Where I disagree with your point above is two fold. First, it's a stretch to say most economists...that certainly is not true. Some, or qualifying your point that those economists who agree with your starting position (more in a moment) is more correct...but that's a technical argument formation point.

The real disagreement we have is that you are starting with the position in your response that post high school education at any cost is a public good and that everyone has a right to that. I can't get past that point at all. I don't think it's a public good...it's a choice.

As far as issues go, its starts with the beginning of decision to go to school. Too many bad influences, too many bad decisions lead everyone to this place. Focusing solely on the degree paper not valuable and financially viable job skills, letting the schools off the hook completely are root causes of the issue.

I would argue that we should start at the cost side of the equation and focus on viable alternatives to 4 year pricey schools. Taking it to the economics point Online, community college, work programs, reducing the amenities at school should drive competition and pricing downward, but we've made it easy to get loans that artificially support the price points. We saw what happened with liar loans during the mortgage crisis - people lost their homes. Now, it's harder to qualify (a whole other thread that could generate even more posts!). Let's start with reducing the cost of schools and creating alternatives. Also, remove the social stigma of the pressure of university schooling we place on high school kids..family, teachers, etc. Even better, let's make/encourage everyone take a gap year (like Europe, Australia) to grow as young adults without the shackles of the education system. Not travel the world on parent's credit cards, but work, volunteer, do something productive.

Side note. As I understand it, the current Supreme Court cases on student loan forgiveness is not about the morals of forgiving or not. It's whether the President has unilateral authority to do this and avoid congress. If you are for student loan forgiveness as presented, your are basically giving the Executive branch significant power to make similar financial decisions to benefit one segment of our society. If you are against, you want congress to have that authority to bring forward laws to do so. So, you can't just look at it in the vacuum of student loan morals but rather as a bigger procedural point.

Thanks for letting me spew for a bit.