Bernie Sanders, ran unsuccessfully to be the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in both the 2016 and 2020 U.S. nomination process. He was not exactly proposing the elimination of student debt although his fan base was excited by this aspect of his proposed reforms should he have won the nomination and then the presidency.
In the U.S. the amount owed in student loans is $1.59 trillion and there are a whopping 45 million borrowers grappling with student loan debts. Bernie was not planning to write off this debt and incense the bankers, a cartel not known to be the forgiving type. Rather, he intended to tax the rest of the nation to pay that amount to the banks, and thus 'eliminate' student debt.
The banks can never feel pain; only the individual tax payer would carry the weight of that distributed debt. The rest of us would be forced deeper into debt with an even more shrunken capacity to meet the cost of living. As the old adage goes: "One cannot make a sufficiency of an insufficiency by distributing the insufficiency".
The problem is evidently understood by only a few, including conservatives. The problem is that the price-system in the current economy is not self liquidating. It generates an increasing flood of costs while distributing a smaller flow of consumer income, particularly in an economy in which labour is rapidly being replaced by technology. The banks charge to the "rescue" by issuing credit, really debt, since all money in circulation is created as a loan/debt. Thus by the largess of the bank we can live by a mortgage against the future.
But wait. Purchasing power belongs to the nation and its population as Real Credit and is the correct basis for money. The banks however have appropriated Financial Credit, which is rightly a reflection of the nation's Real Credit. They take this stolen property and loan it out. The gall. The banks assert a right to foreclose on the real wealth of a borrower who defaults on a loan! Pure and simple, this is theft.
People of good will should note that it is not interest payments, per se, that are problematic in the accumulation of debt, although interest payments make debts ultimately unpayable. It is true that banks create the principal amount but do not create the interest that is due on a loan.
The heart of the problem is the debt itself. Why is additional purchasing power available as a function of the private banking system rather than as a function of society? Why do we allow a debt based money system where all the benefits accrue to private interests? Here is the core problem.
Not everyone can conceive of a distributive economy, wherein a nation issues purchasing power in the form of credit to its citizens. In Social Credit we have the Social Dividend which would do just that. Some, like Bernie, can only conceive of a re-distributive economy. In fact the collective financial debt held by individuals, companies and governments represents purchasing power which should have been issued by a National Credit Authority, an arm of the national government, as a form of credit.
Under Social Credit, the production/consumption cycle would be self liquidating and complete. There would be no residual financial debt bearing down onto future generations.
We have been duped and are the victims of a type of Voodoo Economics.