Subject:
|
Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:22:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
288 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > What would happen if all debts public and private were just plain
> > cancelled as of, say, 1/1/2002?
>
> I'd quit my job.
And I'd HAVE to go back to work. :-(
> > In all seriousness, what would be the effects?
>
> Many wealthy people would lose their perpetual income streams. Many lower
> middle class people would lose their perpetual debt streams.
I pretty much agree, although there is a danger of stereotyping-- many people
who are not rich but have been playing by the rules for several years would be
hurt. And if you suddenly change the rules you can bet there'd be an uproar.
The ensuing economic instability might put us on par with those South American
countries that experienced coups monthly (I don't know if this is occurring
lately, I haven't been following the news on it).
Plus, if you (not you specifically Chris, but in general) think it would be to
your benefit as someone who has with major student loans, for instance, to wipe
out those debts, you will be stuck living in a society full of people who are
starting to get on and find they have suddenly lost whatever provisions they
may have made for retirement. How will you deal with the sudden presence of a
large class of newly indigent (and indignant) people?
> I'd like to change your scenario a little. What would happen if the place
> where everyone lived instantly became their property (or at least rightfully
> theirs to inhabit) with no debt on it? And further, debt could not lien on
> that property.
This would still cause an uproar from those who invested their money to
provide rental units for those who couldn't afford their own homes to live in,
only to have them taken away. Again it would be patently unfair to change the
rules. Moreover, there would be no economic incentive to build new housing
units, so there will be no housing for growing populations.
> From the idealistic social viewpoint, I don't mind people being in debt for
> their BMWs and toasters and European vacations nearly so much as for their
> houses and educations. But maybe I'm just revealing where 90% of my debt • lies.
> :-)
That's okay, I think it's hard to argue this one without revealing where your
interests lie! Although I'm not a landlord I lived in a relative slum for years
(and endured sometimes rude and hurtful comments from inlaws regarding our
living quarters) while we built a house that no one would lend us money to
build because we did it ourselves without a contractor, and it took me ten
years to pay off my student loans. And I drive an 85 Volvo with 293,000 miles
on it-- you can bet if the rules were changed I'd be ticked that I hadn't been
living in a nicer place before and driving a brand new car on time-- maybe a
Jaguar with those retro headlights and a vanity plate which reads "MAGS JAG".
:-)
Maggie C.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
| (...) If the rules are currently patently unfair, is it not patently unfair to leave them as is? (...) That's silly. People will do whatever kind of work is needed as determined by the market. If housing is needed the market will provide it. I would (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
| (...) I'd quit my job. (...) Many wealthy people would lose their perpetual income streams. Many lower middle class people would lose their perpetual debt streams. I'd like to change your scenario a little. What would happen if the place where (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
