Here are
three common objections to the idea of debt forgiveness, and responses to these
objections.
Objection
One: "I am
against forgiving debts, because I should not have to pay for it!"
This is a
common response that shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. You
are already paying for people's debts.
The number
one cause of inflation is money lending. This money is printed (typed), lent
out, and then spent in the economy. This drives up the cost of anything that
can be bought, or is usually bought by debt. This includes houses, cars,
vacations, phones, etc, etc.
Because debt
is so easy to create, this constant stream of money is inflating the cost of
everything. So, you are paying, through the nose, already.
The next
number one cause of inflation is government stimulus. This is also created more
by money printing than by our taxes, because it is often borrowed from foreign
banks. This also drives up the cost of everything. The LNP created the worst
inflation cycle in decades by pouring 320 billion dollars onto the economy
during the cough. Labor doubled down on the crisis with record immigration,
which is a close third for the next highest cause of inflation.
The only way
to stop you from having to keep paying for people's debts is to lobby for debt
cancellation, so that we can restrain the money lenders. This is the only way.
People are not going to get more responsible. Just because you can buy a
$15,000 Mahindra with low k's as a work Ute or recreational 4wd that is
reliable, and about 1/5 the price of a Toyota Landcruiser or Ford Ranger of the
same age and k's does not mean most young Aussie guys want to be seen dead in
one. Just because you can buy all your clothes second hand does not mean many
credit card swiping happy young women want to do so (I know there are
exceptions in both these groups).
The only way
for us to all stop paying for people's debts, through non-stop inflation and
devaluation of our currency, is to cancel debts and in doing so restrain the
money lenders. I am sick and tired of paying through the nose for stuff,
because most people are happy to run their debt to the max. Are you tired of
this? Lobby and vote for politicians who will cancel debts.
Objection
Two: "I Am
against debt forgiveness because people should be responsible."
This is the objection I understand the most, but it is also the funniest of them all. For one, you think people are going to suddenly become more responsible? Don't make laugh.
The money
lenders, usurers, bankers have no incentive to be responsible. The more people
borrow, the more they make. Oh, they talk about responsible banking. But to
them that simply means you have proven they can squeeze you for what they lent
you plus interest compounded over 10, 20, 30 years. If they can get government
to institute intergenerational loans, they will, and they are coming, you can
be sure of that. Their incentive is to make debt everybody’s problem.
Expecting the
average person to be more responsible is a complete rejection of a biblical
understanding of humanity. We all like sheep have gone astray, each one his own
way. Irresponsibility to varying degrees is baked into humanity. Bankers make
light work of fallen, greedy, covetous, envious, slothful, sinners. It's
literally like putting lambs among the wolves.
People need to live within boundaries. Bankers need limits on their lending. To know that all the money they have lent will be forgiven at a certain date limits them. It restrains them. Covetous, envious, and greedy people need to be protected from their own nature, by having caged in banks that are afraid to lend too much, so that the people are protected. Usurers are dangerous, money lending though has its place, so we must cage it within tight limits.
This is why
many Christian kingdoms, including Byzantium, but also many others, instituted
regular debt forgiveness in times past. These Christian societies understood
the nature of the usurer and the borrower, and that there was only one way that
restrained them both. And wishing for both to be more responsible, like modern
conservatives do, was not that option. Debt forgiveness was.
Byzantium
began to fall after it stopped forgiving debts. So did many other societies.
Why would we let the ancient Sumerians, Akkadians, Spartans and others prove
wiser than us on this issue?
Why were landlords and money lenders the bad guys in so many of Charles Dicken's stories? The greatest English novelist, a genuine Christian, obviously knew something we are learning the hard way again, that usurers and landlords are a problem if they get out of control.
We are irresponsible, having to learn old lessons again and again. Aren't we?
Objection
Three: "I am
against debt forgiveness simply on practical terms. It is a nice idea, but I
don't see how it is possible, let's talk about realistic policies."
Albanese has
promised to wipe 20% of student debt.
Clive Palmer
has promised to wipe all student debt and make university free (as long as
University is then subjected to an IQ test for entry, this is the right idea).
We have gone from debt forgiveness being something mainstream parties would not even discuss at all, to now being offered it by two prominent public figures and political parties, even though in limited ways.This will grow from here.
Politicians dealing with societal debt is going to be one of the most important issues in coming years. If only we had some kind well respected book, that suggested how we should do this? Hmmmm.....?
Those who
believe change can happen are those who are most likely to make changes happen.
I will continue to address debt forgiveness from time to time here, because this is something our western societies need to take on board, or risk our way of life collapsing under the weight of increasing debt. We need to make sure that we are like the father in the parable of the prodigal son, who received his wayward son back in his arms and not like the older brother who resented the one who had squandered what he had been given being so easily forgiven.
No comments:
Post a Comment