Thomas Jefferson believed that one generation shouldn’t be able to bind future generations with its debt. He was right. From Charles Hugh Smith at oftwominds.com:
Debt has moral implications, and in denying this, we’re choosing a rendezvous with Nemesis
Let’s start with a household analogy. A married couple have four fine children, and since expenses are higher than income, they borrow money in their children’s names to fund their lifestyle and investments. Once the offspring reach 18 years of age, the debt their parents borrowed is theirs to service.
The offspring didn’t get a say in how much money was borrowed or how it was spent, but the debt is now theirs to service (i.e. pay the interest) for their entire lifetimes, as the debt is simply too large to pay off with conventional wages.
The economy changed, and since wages don’t go as far and costs keep rising, the four offspring borrow in their own children’s names to afford the basics of a middle-class life.
The parents are now comfortably retired, drawing on their investments bought with borrowed money. The two generations behind them are now debt-serfs who funded their own lifestyles by borrowing even more money. Since the kind of house their parents bought for 3-times-income is now 6-times-income, the debt required to own a house and fund what is considered the minimum middle-class entitlements is multiples of their parents’ borrowing.
Is anyone willing to call this offloading of ever-expanding debt onto future generations wrong, as in morally wrong, or have we lost the vocabulary and ability to declare the offloading of debt as morally disgraceful, a line that should never have been crossed?
