Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

StuffinYrMuffinR t1_janvdyy wrote

Bitches be gambling on court rulings? I love the US

78

Linearts t1_jaq3rr5 wrote

Prediction markets are mostly nonexistent in the US, due to regulatory capture of the CFTC. They shut down most markets in exchange for bribes.

4

KingfisherDays t1_jan509f wrote

>Justice Prelogar

Hmm, going to take a pass on this particular site

48

liortulip OP t1_jan5c1r wrote

Oh yeah, I apologize for that typo.

6

KingfisherDays t1_jan5k49 wrote

It happens, sorry if I sounded harsh there

1

liortulip OP t1_jan5xfp wrote

No worries - thanks for pointing out the error! Made some changes before posting and I think the pattern from the first two quotes got into my head :/

I added an edit to my OP correcting the mistake.

3

NoBSforGma t1_jan0ni0 wrote

If this happens, I'm guessing the Biden Administration will find another way to find debt relief for students. It could be just a procedural matter that needs to be done differently.

17

marx_marvelous__ t1_jan6z18 wrote

Or they will consider it a political win for trying and say you’ve had 3.5 years of 0% interest and deferred payments; time to start paying it back.

30

RickMoranisFanPage t1_jao8i35 wrote

The smart political move would be to keep them paused in the event of an adverse ruling by SCOTUS and tell Congress to address the issue. From my understanding the Supreme Court is only ruling on the cancellation of student loans not the pause in payments.

The big lenders probably have a bunch of sway in the WH so your scenario is infinitely more likely.

12

eldiablonoche t1_jaox4wv wrote

I imagine the lenders would sue the government if Biden tried to "indefinitely suspend repayments". When it is a temporary measure, the vultures lick their lips knowing things always go their way eventually. If it were effectively permanent, they'd riot. But knowing that both parties are bought and paid for it won't go that far.

2

jrm19941994 t1_jap1168 wrote

They would have no reason to sue, payments can only be suspended for federal loans.

5

RickMoranisFanPage t1_jap2pvb wrote

Aren’t they serviced by a publicly traded company? I imagine investors there aren’t too happy, but I don’t know the financial situation there.

1

bundleofstix t1_jap4co8 wrote

They're federal contractors, they work for the government. If they piss off the government they can just be fired.

6

RickMoranisFanPage t1_jap7lox wrote

They’d likely lose in court since it is specifically a power delegated to the Secretary of Education by an act of Congress.

It’d put pressure on the Republican candidate. Are they going to campaign on resuming payments on 40 million people?

2

Semanticss t1_japy7iy wrote

Doesn't both the suspension of payments and the forgiveness apply to only federal loans?

1

eldiablonoche t1_jasugq6 wrote

Apparently so. Someone corrected me on a separate comment but I didn't think to self-correct or amend my comment. Thanks for calling out my inaccuracy.

1

[deleted] t1_jaqxwyu wrote

[deleted]

1

RickMoranisFanPage t1_jar4nka wrote

I think it just has to stem from an emergency, not during a declared emergency. Even so, this is a power Congress delegated to the executive branch.

1

JigglyWiener t1_jan94qn wrote

Yeah, doesn't make up for the initially huge unemployment, now high inflation, and the childcare disaster that weirdly gets so little attention given the scope of the problem. Careers and lives were on hold or set back for 3.5 years.

The administration is redefining the AGI calculation used to calculate income driven repayment plans and on top of that a new plan that reduces % of the new AGI is coming out. I figure it'll cost me about the same as my car payment instead of double my car payment based on the last numbers I saw. That's their backup plan.

6

DoeCommaJohn t1_janc56w wrote

Politically, this seems like the best case scenario. Biden gets all the brownie points from trying to relieve student debt, the conservatives get blamed for stopping it, everybody gets reminded that the court is political, and there is no risk of economic impacts from spending 2 trillion dollars

1

MorelikeBestvirginia t1_jasct5b wrote

To be clear, it's not spending money. It's just deciding not to collect it. That's very different.

1

DoeCommaJohn t1_jase5qf wrote

How is giving a trillion dollars different from not receiving a trillion dollars? /gen

1

thisrockismyboone t1_japazl0 wrote

Nah. Lots of people will remember it as he didn't follow through on his promise and the Republicans will push the narrative down our throats the next 8 years.

1

whiskeyriver0987 t1_jan7wwd wrote

If it gets blocked, the reasoning will likely include that something of this magnitude will have to be approved by congress, which would prevent basically anything Biden/executive branch can do unilaterally. It's also going to turn this into an election issue for the next election and considering it massively affects around 40 million people from across the political spectrum, which doesn't bode well for republican party that is increasingly catering to their most extreme members and alienating the moderates and centrists they NEED to win even moderately contested races.

12

liortulip OP t1_jan0rf6 wrote

Oh that's really interesting - do you know what other mechanisms are at the administration's disposal?

