Interesting stuff... thanks!

Great post.

Man, I so wish something like this would happen.

If the health of an economy is measured by the velocity of its currency, then $6k in everyone's pocket would surely get the economy moving again, and lift (at least) part of a debt burden for so many.

If the gummint is essentially printing money for the bond traders --which will cause inflation for the rest of us eventually-- why not print money for us so we can get ahead of the curve?

The republicans would shit their pants if anything like this were proposed.

Interesting.

Good Morning Charles,
Indeed, those are interesting observations. I recently read an article that said money or currency as we know it is an abstraction. These missives support that conclusion.

Debt forgiveness? Tough call. I don't believe it would happen at all for the very reasons the Economist points out. And, I am even more dubious that it would work at a private or individual level. Bill Gates loaning $1500 to a family member or friend and forgiving that debt is very different from perhaps, you or I loaning that same amount. You or I might not be able to afford that debt forgiveness. Consider this. On US paper currency (dollar) it reads "This note is legal tender for all debts public & private". That's an extraordinary statement. If one believes in debt forgiveness, one believes in debt forgiveness all around. Not all would ever believe that and there are still plenty of selfish people in the world that believe that "money talks". In fact, it is so outspoken that people want to steal it.

Time for pitchforks and guillotines.

This would be really, really interesting if something called bankruptcy protection of debtors in the United States did not exist.

As it is, however, every US debtor can unilaterally declare his or her own jubilee for nearly all debts, except student loans, child support obligations, taxes, and precious few other debts. I may quibble with including some of those debts in the Untouchable category, but overall most debt goes away (or is substantially reduced) when people file.

Of course, the debtor does not get to keep all the goodies like houses and cars they still owe money on, unless the debtor can pay those debts going forward. Seems fair, though, doesn't it?

Your post seems pretty uninformed without a discussion of that aspect of debtor-creditor reality allowing easily dischargeable debt in legal proceedings.

@10: Bankruptcy is not exactly a "get-out-of-debt" free card. Good luck getting anyone to loan you any money, or rent you an apartment for about 10-15 years after you declare bankruptcy. This can essentially make you homeless for a decade, and harm your credit for long after.

It clears most of your debts, but do not pretend it has no serious drawbacks.

@9 for the I Am Spam And SLOG Has Not Cancelled Me Yet win. Altho each time I post that the post disappears ... hmm, are you paying attention?

"Good luck getting anyone to loan you any money, or rent you an apartment for about 10-15 years after you declare bankruptcy."

You know nothing, Jon Snow. Credit is available shortly after filing. No joke. Apartments are available to rent. Not the upscale condo you might like, but I see people getting into nicer housing than I had until I was long out of college.

"This can essentially make you homeless for a decade, ...."

lol What crap. Show me the correlation between filing bankruptcy and homelessness. Show me. You are making shit up. This fellow sums it up better than you:

http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/afte…

"... and harm your credit for long after."

The problem is actually that your credit report will have it on there for 7 years. But the effect on credit scores, which most creditors use, goes down significantly if, after bankruptcy, the debtor thereafter prudently manages his debt load and repayment. Again, that linked article sums it up better than you.

Again, Muede article is crap, because he fails to address bankruptcy law.

@snowguy

your point would be worthwhile if Muede's article was scoped to debtors incapable of paying off their debts, like in the case of those qualifying for bankruptcy.

but the article is talking about lifting the financial burden of debt as a form of quantitative easing to average working people, and thereby injecting more consumer demand in the economy in the process.

your nasty post does not apply.