Forum Post: Total Debt Forgiveness, for everyone
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 28, 2011, 1:39 a.m. EST by littrellb
(199)
from Hillsboro, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Can anyone tell me why this would be a bad idea. What are some seriously negative consequences if everyone's debt was erased. Sure some companies/banks would be out millions but besides that.
I think it would dramatically boost the economy put hundreds or thousands into nearly every persons hands every month. Start at zero and make some new regulations and start over. Hows it a bad idea?
I am in no way proposing this is the right solution, just a good discussion.
No offense intended but this question reveals how ignorant the general population is about what money is.
Money IS debt.
The banks create money when they loan it to someone to buy a house, a car, or start a business, pay for college, or whatever.
If you forgive everyone of their debt, there would be ZERO dollars in the economy. Of course if that were to happen it would leave room for money that wasn't debt-based, but it would still be disasterous.
Watch the films "Money as Debt" and "Money as Debt II" on YouTube. They are entertaining and informative.
Also watch ' The Money Masters'. It's essential everyone understands that money is being created out of thin air and has to be paid back through your labour with interest. This is the driving force behind the growth economy. The current system is based on pure fraud.
Yes yes YES!!!! The Money Masters is my FAVORITE (they actually oppose returning to a gold standard and cite evidence to support fiat currency... greenbacks). This film is just not as entertaining as the Money as Debt series. The Money as Debt series is easier to digest for the average joe.
The tax from the early overseas colonies has to be paid in GOLD to the Bank Of England, a predecessor of the FED, and just as much state-owned. The Bank of England did not tolerate these succesfull overseas experiments with dollars - and had Great Britain send soldiers to suppress the early greenback dollar.
Yes, it's a thorough piece of work, The Money Masters. it should be made obligatory to see for every aspiring Wall Street Occupier. But the same model applies everywhere I guess...
:)
greetz from Holland
Check out the internet movie named Zietgiest Addendum (not Zietgiest) for a detailed explanation of how the super wealthy fleeces the public around the world.
Agree, and to add, the "money" is not money, as you say, but it is credit. Credit is not money. Therefore, there isn't any money in the economy anyway as it is all credit, for the most part. And the "debt" is actually fake.
creditors would never allow it.
when the dollar collapses (all fiat curriencies through history have eventually collapsed, just a matter of time for the dollar) all debt will be erased.
but not before then.
if you worked hard for years and made lots of money and lent money to your friends and family, how willing would you be to just forgive the debt..??
think about what you are suggesting..
I have for many years. I may well forgive the debt, especially to family and friends because I would reasonably expect that debt to be repaid in some way or another some day. Actually, I'm doing that now. My cousin, who lost his job, is living in an apartment I own in exchange for his labor to rehab the apartment building. He's a good worker and I'm getting a very good deal out of that exchange.
Thank you. And I would consider myself less ignorant now. But the intent was to hear feedback from people who know more about the "system" than I. Having debt forgiven would be great for many individuals who owe lots in student loans or upside-down mortgages, but what would it really do to our nation and economy?
I just told you. There would be zero dollars in the economy.
Haha Yes I know. It was a rhetorical question.
This would be a good thing 'if' society was organized to create abundance.
Look into a resource based economy as an example.
When a product or service is provided in abundance money is unnecessary as a source of exchange for it. e.g. no one pays for air
The difficulty lies in organizing a collaborative society without competition/greed and artificial scarcity driving it (money).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
There's already over productive capacity around the world. The monetary system is corrupt and must be adjusted - either the hard way or the simple and easy way.
this is why everything points back to Industrial hemp . hemp will heal the nation abundantly.
Hemp is a strong alternative.
Bamboo is also a good alternative for building materials and fungi for insulation.
http://www.buildinggreen.com/live/index.cfm/2011/1/6/Greensulate--A-fungusbased-insulation-material-thats-grown-rather-than-manufactured
3d printing and nanotechnology are other alternatives for manufacturing
For energy anti-matter, cold fusion, thorium (cleaner nuclear), wave/tidal/wind, geothermal, and improved solar techniques also exist
Unfortunately, all of these things are extremely regulated.