3

dravenonred t1_jan42ga wrote

Probably making it a central campaign issue and driving youth turnout to return Biden to the White House and Congress to the Democrats.

"We did it, they stopped it"

8

Howamidriving27 t1_jan87zr wrote

That's all it's ever been anyway. Biden was instrumental in making student loans unforgivable through bankruptcy, drug his feet on the issue, and finally proposed what most progressives would consider to be woefully inadequate forgiveness.

Honestly I bet Joe and old guard Dems are probably jumping for joy because they still have political level to pull in 2024.

4

NoBSforGma t1_jan1t2q wrote

No, I don't. I've just seen this happen in other court cases that were decided based on some kind of procedural problem.

Like...."OK, if you don't like us doing it THIS way, we will do it THAT way."

It may turn out that if the Court blocks the current student debt relief, it will say........ "... because something something something" and the Biden Administration can overcome that objection just by doing it a different way.

2

DoeCommaJohn t1_jancu5d wrote

In theory, they could change some wording so that the debt doesn’t actually go away, but can’t be collected, so it technically isn’t debt relief, but that isn’t likely to work

Realistically, the only way this will happen is if dems get another trifecta, and with Manchin, they would probably need 51 senators. The court will say that only congress has the power to forgive debts of this magnitude and Republicans will never in a million years support this

1

eldiablonoche t1_jaoxf19 wrote

>In theory, they could change some wording so that the debt doesn’t actually go away, but can’t be collected, so it technically isn’t debt relief.

Which would result in a metric F-ton of lawsuits on top of the political pressure on top of the lobbying on top of etc. etc. etc.

2

Jexp_t t1_jb4vkyb wrote

There’s direct textual authority from Congress in the statute permitting the president to do this, so if the court decides, on its own to violate the law, there will need to be more drastic measures than just a redo.

1

NoBSforGma t1_jb4vqbn wrote

Thanks for that information! You obviously know a LOT more about it than I do!

Here's hoping for the correct outcome.

1

liortulip OP t1_jamy3hj wrote

Good morning everyone. The visualization above shows market odds from Kalshi (a prediction market) on possible outcomes for the ongoing supreme court case Biden v. Nebraska. SCOTUS is currently deciding whether or not to permit Biden’s student debt relief, which has been contested by several states.

The probabilities shown reflect the odds at which market participants are currently willing to enter a trade. For example, if the visualization shows that a particular outcome has 80%, it means that there are some traders willing to take 1:5 odds ($0.20 reward per $0.80 invested) that outcome will happen, and that there are are other traders willing to take 5:1 odds that the outcome will not happen (there’s no “house” in these prediction markets - they function like an exchange where participants match with each other). As these markets are public, the theory of the “wisdom of the crowds” is that more accurate predictors will be more confident and thus move the price towards the true probability.

I’d love to hear what you all think, and your feedback on the illustration. Also, I wanted to give enormous credit to my friend Osub - he’s the designer who made this.–Disclaimer: I am a prediction markets enthusiast and an engineer who works at Kalshi on these forecasts. If you have any technical questions about how these figures were computed, please feel free to ask.

Data

Kalshi markets' price history, accessible through their api

Washington Post

Tools

Figma, copy.ai

Edit: Apologies for the typo, Prelogar is not a supreme court justice - she is the Solicitor General.

14

farquadsleftsandal t1_jan2m2y wrote

Hey OP, have you used Kalshi to trade contracts before?

I find this interesting and was thinking about trying it

1

liortulip OP t1_jan2uu7 wrote

Haha I'm kind of biased here because I'm a software engineer at Kalshi :) Don't want to plug haha, but if you have any questions about it just LMK!

5

Linearts t1_jaq3w4r wrote

I haven't used Kalshi specifically, but I used PredictIt (a similar, competing website) during the 2020 election and made $200 off overconfident Trump supporters who kept buying his shares even when Biden was leading the polls by large margins.

0

Eascen t1_jan75wo wrote

This is speculation, not data and doesn't belong here IMO.

−5

thatthatguy t1_jankfis wrote

Data regarding people’s perceptions is data none the less. OP even gave us a good explanation of what the data means, which I appreciate.

27

liortulip OP t1_jan99ov wrote

Hey u/Eascen, yeah you're totally right, this is data from speculation - I thought it was beautiful but of course that's subjective. I'm always fascinated by this stuff because I think it's interesting that non-experts can collectively produce more accurate predictions than any one individual, and just how that pattern seems to hold across a wide range of fields. Has some philosophical implications :)

14

Monster-Zero t1_jan0oly wrote

I am excited to not pay my student loans back, regardless of what SCOTUS votes

13

Obvious_Chapter2082 t1_jan54on wrote

Have fun with your garnished wages

16

fuhgdat1019 t1_jan82df wrote

Good. Make them go get it. I’ve had my wages garnished before for a few unpaid tickets. I have excellent credit, it had zero impact and all they got was the couple hundred dollars owed.

