Article nearly nails it but fails ultimately due to one oversight.
What happens in a world where creditors are more accountable?
Now to be clear, im not saying thats a bad thing, its probably a very good thing prior to 2008.
However the political class has a massive interest in driving interest rates down, more so than the financial class.
Which brings us onto another issue, do the "debtors" actually suffer?
Yes the "people" suffer, a lot.
But the people did not take out the loans.
At least in terms of sovereign debt, those that put pen to paper on the loans probably did not suffer that much if at all, maybe there pensions were not quite so good, at most.
So in taking on loads of debt you actually have a situation where the down side for the actual agents in the process is fairly limited, both creditor and debtor.
Yes the debtor can be put out of office, but this is just a bump in the road for political elites.
But some bankers did actually lose jobs, take haircuts etc.
So actual procedural debtors do have at most a marginal downside but the people have a massive downside.
However, lets say we try and fix this now, make the creditors more accountable.
BOOOOOOOM! Nothing ****s the "recovery" like higher interest rates, because debt is so high.
Central banks have dropped interest rates to near 0 for a reason.
Creditors say FU we own this game.
The solution of making creditors more responsible creates an effect absolutely in contradiction to the effect sought by the monetary policy of CBs in response to the crises.
So blaming debtors or creditors is ultimately a false dichotomy.
The system that defines such is ultimately at fault.
Ultimately a money supply predicated on debt is the problem.
http://positivemoney.org/
Last edited by O.A.F.K.1.1; 07-17-2015 at 04:52 PM.