As far as zero-point energy systems go, if they exist inventors would do well to showcase their ideas within OWS in order to generate heat.
The concept of a Resource Based Economy is nothing more than collectivist utopianism. It cannot work and it is diametrically oppossed to the idea of individual rights.
A resource based economy isn't any more 'utopian' than believing a free market is incorruptible. Even with government intervention it will only lead back to the same problems. Create as many laws, restrictions, regulations as you want but if the incentive to lie, cheat, steal, kill remains (money/debt) people will continue to lie, cheat, steal, kill just as frequently.
Besides, exactly what is your idea of individual rights?
How would a resource based economy interfere with these rights and how would your proposed solution be better?
Money and debt are not the incentive for people to lie, cheat, steal and kill. The incentive to act immorally comes from man's nature. No matter what socio-economic system is in place, there will be those that commit immoral acts.
Individual Rights - start with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
Capitalism relies on the voluntary interaction of parties to participate in commerce. Unlike what most OWS supporters think, it is inherently moral. Creating a Resource Based Economy would require centralized control and forced participation. In other words, it is inherently immoral. Man's nature would inevitably lead to all the abuses you hope to eliminate, and eventually destroy the system.
That's a load dude besides which it's just your minority OPINION!
Babies aren't born with an insatiable desire to kill. It is learned from their environment. You aren't born understanding the language you speak nor the accepted forms of interaction within your culture. It is learned.
Money creates differential advantage by restricting access to goods/services favoring one group over another. This differential advantage must then be enforced which leads to authoritarian control over people.
Money itself requires scarcity and disputes in order to function. If people got along and shared something like a library book money is no longer required. Also if something is in great supply money isn't required. So it is therefore profitable for businesses to find ways of artificially limiting the availability of their product if it is in abundance.
Everyone has their own interpretation of rights/freedoms. Explain what you believe individual rights are.
Yes Capitalism depends on the 'ethical' voluntary interaction of people participating in commerce which is why it will inevitably lead to corruption. Capitalism is built on a foundation of competition because it works through a money. Money = differential advantage and it requires authoritarians to exert force in order to restrict access for those that have money.
Capitalism is by no means incorruptible no matter how many laws, rules, regulations are created. Those with adequate purchasing power will find a way to get around these things because acquisition of money is the name of the game. Aka unrestricted access to goods/services which ironically is what a RBE intends to provide
Accomplish that and the game ends.
You project the belief that man must be controlled in a RBE because you don't understand how the RBE would function nor the steps necessary in order to transition into such a system.
An explanation of a resource based economy: http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy
Industrial hemp was swept under the rug and has the ability to save the planet. but woe it has been cast aside for reasons I cannot fathom. but are the people so brainwashed into discounting this tremendous resource that can make jobs based on non toxic living plants.
"...unrestricted access to goods/services which ironically is what a RBE intends to provide
Accomplish that and the game ends."
Accomplishing that is probably impossible and definitely impossible without centralized control. Right now there a limited number of resources and there probably always will be. For example, there is not enough electricty for 7 billion to use any amount they want. Therefore, more electricty has to be produced. Some authority must decide what resources will be expended to increase electric production. Who will design the new electric plants, who will work at the plant as an engineer and who will clean the bathrooms. Who decides these things? Why would anyone work when everything is free? It's utopian and cannot be implemented. Any attempt to implement it requires a central authority that makes decisions that benefit some at the expense of others. An individual can't decide not to participate. The individual become the slave of the state. This approach has already been tried, it was called the USSR. It failed.
'Declaring the worlds resources as the common heritage of all people' is the only logical way of ending war.
New resources are discovered all the time based on the progress of technology. When fire was discovered wood became fuel. When oil was discovered a new energy source was developed, and the same with nuclear power, wind, solar, etc. Diamonds can be created synthetically and plastics may be developed through plants. Urban farming can reduce the room needed to grow crops. Desalination can convert salt water into fresh water. The list goes on and on.
