north0

I think the point is that "GMO" information is not useful and people don't understand GMO to begin with. It would be as useful as including what color shirt the farmer was wearing when they grew the crops.

GMO isn't a chemical that is sprinkled on your food. Selective breeding is genetic modification, do you need to know what characteristics the dairy farmer favored when selecting bulls?

How did this get confirmed true? I mean, it could have been a secret swordfight.

Get your shit together mods.

There is currently a monetary incentive for for-profit private colleges and universities to offer low-quality education at a high price. When we will stop that?

Who is "we" and why do "we" need to stop it as opposed to letting the free market weed out those schools that don't offer a good ROI?

If it costs $180k to go to a bad school that doesn't provide a ROI on that $180k, you're going to default on that loan. If enough students from school X default on their loans, banks are going to stop writing loans to go to that school. The school will either improve their education or decrease their prices to reflect the actual value of the services they provide.

Any meddling by the government that divides those that take the risk (government) from those that reap the rewards (banks) is going to result in perverse incentives.

They only charge so much because it's so easy for an 18 year old kid to go out and get a loan to cover the extravagant tuition costs.

Make the banks assume the risk, so that when they loan $120k to an 18 year old to get a sociology studies degree from a no-name private school and it defaults, they take the hit. They'll stop making those loans real fast. The schools will figure out they can't charge that much anymore.

Yeah some kids will not be able to go to school. But the ROI is the ROI. If they aren't learning anything in these programs then they are wasting their time anyway.

It would be attacked, the loans ended, and vulnerable people wouldn't be able to pay for college.

Offloading the risk to the banks making the loans seems like a reasonable solution. It would align those making the risk with those taking the reward which generally leads to less perverse incentives.

Surely the public policy objective should be to not load up kids with debt that they can't pay. Surely the best way to achieve this is to allow the banks to assume all the risk and let the actuary tables figure out whether that $120k loan to a kid studying Australian Studies at a private no-name college is a good bet or not?

Isn't this essentially what happened with the housing market? We had a policy objective (more people should own homes) that overrode good lending sense and ended up with a bunch of people with bad loans that they couldn't pay back.