If it is a way to make yourself ‘better’ - why not allow the loans to be used for other types of betterment, like physical and dietary health?

Or, is there a way to make oneself better without relying on tens of thousand of dollars of debt, which cannot even be waived via bankruptcy?

If you take on a loan for college then you better hope you get a job out of it. If you want a degree with no economic prospects then you can just pay for it yourself. Remember college used to be an upper class thing where people chose their education freely precisely because they already had the ability to support themselves.

There is the other factor that a worker without a degree in the USA is partially redundant. A lot of jobs that do not require a degree can and have been moved to other countries. You are free to move there and work at your low skilled job there. There is a lot of demand there but not in the USA. You can chalk this up to an incompetent government or central bank but the reality is that as an individual you have no power over this and therefore an economic degree is your best bet.

The alternative to connecting college with the job market is to introduce a job training program inspired by Germany and let people enter a three year job training program in exchange for lower wages. That ship for this has sailed a long time ago. Now that college has been burned into the minds of everyone it will take decades to reverse the trend even if you start today with full force. Germany still has the lowest youth unemployment rate in the EU and is in the top 4 world wide.

I think the simple answer is to look at how many Euro countries pull off having good universities for low cost... and copy them. No need to reinvent what has already been done. Just need to "port" it to America.

It depends from country to country. Germany pulls it off by tracking most students out of the university path at a young age. Instead, those students are basically forced into vocational schools. The US public would never accept that.

You still need to be upper-middle-class to rich to go to university in Germany. The difference is that you don't have to pay for it.

> low cost

Not low cost. They tax the hell out of their citizens.

You should compare the actual effective taxation rates. For example, high earners in Norway get taxed about ~8% higher than comparable earners in California but that comes with affordable healthcare, education, and government-backed pensions that people can actually survive on.

So they tax 8% higher than USA's highest tax state?

> affordable healthcare, education, and government-backed pensions

Affordable healthcare, education, and pensions are wonderful things and I want them as well. It's immoral to provide them through the federal government though, it should be done privately through the market.

> USA's highest tax state?

That is another myth that is floating around the US. CA actually has progressive tax brackets (i.e. the rate changes quite a bit from bracket to bracket) and only few get into the top state brackets, whereas most of the other states that have income tax, >90% of people are in the top bracket as the top bracket is around $10k (looking at https://tax.idaho.gov/i-1110.cfm).

And if you make more than a million dollars a year? With a potential wealth tax added? Certainly the highest tax state. It gets stupid.

At least in Idaho everyone is treated equally.

Why is it immoral for the government to provide that stuff? What makes private industry better in any way?

When you consider that there is no limit to the size of a company it is pretty obvious why monopolies form. A lot of markets only really need one company that provides a service or product for the entire economy. With healthcare it is extremely obvious that having one provider is beneficial because you want everyone to be on the same health insurance plan. The problems are that monopolies usually abuse their power so you need put it in control of an accountable entity such as the government.

Consider it from a different perspective: CEOs don't become billionaires because they are multiple times more productive or competent than other people but rather because there is no need for a second equally competent CEO. One CEO is enough to serve an entire market and so all the market power concentrates in the hand of the CEO who can then abuse it for his benefit.

> it is pretty obvious why monopolies form

The reason is clear: government regulation. Basically every. single. time. See Milton Friedman on this.

Better by what standard? The current system is definitely better at creating half baked artists.