Resources are dependent upon technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnRyVK7HqJE
So, are you positive that there isn't enough energy? Also, how much energy is needlessly wasted today using inefficient technologies/methods?
As for work: People would volunteer for the same reason people volunteer today. They want to contribute plus when many people aren't forced into occupations for money, they will have plenty of free time to pursue activities they enjoy. Some people like programming, creating new designs, art/media, etc. Just look at all the open-source movements. No one forced them to contribute and the contribution is the reward in itself.
As for other common forms of 'dirty' labor, technology can be implemented to address specific tasks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn-UWQpKcUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQDArhWznjU
Decision Making: Decisions will be made through a process which scientists already use. A technical problem is raised and solved using evidence. Interdisciplinary teams are created to address Technical problems. Do you consider a surgical team dictators or an airline crew? As for subjective desires they are addressed using surveys and voting just as a democracy works today.
However, there is no military. This is why collaboration is so essential. We can not wage war to obtain peace and peace cannot be maintained by utilizing violence.
Those who don't wish to participate can choose not to just as the Quakers choose not to live the traditional lifestyle in the US.
The USSR used money, had banks, and a military. A RBE is an economic system that has none of these things.
Well if we're going to do this, to be fair, I'd like to get back the money for the debts I've already paid off.
Or you could just go take out a loan on something or run run up your credit cards. then itd be fair
OWS needs a clear statement of the problem(s) and the solutions proposed. I believe the main problem is lack of employment. Please see Under-employment at http://www.kwbsolutions.com/TCV/PUE1.htm.
Principles to uphold: 1) Society should not reward irresponsible behavior. 2) Hard work should be rewarded 3) Good moral character should be rewarded 4) The only thing owed to anyone is the opportunity to succeed
You have hit the nail on the head.The whole world is in debt to a privately owned banking system which creates money from thin air and loans it with interest.The debt can never be repaid because the money lenders dont create the interest.Now the private bankers will not erase the debt as this is intentional on their part,you see this is just one big scam which turns the world into debt slaves,ultimatley we are all working for the bankers.The occupy movement claims the 1% are the problem when in fact it is the 0.0000000000001% that are the REAL problem.
OK, let's say I buy a house from you. Then I decide not to pay for it. Then what? Why's it different for anything else?
Its not. But it also isn't that simple. Housing prices inflated, people got mortgages on stated income with no proof. Costs of education rose by hundreds of percent making it nearly impossible to get a degree without borrowing. Nearly all jobs now require college education. Its just a messed up system. Americans have slowly become comfortable with living with increasing levels of debt and eventually it becomes crippling. Banks and institutions get bailed out but its really the people that need it.
I'm a part time 'musician' and while it don't pay much, have made decent money playing in bands over the years, I drive big trucks and run heavy equipment, sell at flea markets/swap meets sometimes, occasionally online (Ebay and the like, some specialized sites, online classifieds, ect...) bang nails on occasion, point being, I've never been to school (other then vo-tech for auto mechanics, and do some of that as well on older cars) and some years have make over 100K. Others half of that for that last 10.
Point being, you don't have to go to school to make decent money. I was always taught if you can't afford to, don't. Other then a house.
I'll likely be taking some courses next year online and at a small community college, I don't need an ivy league degree to do what I want to, not that they'd take a GED anyway, lol. It'll be pay as I go though. I think I'll get a decent education if I shop around some (as I have been doing).
When I had my mortgage they seemed to have checked my income pretty good.
People think they can live like the feds, in big time debt and all will be rosy. It won't.
Like right now I rent, but I'll be buying raw land in a few years when I get the money to pay cash for it, drag on a old doublewide until I can afford to build, again, paying as I go. It'll take a few years but in the end I'll just have to pay taxes, not a loan. I'm in no hurry, it'll happen when it happens.
