The political advantage to making it easier to go into debt than to save (edited) at Mark Horne.

It just struck me that I should add another factor to what I mentioned before.

If people expect the government to somehow produce a growing economy and the economy is failing to grow, debt can be used to mask the failure. Rather than goods and services becoming more affordable, renting money is made (to seem or for awhile) more affordable.

So economic decline is masked by growth in credit cards and “ninety days same as cash” tricks.

Of course, eventually, a much greater decline will become undeniable.

The political advantage to making it easier to go into debt than to save (edited) at Mark Horne.

One more thought on this.

Consider the authority structure of feudalism. The most pressing relationship of political authority was that of serf and landholder. The term “landlord” is a vestige of that kind of authority. The majority of people were serfs because they were tenants.

And now we have left all that behind, right? We own houses. We are propertied freemen.

Or have we just gone back to serfdom?

We don’t think of renting land and homes as common or desirable. But what difference does it make if we are renting all the money we use for our houses and cars and myriads of consumable goods and services?

Powerful combines have convinced us that we should be tenants forever in order to have the life we want. And thus we are continually vulnerable (since debt involves risk that we are told not to take seriously) and continually anxious about the general economy–looking to the government for a safety net since we have no savings to help ourselves or others.

Continuing from here…

I think there is a political motive to promote debt and discourage savings.

I do not believe that this was a conspiracy because I don’t think the state is competent to carry out complicated plans that work. Probably, the initial motive for promoting debt had more to do with simply wanting to promote “industry,” and lobbyists on behalf of those in a position to most benefit from such policy (i.e. Wall Street).

While that plan is obviously self-destructive, once the ruling class pursues such a plan they may have discovered that they gain another advantage.

Consider how easy it is to rule over people who are desperately poor and who feel vulnerable.

Then ask yourself how you might be able to gain such power over middle-class people with a much higher standard of living.

What would make them feel poor and vulnerable?

Encourage them to go into debt as a normal and expected way of life. You would allow credit card companies to develop curricula for state schools (and to push into private and homeschooling). You would promote and underwrite loans so that it was easier for businesses and families to get stuck in a cycle of debt.

And so, when the economy tanks (as you have ensured it will) no one will have any safety net. Everyone will want to the government to “do something” so that Johnny can pay off his thousands in student loans by getting a job in a new bubble economy or Mr. and Mrs. Smith can stay in their house despite owing more than its value in an “home equity” loan.

In the midst of plenty you will have a population begging for a savior.