This list contains many flaws. The single biggest one being its source. Its conclusion is clearly subjective. Most of the items in your list are meant to scare econonoobs/laymen, just taking a look at the first five points:

#1: Absolute values don't have any meaning by themselves. This number could mean anything.
#2: The repay rate is arbitrary and meaningles, there is no realistic case here, just scary-sounding math.
#3: See #2.
#4: See #1.
#5: See #1.
#6: This one ignores inflation and more importantly, the expansion of the US economy, which is the collateral that this borrowing is based on. This is like saying "my 1980 mortgage was 150,000 and now it's over 500,000". Yeah, the house is different too you know..

These kind of collapse blogs just try to scare the shit out of people using their ignorance to sell them complete crap. Trouble with nerds is that while they are very knowledgeable about computing, they sometimes get convinced that it's the same in other areas as well.

This list contains many flaws. The single biggest one being its source. Its conclusion is clearly subjective. Most of the items in your list are meant to scare econonoobs/laymen, just taking a look at the first five points: #1: Absolute values don't have any meaning by themselves. This number could mean anything. #2: The repay rate is arbitrary and meaningles, there is no realistic case here, just scary-sounding math. #3: See #2. #4: See #1. #5: See #1. #6: This one ignores inflation and more importantly, the expansion of the US economy, which is the collateral that this borrowing is based on. This is like saying "my 1980 mortgage was 150,000 and now it's over 500,000". Yeah, the house is different too you know.. These kind of collapse blogs just try to scare the shit out of people using their ignorance to sell them complete crap. Trouble with nerds is that while they are very knowledgeable about computing, they sometimes get convinced that it's the same in other areas as well.

QE = Quantitative easing, not "qualitative".

Essentially, your reply boils down to this:

I understand your point. But the fashion industry is selling that carefully created style/look/etc. through clothing, fragrances, etc. So your observation (some things are copied more easily then others) still holds, and this fact explains the difference. Easy. (one other thing that follows from the 'sell something by creating a style/look/image' is that one needs protection from somebody copying your stuff and using your marketing expenses to munch of off you. This protection against fake branded clothing/jewelry/fragrances is very real.

Does that look like a car to you?

Ohw come on, if this technology comes through we will get many more miles out of our reserves. So yes, it is the future, although maybe not for very long before something better comes along.

Now hold on...no wait, never mind my work here is done.

I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but what the heck. Future value means that if the book results in a higher education leading to higher income, it's OK to pay a bit more for it. In the end, you want to intervene in a market, and I don't. I'll let this rest now, in the knowledge that arbitrage is legal and we will not have more market intervention in the near future in the Western world.

I see that you have a hard time appreciating the future value of knowledge or information.

If there's one thing a lot of you should learn about economics, it's that an economy is meant to be practiced, not analyzed. Everywhere were there's profit, there will be an explanation thinkable that will blame someone for unethical behavior. If you want to be succesful in a market economy, it's best to just go ahead and exploit opportunities. All this blame (out of jealousy?) will get you nowhere.

I don't know about all of you, but there is just no way I can envision the bottleneck of a proper education for poor people to be a few dollars on a second-hand book. I don't believe for a second that they would buy them, read them and actually be better off in this world as a result of his or her alleged higher education. I live in a country with near-free (as in beer) education all the way from preschool to university, and I don't see everyone going to school here. Your statement implies an assumption that people will educate themselves if society makes it available to them, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It's not like food or cars, you know.