Seems like most people are in WAY too big a hurry to get into debt. Making a big morgage payment, school loans, one or more car payments, that's insanity. Wait a few years, it'll come to you.
Good advice. I plan on doing much the same, I grew up building homes with my dad. But I wanted to be an engineer and these days you have to go to school for that. I make decent money building fabs for Intel but still pay a butt load in student loans. I will eventually build my own home and try to wrap my student loans into a mortgage. Still debt but more manageable.
One problem with that is much of what we call debt (mortgages, credit card debt and auto loans) has been packaged with other loans, then sliced up into "tranches" each tranche offering differing risk/reward ratios, then sold on Wall Street to pension and hedge funds, and private investors as securities. If you wanted to forgive individual debts first you would have to track down the holder of each security, and compensate them according to the percentage of the security that they hold is forgiven.
If you don't think they should be compensated for the debt forgiveness, in other words, they eat the loss, well that would affect pension and insurance funds, potentially throwing many seniors into poverty.
Why not just tax the rich more instead, it would be a lot simpler
Do they do this kind of thing with student loans?
Yes
I feel like that is wrong.
For every debt someone has a credit.
Some people have gained far more from their debts than others, which leads to inequality in forgiving all debt.
To be more specific to the modern world, I don't think China (who is in line to be the world economic superpower by 2016) would be too enthusiastic about having the monetary system which is about to put them at the top of the world completely wiped clean.
I would accept it if all wealth is distributed evenly at that time,. otherwise what is the point.
a simple answer would be: Small businesses give credit too. All debt forgiveness would bring down all businesses. With no businesses, where are you going to get any food before you learn to hunt for your own?
Isnt it crazy that millions of people would starve if they couldnt go buy food at the store or get a big mac at mcdonalds. What a world we live in.
Also, a debt is a promise to pay for good received at a later date. If the debt is relieved, then the goods are owed to the creditor. In other words you owe them whatever they loaned you the money for in the first place.
Well, the millions of people who work at banks around the world would be out of a job when the doors get chained and the CEO commits suicide.
and that a bad thin how?...... haha kidding
That's a good idea and not new at all. In biblical times they had jubilees where all debts were forgiven because things got so out of balance. Not so unlike these times.
It would devalue our currency and create hyperinflation if you did that. You would need a wheelbarrow of cash to buy a loaf of bread!
I would hope we are smarter today than the Germans back in the 20's
That doesnt sound good. Unless you like bartering.
LOL
Surely you're joking, right?
Im not proposing it seriously. Im just curious what real world consequences would be. I hear a lot of people proposing it in various forms but everyone just talks about how amazing it would be, not what real world consequences. So kind of joking, mostly making real discussion.
Did you just watch fight club? You are NOT Tyler Durden.
No im not. He comes out when I sleep. haha but for real, Im just creating discussion. no need to get angry or condescending. Cuz if i were serious about making this happen, I wouldnt be discussing it on an internet forum, Id be building an army in the basements of bars across america.
ows = Project Mayhem =)
The U.S could not do this unilaterally. All the countries around the world would have to agree to it and they never will. The U.S. government alone owes 15 trillion dollars, much of it to other countries. They want their money and will never agree to let the U.S. not pay. So why discuss it unless you want to discuss what would happen if the U.S. tried to do it unilaterally.
There's that never word again. Why do people keep saying that when they don't even have a concept of what never means?
umm ok. lets do that. funny thing about discussion, its easy to change.
so um....what about me...I am the 99% and I actually worked hard to pay off all of my debt. I paid off 30k in student loans...so where's my handout.
I am only 27 and I come from a poor family...inner city...one parent...no help at all...and I don't ask for handouts...yes there isn't as many jobs, but you have to adapt and become competitive. Just because you have a history degree or an art degree doesn't mean you should bailed out...
worthless degrees don't get you a job...there are plenty of jobs out there for people who think hard enough................
Good for you that you have the determination to make it but you have to know there are a lot of people that don't have that kind of determination and/or don't even have one parent around and so they lose hope and just give up.
