Debt has been a very useful tool for growing the economy and society, and has been a fundamental aspect of capitalism. The downside of debt it is that it increases inequality, and that needs to stop. It is also crippling to many people in pandemics and recessions.

I have written a lot about future versions of capitalism that can free us of debt, but they don’t help existing debt. How can we get rid of it?

In historical times there was the concept of debt jubilees. In the Bible (Deuteronomy) it says that every 7 years debts should be forgiven. And in modern times we know that many impoverished countries have had their debt forgiven. Bankruptcies are bad for the entire economy and should be avoided.

Joe Biden has to some degree been forgiving student debt, and it has been suggested that he do the same with medical debts. In both cases the debts are excessively burdensome for many people, and if the debts are forgiven, few would accuse those people of gaining something unfairly / ripping off the system.

Biden can forgive such debts because he can just print the money to do so. Via modern monetary theory, any country that issues its own currency and do that, as long as they don’t put so much extra cash into the economy that inflation occurs. We saw that with the COVID pandemic…

So for many types of debt, government intervention works beautifully. Effectively the burden of forgiveness is spread across all taxpayers (people and corporations) fairly evenly. And when we are talking about capitalism failing 30 years from now, the forgiveness can be done slowly.

Debt is a type of investment, but not the only one. When debt is forgiven via the government, the debt holders receive cash to replace that debt. What they do with that cash is up to them, but typically it needs to be invested.

Removing debt increases the capital value of where the debt is removed from. If your mortgage is forgiven, then the net worth of your property is a lot more. Here’s a simplistic scenario showing how debt can be replaced with ownership.

Ron owns a house worth $100K, has a mortgage of $20K – his equity is $80K. The government forgives all mortgages – people will fully own their homes and banks get paid off with government money. Suddenly Ron’s home equity rises from $80K to $100K, and the bank now has $20K in cash instead of the $20K mortgage.

Ron would like some cash, so he sells 20% of his home to the bank for $20K. They are essentially back to square one except that Ron now has $20K in his pocket, from the government. And the bank has partial ownership of a home, and no interest payments.

Debt is lucrative, essentially unfair, and a driver of inequality. Those who used to own debts will no longer reap the same rewards. That has to be the way, post-capitalism. But they can still be rewarded, just not as as well as before.

For residential property, it is a good result. The bank still profits from the rise in property prices. If the house is rented out, the bank gets their share of that as well. But as long as the property is owner-occupied, bank profits are lower. That is good, as it will send us on a path towards more home ownership and less rentals – good for reducing inequality.

Come 2050 and beyond, when globally the population will start shrinking, there will be less demand for homes. The current system (get a mortgage) will no longer be viable, because the equity in houses is (on average) going to reduce year by year. No bank will lend if that is going to happen – they would never get their money back.

If we have ended mortgage debt by then, it won’t be a problem. People won’t lose their homes and become bankrupt. Banks won’t suffer losses. But we need to start the transition today, while the inevitable consequences for banks are less obvious. Their 20% share in homes will be OK (not as good as now) for homes that are still occupied post-2050. For those that are abandoned, that is a loss for banks.

This is how we could achieve this slowly. As with many ideas like this that I have had, we need to use stealth. We cannot just announce that mortgages are going to end.

Many advanced economies have a perennial housing crisis, and every new government promises to fix it. Typically that is incentivising new home building, or building social housing. I suggest that government very slowly starts buying mortgages from people who are suffering financially, in exchange for equity. It is the same scenario as above, but government owns 20% of Ron’s home, not the bank.

Ron still has 80% equity in his home, but the burden of debt is gone. If he loses his job, the threat of foreclosure is gone. And we will be financially better off because he no longer has to pay mortgage interest. We would of course provide a mechanism by which Ron could buy that 20% from the government any time in the future, if he had the cash.

The criteria could be a based on a ratio of income and mortgage amount. If your mortgage is more than 10x your annual income, for example, you can ask the government to buy you out. This can’t be gamed, because you don’t gain. You’ve simply stopped the mortgage process at a certain point of time, which means your equity gets stuck where it is.

The criteria would be based on say the worst 1% of income/equity ratios. So perhaps only 0.1% of homes are involved in any year. And then, every so often, the criteria loosens a little. And decades from now, a big portion of mortgages have been removed from the system.

Stealth.

It can be sold as a way of making sure that people with tragic circumstances – job loss or an expensive health crisis – do not lose their homes. It should be an easy thing to sell to the public.

Next up: the sharemarket.

NOTE, not for the purposes above, but the Victorian government in Australia has a shared equity scheme, where they pay for 25% of your home at the time of purchase, and they own 25%. With time you are meant to buy them out.

The post Ending Personal Debt appeared first on Unism.

MMT is complicated and hard to grasp, but in a nutshell, governments could print money to spend as they wish, as long as not so much is printed as to cause inflation. It is like stealing a little at a time so nobody notices.

Instead of investing that just-printed money on jobs in a Green New Deal, what if the government simply bought something?

The same approach is required – just a little, get away with it, without spooking things.

In general, governments aren’t particularly good at operating businesses, but surely there are opportunities from time to time…

Note: you can’t simply just buy a listed company. Typically most of the shareholders are not in the mood for selling. Typically you need to offer a hefty premium over the current share price to purchase a majority shareholding. But that is not hard if the money is “free”.

• Punishment: sometimes (well, often) corporations operate within the law but in unethical ways. Hiring security forces to shut down the rebellion of villagers. Buying smaller competitors simply to shut them down. Abusing monopoly advantages when the fine will be in the billions, but worth it.
• Nationalising (reversing privatisation): instead of complicated negotiations and politics, simply purchase the company you wish to nationalise
• Buying foreign competitors: this is an extreme idea, and probably would only work via a series of shell companies and so on

Of course once you start this way of thinking, then you have begun taking an authoritative path. I only suggest this as a possibility within strict guidelines and transparency. Perhaps only for punishing unethical businesses who operate within the law.

The post Taking Money Printing to an Extreme appeared first on Unism.