Great article! I am especially thankful for the three-tiered “action” plans. It doesn’t necessarily apply to me, however, because the only debt I hold is education-related, and the Obama administration has recently transferred ownership of that debt from the private sector (Citibank) to the American people. While this is by no means ideal (what the hell am I doing paying for education anyway!!), but it does come as a minor benefit for me because it will ensure (I’ve been told) a lower, fixed interest rate and the promise of total debt forgiveness once I fulfill my time obligations as a working school teacher. But I digress into personal nonsense…

In any case, I really appreciate this post. I agree with most everything that has been written… with one minor caveat. You said:

“And purchases by consumers depend on the confidence of those consumers, so that consumer confidence underlies commercial success. If a potential consumer has no confidence in his ability to purchase an item, then he won’t. If enough potential consumers lose confidence in their abilities to purchase and pay for any particular item, the sales of that item will plummet, causing the manufacturer and sellers of that item to fail.”

Much of this is seems to be premised on the idea that “consumers” are necessarily logical. I just finished a book from pioneering behavioral economist Dr. Daniel Ariely called “Predictably Irrational” that documents a variety of ways in which humans beings do NOT make consistently sound economic decisions. While I’m certainly no expert, the data suggests that individuals will often buy shit whether they have confidence in it or not, especially Americans, who have elevated the act of “consuming” to a religious arts practice.

With this in mind, I am a big, big advocate for some of the tactics you proposed in the “low risk” category — essentially, you’re talking about “culture jamming.” With perception supplanting reality and the overall belittlement of rational thought, it seems prudent to, as it were, fight fire with fire. These “low risk” approaches may actually yield a greater results.

I was wondering what your thoughts might be on this? Do the aforementioned risk categories also reflect a hierarchy of potential impact?

Thanks for the post. Good work!

For whom is debt a burden?

Famous people are notorious for having huge amounts of debt that they never repay. Among them, Thomas Jefferson.

Notably, recently, Michael Jackson died with $400m of debt.

But, I think, the title of King of Debtors has to go to Donald Trump.

Here’s an article about “The Donald,” however, that will shed some light on how he manages to stay afloat, despite constantly loosing millions of dollars and declaring bankruptcy:
http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-headlines/celebrity-lawsuits/how-does-trump-repeatedly-file

The system is more complicated than simple savings/debt or cost/profit ratios. Since the US left the Gold Standard in 1971, “money” has been only a numbers game. Numbers for numbers. There is nothing physically real backing any of it up (at the macro-level).

At the micro-level, you are correct. Banks will foreclose on your house and take it from you if you default on your mortgage.

But I think what this points to is the need for a new understanding of money and how it works, within the general populace. Kids in school are still taught simple profit/loss ratios as “economics.”

Thank you very much for this. I personally would like to see more writing along these lines. The links were very useful too.

– Chad

Frank Mezek

We must find ways to face our problems and look them squarely in the eye. Mortgage lending exists, so we must confront it.

In my observation of the last two blog postings, there is something that disheartens me. My reaction to the previous posting was that (1) I would not be interested in the book and (2) that it was sort of old-hat/irrelevant. Who even wants to read such a negative review of a poor offering by some author that I never heard of?

Then there was this posting, which is a serious statement, and one that helped me to connect some dots. Even if I am not going to default on a mortgage, I have been avoiding endeavors that cause me to pay tribute to the empire for awhile now. (Not evading taxes mind you, but evading ‘work/war’ and so forth, as a peace activist.)

My point is that we as your audience are letting you down. If you speak much about ~ little, you have the most popular posting (rated by the number of comments and my judgment). But if you rock the foundation of our society with a righteous commentary, then nobody says anything much ABOUT it. (I do not mean to call the previous commentors nobody, or the previous posting worthless.) But, we could not really ask for more than this from a single posting. The question is what are we going to do about what is (more or less) the truth?

I hope to work for a better future through non-violence. Thanks for fuel. I still think ‘Sometimes A Great Notion’ is the best book about the absurd apocalypse that is the American way of life. Even after the fistfight, we are going to have to get back to work chopping trees down and burning stuff. After all, there is not one of us who will volunteer to be, well, voted off this wee little island. I don’t know about you, but I am determined to win the cakewalk even after the music stops.

I must agree, Stan, there’s deeper war on the horizon (do we really think Venezuela will be allowed to sell oil to China over the US? What fallout comes of a US default? Will the US allow the arctic to fall to Russian control? Whither Pakistan? And, if the Pentagon wants to spend it’s ageing inventory in order to have taxpayers produce a new, shiny set, suitable to a world entering a period of climate change; what better way than to tackle Iran?)
There will be opportunities to fall between the cracks then, for those of us who aren’t rounded up by the Teabagging minions of President Mrs. Todd Palin and burned at the stake.

The whole system is corrupt at its very core and many, many people will be tragically hurt when all is said and done. The collapse is in its infancy still…

Step two is to realize that any time you read only about how much things cost you’re getting scammed because if something costs somebody something it’s got to pay something to somebody else. Can’t have one without the other.

As it is, the American Mind Space has two sets of ordinary working people: those who work to be paid, and want the highest wages for the least amount of work, and those who want to buy the best quality goods for the least amount of money. The trouble is, they’re the same people.

IMO, the people you’re claiming to be “corrupt” or “criminal” are those who take advantage of this impossible fantasy. If you don’t want to be taken advantage of, best to understand how things actually work.

I’m not talking theory here, I’m talking actual life experience. But just because I got over my head in debt, it didn’t seem useful to forgo borrowing money when it was to my advantage.

If the system is working just as intended — and it is, which does not negate the corruption or the crimes — don’t you think that’s a problem? If not, what’s your definition of moral symmetry?