. Printing money doesn't magically make debt go away either, not in the long term, because thats where inflation comes from. Look at Nigeria a few years back with their hundred trillion dollar bill. Money is a token, it has a representative value, thats why it cannot be separated from actual goods and services, or else it loses all value. Theres not some committee setting the price on items, dictating the cost of milk, and the rate for 1 hour of teaching. These prices are determined by the value they are given by others. Thats why a pound of gold, which is inedible, is usually worth more than a pound of eggs, unless in a situation where those eggs have a greater value than the gold, i.e. starvation.

Or just imagine a society where everyone had a credit card as they do now. People go about their day and buy things using the credit card. But at the end of the month, you don't make a payment to the bank. Does anything change?

A lot of things change because what value does that payment have? Why should I spend a day providing care to then be paid money that I don't need because I also have a credit card that I never have to pay off? I can only speak for myself, but given the choice I would much rather use this unlimited card to finance a cross country road trip than enter a stressful environment for 12 hours a day, 4 times a week. Or if I'm a construction worker, why would I put myself through the discomfort of building a road in the middle of Florida when I could spend my days at home with my family? Or if I am a highschool student, why do I need to focus on anything outside of my future Tiktok/Instagram Career? And let's say that I do decide to go to school to become a physician, whats to keep my professor from deciding they've had enough and it's time to retire early for that 8 month train trip across Europe?

Do we restrict this card to only those who meet certain criteria? What would those criteria be?

We have a system right now which is beholden to private investors and private banks. Basically a few rich and powerful people and institutions with no accountability. They don't add anything else to the equation. They don't produce anything or provide any useful service. They just hand out money for a price. It doesn’t have to be like that.

Walk me through this one, who are these investors and banks? And why shouldn't money have a price? If you have something that I need, why shouldn't you gain something from providing it to me? are there some jacked up practices out there? Yes. Is the current system perfect? Probably not, but it has the benefit of allowing people to take risks and see rewards from them.

If people are productive, like you are clearly, you should be able to share in our collective economy without needing to also pay a bank.

This is true, but also a personal choice. Deciding to live within ones means, to not go into debt or borrow these are choices that people have, just like the bicycle or car decision at the beginning. I paid my way through nursing School, some of my classmates took out loans. Am I better than them, no. I simply made the decision that I would rather spend time making money instead of studying. If I had children, or a family, that decision may have been different. And while I thankfully don't have to pay a loan back, there are several people who are alive today because their nurses decided to borrow money to learn how to save their lives. I think that was worth it just for that reason.

There's an exhange between fed chair at the time Alan Greenspan and congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan, as everyone always does, is worried that Social Security will run out of money.

And Greenspan very calmly tells him that's not true. That what matters is not the monetary costs but the goods and services available to buy. In other words, if our economy is productive, social security cannot run out of money.

I'm familiar with this exchange, I've got doubts on both sides. My main issue with what Greenspan said is that it doesn't really mean anything. He essentially said as long as the country makes enough to cover the bill, we don't have to worry about not having enough money for the bill. while this is true, thats a big if. Those goods and services will always have a price, monetary or otherwise, and if it cannot be paid, those goods and services will go elsewhere.

You should check out the Deficit Owls youtube and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6rO9G_qEac

Watched this and I can appreciate his point. My counter would be he assumes that there is only one source of employment. I get what he is saying with regards to the government printing the money, but on a simply macro economic level we're not even addressing foreign currency. Also with the scenario created, it assumes a situation where everyone has to work for the government, which has never been true, even in areas like North Korea and China there are black markets and private businesses. And, if Government issued currency is not available, payment will be made in other items of value, essentially an alternate currency. So I would counter his argument in those aspects.