I don't know if this is important, but the rule that a new king orders a debt forgiveness sounds more like a personal safeguard for the old king against being killed by the establishment. Because it gives the rich elite a strong incentive to keep the king alive for as long as possible in order to postpone the debt forgiveness, which for them is tantamount to a loss of claims. Just my 2 cents...
Huh, that's interesting, Renée; I never thought of it like that. You might very well be right.
Conflict between monarch and oligarchy, as you point out, defines history much more than our current oligarchy wants to let on. Here's David Graeber:
In brief, one might say that these conflicts over debt had two possible outcomes. The first was that the aristocrats could win, and the poor remain “slaves of the rich”—which in practice meant that most people would end up clients of some wealthy patron. Such states were generally militarily ineffective. The second was that popular factions could prevail, institute the usual popular program of redistribution of lands and safeguards against debt peonage, and thus create the basis for a class of free farmers whose children would, in turn, be free to spend much of their time training for war.
David Graeber, Debt: The First 5000 Years, 2011, Page 313
I am left to wonder what such an approach in modern, industrial societies would have on our ecosystems given most debt has been accumulated because of ongoing and increasing economic growth and consumption. Would a ‘reset’ clear the runway for even more?
Hi Steve! Our tendency to choose foreclosure over forgiveness was on display in 2008. We could have simply paid off the bad mortgages for a tenth of the cost of the derivates ultimately purchased through quantitative easing. All those people could have kept their houses, for a fraction of the money actually printed. That's what first comes to my mind, anyway
I don't know if this is important, but the rule that a new king orders a debt forgiveness sounds more like a personal safeguard for the old king against being killed by the establishment. Because it gives the rich elite a strong incentive to keep the king alive for as long as possible in order to postpone the debt forgiveness, which for them is tantamount to a loss of claims. Just my 2 cents...
Huh, that's interesting, Renée; I never thought of it like that. You might very well be right.
Conflict between monarch and oligarchy, as you point out, defines history much more than our current oligarchy wants to let on. Here's David Graeber:
In brief, one might say that these conflicts over debt had two possible outcomes. The first was that the aristocrats could win, and the poor remain “slaves of the rich”—which in practice meant that most people would end up clients of some wealthy patron. Such states were generally militarily ineffective. The second was that popular factions could prevail, institute the usual popular program of redistribution of lands and safeguards against debt peonage, and thus create the basis for a class of free farmers whose children would, in turn, be free to spend much of their time training for war.
David Graeber, Debt: The First 5000 Years, 2011, Page 313
I am left to wonder what such an approach in modern, industrial societies would have on our ecosystems given most debt has been accumulated because of ongoing and increasing economic growth and consumption. Would a ‘reset’ clear the runway for even more?
Hi Steve! Our tendency to choose foreclosure over forgiveness was on display in 2008. We could have simply paid off the bad mortgages for a tenth of the cost of the derivates ultimately purchased through quantitative easing. All those people could have kept their houses, for a fraction of the money actually printed. That's what first comes to my mind, anyway