Good point of view. I'm an engineer with $130,000 in loans. The only I could afford school. I'm taking responsibility and paying them back. But the point isn't to argue if its fair or not. But What the impact to our society would be.
All your cash would be worthless. No debt, sudden flow of spendable money = rampant inflation. Never mind the fact that credit would never exist in this country ever again.
That's simply not true simply because you use the word never which you can't possibly know besides which never is a very, very long time.
Yeah I'm going to have to go with never. Why else do you think no government has ever done such a thing in all history. They know if they did, credit would cease to exist in their country.
That's why you're a know nothing idiot
No I'm an investor and a business woman. I know what other investors and business people think. And if I had millions of dollars in debt that was due to me out there just wiped clean with out my decree or consent, credit would cease to be available period. Now many generations from now someone would be willing to take that risk, but it wouldn't happen in my or my grand childrens' lifetimes.
not debt forgiveness . we dont need that
The idea of the banks recovering the loss thru selling the property is, at this time, ludicrous
Idea: Banks should be required to ' Suspend' payments and interest accumulation if a person loses their job during an 'economic downturn' until that person finds a comparable paying job or until the national unemployment rate is less than 5%.
this way no one loses. unless there are never any jobs produced in which case everyone loses eventually.
Do you remember the financial crisis in 2007? It was caused when lenders realized that they had lent a bunch of money to a bunch of deadbeats who weren't going to be able to pay it back. A recession, high unemployment, and lots of hardship followed for the 99%.
Now you want to cause another financial crisis intentionally, without realizing that it's the 99% who would be harmed the most.
That's why it's a bad idea.
Not true. The lenders panicked because they thought the borrowers wouldn't be able to pay the loans in the time frame they set,
Neither a lender nor a borrower be.....Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice.
So you're another person who also is in favor of abolishing financing in general? No lending, no borrowing, for anybody. Doesn't that hurt people who don't have money, more than it hurts people with money?
No, I'm not in favor of abolishing financing - just that, generally it's best to avoid it if possible.
Fantastic. I can agree with fiscal responsibility. I now pronounce you a Republican.
Im not saying this is a good solution. Just asking the question. Ive heard a lot of people propose ideas like this but wanted some reasons why it would be bad. Sure id like my student loans forgiven but I believe I am responsible for them and will pay them off.
its just a good discussion i think.
If you had a lot of money, then some people would call you the enemy because you would be in the 1%. But the 1% do influence the 99%, and one of the ways that they do that is by lending their money to people so that people who have less money can buy things like houses and cars, and so that they can start businesses and hire people. The idea of reneging on debts seems attractive because it seems like it would hurt the 1% but not the 99%. But in reality, if somebody borrows money from you and then refuses to pay you, then that won't hurt you very much if you're rich. The person who it will hurt the most will be the next guy in line to borrow money. The rich will be more reluctant to lend money if there is increased risk that borrowers will shirk their obligation to repay the money. Their trust in the 99% will be diminished if the 99% demonstrate that they're liars who will eagerly reneg on their obligations. In concrete terms, that means that interest rates will rise. Money will be harder to borrow. Houses will be harder to buy. Businesses will be harder to start. Unemployment will rise. The 99% will lose, and the 1% will barely be harmed. They'll simply find other ways to invest their money.
Your opinion doesn't reflect reality in the least little bit.
Which part is not true? The part where I'm saying that if you borrow $20 and then refuse to pay me back then I'm not going to loan you money again in the future? Or the part where if there is another financial crisis, it will cause unemployment and hardship for the 99%?
Just what percentage of people do you think do that? Sure, there are people that do that but I would say not many. The scientists call that anecdotal evidence. You observe a few people doing what you say then jump to conclusions and think everybody is doing that.
Are you serious? You think that you can go around conning people out of loans and then stealing their money, TWICE? You can catch a cat in any trap -- once. Not a second time.
