While everything that you've said is true from one point of view, it's also equally true that interest without risk is nothing but rent-seeking. There's zero justification under your argument to allow student loans to not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. Obligation for the borrower to pay back the loan with interest and risk that the lender doesn't get their money back are twin concepts. A bank that loans money to a startup restaurant that ends up going under doesn't get their money back, and education is an investment in future earnings. It makes total sense that a failed investment, aka a college grad/dropout working at Starbucks, wouldn't fully pay back that loan, as they failed to gain increased income from it. That's not an argument for borrowers being lazy, but you can't have it both ways. Lenders need to be taking steps to ensure their money results in an actual return rather than just tossing out loans like candy because they know for a fact there's no risk in order for the argument of "You took a loan, you need to pay it back" to hold up.

How do you square your zero-forgiveness-for-students argument with the reality of business loans for new startup companies going back unpaid all the time when the startup fails?

While everything that you've said is true from one point of view, it's also equally true that interest without risk is nothing but rent-seeking. There's zero justification under your argument to allow student loans to not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. Obligation for the borrower to pay back the loan with interest and risk that the lender doesn't get their money back are twin concepts. A bank that loans money to a startup restaurant that ends up going under doesn't get their money back, and education is an investment in future earnings. It makes total sense that a failed investment, aka a college grad/dropout working at Starbucks, wouldn't fully pay back that loan, as they failed to gain increased income from it. That's not an argument for borrowers being lazy, but you can't have it both ways. Lenders need to be taking steps to ensure their money results in an actual return rather than just tossing out loans like candy because they know for a fact there's no risk in order for the argument of "You took a loan, you need to pay it back" to hold up. How do you square your zero-forgiveness-for-students argument with the reality of business loans for new startup companies going back unpaid all the time when the startup fails?

While everything that you've said is true from one point of view, it's also equally true that interest without risk is nothing but rent-seeking. There's zero justification under your argument to allow student loans to not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. Obligation for the borrower to pay back the loan with interest and risk that the lender doesn't get their money back are twin concepts. A bank that loans money to a startup restaurant that ends up going under doesn't get their money back, and education is an investment in future earnings. It makes total sense that a failed investment, aka a college grad working at Starbucks, wouldn't fully pay back that loan, as they failed to gain increased income from it. That's not an argument for borrowers being lazy, but you can't have it both ways. Lenders need to be taking steps to ensure their money results in an actual return rather than just tossing out loans like candy because they know for a fact there's no risk in order for the argument of "You took a loan, you need to pay it back" to hold up.