You want it? Come get it.

−12

Obvious_Chapter2082 t1_jan8lzm wrote

They will. There’s really no difference in voluntarily paying the loans and letting them deduct it for you. I’m not sure why people are so opposed to paying it

4

fuhgdat1019 t1_jan8zo4 wrote

Because it’s extra work for them. Fuck em.

−14

Obvious_Chapter2082 t1_janep52 wrote

The longer you wait, the more interest is gonna accrue though

6

I_Own_A_Bidet t1_jaojpkj wrote

A bunch of rich old fucks who never had to pay student loans are against hem debt relief? I’m shocked.

Supreme Court if your reading this, eat my ass

−6

liortulip OP t1_jan0weq wrote

Haha :) Depending on where you live, you might be saved by a partial injunction (just affecting a few states). Hopefully you're not in Nebraska? :)

1

joeschmoe86 t1_jaq5ijd wrote

Not sure how much stock I put in a site that's analyzing the arguments of "Justice Prelogar."

6

liortulip OP t1_jaq5nld wrote

Yeah that was a typo :) But thankfully these probabilities are not estimated we came up with, they're the consensus of our traders, who are much smarter.

−1

joeschmoe86 t1_jar9hwc wrote

Why would anyone care what your traders think without any information about who they are, their qualifications, their methods, etc.?

4

Stlouisken t1_japl6z0 wrote

Fucking bullshit SCOTUS!

I have three degrees and paid my loans back but have no issue forgiving loans for millions of others. I think it would eventually help stimulate the economy and help millions of Americans out.

3

[deleted] t1_jara5t2 wrote

I’ll use it if it goes through, but it’s really a bad plan… we will be in the same exact place within 4 years.

1

Greendragons38 t1_jaoceke wrote

As per her royal highness, Nancy Pelosi; only Congress has the right to forgive debt.

2

TurkeyLuver t1_jap2f0e wrote

In this case she’s correct.

7

Jexp_t t1_jb4wsre wrote

No it’s not. The authority was already passed by Congress.

Also, in case the poser above was unaware, Pelosi is no longer a congressional leader.

1

TurkeyLuver t1_jb540oh wrote

Yes she was correct. That’s why it’s before the SC now and why it will be struck down. This clearly in excess of the reasons the original law was passed.

1

vig16 t1_jargq82 wrote

You took out the loan. Pay it back yourself 😊

2

ILearnedSoMuchToday t1_jarpgwo wrote

Why didnt you tell that to all the businesses that got bailed out or helped?

1

vig16 t1_jart1io wrote

Who said I was for the company bailouts?

1

ILearnedSoMuchToday t1_jarv91h wrote

I didn't. Why aren't you fighting that? Also what is going to change if you will still pay the same tax next year? Is it actually hurting you?

1

[deleted] t1_jaoplvk wrote

[deleted]

0

TheVastBeyond t1_jaoqz0a wrote

that first part is unnecessary and ableist. being autistic is NOT derogatory and shouldn’t be used as such. -person with autism

−1

themarxist2000 t1_jaou4hg wrote

I agree with you that the dude shouldn't have said what he said but to be clear retardation and autism are not the same thing... like at all.

0

Petal_Chatoyance t1_japq8rm wrote

Republicans have a message to the educated people of today, struggling to make a life in America, and that message is SCREW YOU, HA HA HA, WE GOT OURS, JACK! AH-HAH-HAH-HAHHH!!!

0

Pristine_Tension8399 t1_jar14br wrote

I feel that canceling student loans is not a good play. What happens to kids going to school next year? School isn’t getting cheaper so what happens with their loans? The debt just gets propagated to the next generation. I think making all loans being paid in full at 0% interest is the way to go. This will provide a way forward for future generations and help those currently struggling with their loans. It will put an end to the debt cycle for those people that have paid more than they borrowed but haven’t made a dent on their loans due to interest. This will be unpopular for the far left and the far right, so it’s a reasonable compromise that would most likely pass.

0

ILearnedSoMuchToday t1_jaruv3t wrote

I can agree with that. In the past 10 years, there have been numerous companies that were made to scam people out of their payments, acting as a middle man and never paying the balance. It was corrected but people didn't get their money back and the interest was still climbing for them. Those people are super SOL. At least taking the interest rate out and taking away the interest accrued would provide SO MUCH HELP to those people and others.

1

[deleted] t1_janz82e wrote

[removed]

−4

ILearnedSoMuchToday t1_jartkle wrote

Why is this guy getting down voted. Tuition and cost of living have both gone up every year. Rent went up and loans will still be there regardless of if you have to stop your job for 6 months because of the pandemic.

If anyone is mad for paying for others to live with less stress, there were WAY less people impacted and more money distributed for corporate bailouts and tax exemptions in State and Federal in the past 10 years.

1