That example is a simplification. What actually happens is that interest rates rise as the risk to lenders rises. So a nation of deadbeats like you would make it more difficult for people like me to get loans. Which means that it will be harder to me to finance new ventures and hire new people. Which hurts the 99% a lot more than it hurts any bank. Banks simply adjust their policies to deal with the risk.
Look, Im a lower half of the 99% type of guy, working most of my life in restaurants. I've never owned one, but it's clear to me that my boss's don't just have the money up front to create their restaurant. They write a business plan and get a loan from the bank. They use that money to set up shop, and through vigorous marketing they get people to come into their establishment and have dinner and drinks. In time, maybe over the course of a year or two, they get ahead enough to pay off the loan and start keeping all profit for themselves. But what if they want to expand, what if they want to get a new decor, what if the fridge breaks down and they need a new one asap. Well back to the bank for another loan. If they have good credit and are showing a profit with their business, this second loan should be an easy go. Now if I were a bank, or just a guy with loads of cash, why would I want to lend you money if I wasn't gonna make some money on the deal? Sure you could pay me in steak and whiskey, but cash is preferable. I got my own bills to pay. Further, why give you money interest free so you can open a restaurant, when I can just take that same money and open one myself, making more money for me and none for you. A world without banks would mean that only Applebees and Chili's would have the money to operate restaurants, so goodbye fine dining and hello processed crap. I, a 99%er would be out of business. So their you have it, banks are in business to make money, not to lend money. and if you don't want the rest of your life to be spent in line at McD's, get with the program.
Ok, sure not all banks are bad. And some debt in necessary. But the way this nation is headed, it seems like things are going to come to a breaking point. So many people (not businesses) have unmanageable debt. We as American consumers have made terrible decisions, been greedy and now we are facing the consequences. And there should be consequences but it is destroying our economy. I am not proposing that forgiving all debt is the correct solution, just wanted to know what some people thought about it. And you raised some excellent points. But now I would ask you, what do you think should be done about this mess we're in?
We may be in the early stages of a money less society. Think about it. Right now most money is nothing more than a blip on a computer screen some where. Mostly money is just a convenience. Easier than bartering to keep track of bought and sold goods and services. Money is a means to an end and not an end in itself.
Debt is money owed for something. One party will get something while the other loses the promised money.
Bought a car and only paid down-payment, the car dealership loses the payments because all debt if forgiven, the bank loses the money owed - you get a car. The dealership gets shorted a lot of cash because everyone has no debt. The dealership goes out of business, and all their cars go to a liquidation sale. The dealership fires people, the manufacture will need to fire people, and then we will have less of a need for suppliers of the manufacturers, the bank that financed is out someone elses money it used to invest in the car buyer. This would not be only one car company or one dealership. Industry will suffer. Somone elses savings would be lost because they chose to have their money in a savings account. But good job you get a cheap car.
Well, how about the people who invested in banks, including individual's savings. pension and retirement plans and a lot of people in the 99%?. If you wipe out all debt, the banks lose money, which means all of the people who invest in a bank (or any other company you want to "nationalize") lose money. This isn't just the rich 1%, it is everyone with any savings or investments.
If that many people get wiped out at the same time then everyone is back to square one, right?
No, it means people who worked hard and played by the rules get screwed and those who took risks get a bailout. This is no better than bailing out the banks, both are bad ideas. You also end up with everyone having nothing at square one. Sorry, doubt middle America and most people are going to go with that move to forgive some student debt or underwater mortgages.
Your absolute certainty betrays your insincerity and lack of understanding of anything. Do some meditation and look inside yourself -deeper. That's where you're going to find answers. Its absolute futility to parrot someone else's position or shoot your mouth off with out thinking about what you're writing first.
I am absolutely certain of my position and what I personally believe. I am not jeopardizing what my family and I worked hard for to forgive debts of people who planned poorly. Have huge student loans and graduated with no job prospects? That is hardly my fault or others who work hard and play by the rules. Make bad decisions and find yourself in debt? Look in the mirror and take responsibility instead of blaming others or looking for society.
Oh yeah, I guess you're Mr. perfect - never made a mistake or wrong move in your life but take great pleasure in your self-righteous indignation.
I never implied that; I'm far from perfect and have made huge mistakes. When I was in and just after college, I was the poster child for bad credit. I ran up huge debt on credit cards. I had to work with a credit counseling firm to put a plan together and it took years to pay off. It was hard and it really sucked, but I learned a huge lesson from it - don't buy what you can't pay for or pay back realistically.
People who bought more home than they could afford or who took our huge student loan debt made bets - that home prices would keep appreciating or they would make more money and could afford it or that there would be jobs waiting in their field when they graduated. Some made the wrong bet. It isn't the role of society to fix this. But there are avenues to fix it yourself - credit counseling from a reputable company or if the situation is dire, US Bankruptcy Court - we have laws and a process to pay back or get out from debt if you can't manage it.
So yes, I've lived it and been there. It can be fixed, but it isn't easy.
As President Obama prepares to outline a deficit-reduction plan that includes tax increases, as well as cuts to programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, anthropologist David Graeber proposes a radical solution: cancel the debt of the nation’s poor. Amy Goodman interviews David Graeber on Democracy Now.
Here is an excerpt from the transcript:
AMY GOODMAN: David Graeber, talk about debt cancellation.
DAVID GRAEBER: Well, one of the things that I discovered in researching my book is that the kind of debt crisis we’re experiencing now, being a real debt crisis, which is a debt crisis that affects ordinary people, debts between the very wealthy or between governments can always be renegotiated and always have been throughout world history. They’re not anything set in stone. It’s, generally speaking, when you have debts owed by the poor to the rich that suddenly debts become a sacred obligation, more important than anything else. The idea of renegotiating them becomes unthinkable. In the past, though, there have been mechanisms, when things get to a point of real social crisis, that have always existed. And they vary by the period of history. In the ancient Middle East, often new kings would simply declare a clean slate and cancel all debts, or all consumer debts, commercial debts, between merchants were often left alone. The Jubilee was a way of institutionalizing that. In the Middle Ages, there were bans on interest taking entirely. There have been many mechanisms.
But whenever you have what I call a period of virtual credit money, when money is recognized not to be a thing like gold and silver, but a social relation or promise that people make to each other, which has become increasingly clear since the ’70s, when we went off the gold standard—and I think 2008 really brought that home—debts can be renegotiated. They’re not set in stone. Trillions of dollars of debt was made to disappear. We understand now that this is a political arrangement, and it can always be readjusted. And I think what the people coming to the squares—and Wall Street now included—are saying is that, well, if that’s true, if democracy is going to mean anything now, we’re all going to have to be able to weigh in on what sort of promises are made and what sort of promises are adjusted when you enter into a crisis.
Read more…..
And there’s a new proposal heading to the American Congress that would dramatically trim down many American students’ bills: forgiving all student loans. As reported on Edudemic…
Should All Student Loan Debt Be Erased? 200000 People Think So …
Forgiving the student loan debt of all Americans will have an immediate stimulative effect on our economy. With the stroke of the President’s pen, millions of Americans would suddenly have hundreds, or in some … Hansen Clarke (D-MI), seeking student loan forgiveness as a means of economic stimulus. For over 30 years, the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer, and the middle class is slowly but surely being squeezed out of existence. Instead of more …
Publish Date: 09/16/2011 11:04
http://edudemic.com/2011/09/student-loan-debt-erased/
The petition is at SignOn.org Right now, over 310,000 people are supporting this petition.
Who new it was so easy to avoid responsibility (you know that contract you signed with eyes wide open agreeing to pay the money back)? If this is the new answer, maybe American Express will forgive my bill?
we have bankruptcy courts, not debtors' prisons (any more)
That is my point as well - debt forgiveness sounds great in theory, not a good idea in practice (for people or corporations).
Everyone repeat after me, "Stealing is bad."
Ha true.