3 ms·

> The "world" doesn't owe the "world" that amount, it's people in already tight situations owing that to people in pretty comfortable ones. This is wrong. Mos

> The "world" doesn't owe the "world" that amount, it's people in already tight situations owing that to people in pretty comfortable ones. This is wrong. Most people in tight situations around the world don't even have access to banking or debt. I imagine most of this is sovereign or corporate debt, and financialized debt, like obligations incurred by instruments such as shorts, or taken out to perform leveraged trading.

cmehdy 6y ago
https://blogs.imf.org/2019/01/02/new-data-on-global-debt/ https://blogs.imf.org/2019/01/02/new-data-on-global-debt/ "The private sector’s debt has tripled since 1950. This makes it the driving force behind global debt. Another change since the global financial crisis has been the rise in private debt in emerging markets, led by China, overtaking advanced economies. At the other end of the spectrum, private debt has remained very low in low-income developing countries. Global public debt, on the other hand, has experienced a reversal of sorts. After a steady decline up to the mid-1970s, public debt has gone up since, with advanced economies at the helm and, of late, followed by emerging and low-income developing countries." -> Debt owned in the private sector isn't just about stock market but about all the small businesses which in the US are 99.9% of them (see https://www.chamberofcommerce.org/small-business-statistics/ https://www.chamberofcommerce.org/small-business-statistics/ ) -> Public debt is debt that we all deal with, and it might come as a surprise to you but a majority of people aren't actually rich What I'm trying to say here is that you can play on the technicality of the amount of people under poverty thresholds not being in debt because they can't even access debt, but it's not really changing anything about the people who ARE in debt being in significant amounts people who might not have the shoulders to take it on but are trying to get by and doing so as a requirement to get by.
- dnautics 6y ago
  No doubt that there is an increased burden on the lower-middle class, but when I phrase it that way, it should make clear why your take refers to an insignificant part of the equation. Nor am I suggesting that the lower class won't bear the brunt of this problem. They will eventually bear the brunt of the global debt issue in a different way - through prices that outpace pay increases.

cmehdy 6y ago

https://blogs.imf.org/2019/01/02/new-data-on-global-debt/ https://blogs.imf.org/2019/01/02/new-data-on-global-debt/ "The private sector’s debt has tripled since 1950. This makes it the driving force behind global debt. Another change since the global financial crisis has been the rise in private debt in emerging markets, led by China, overtaking advanced economies. At the other end of the spectrum, private debt has remained very low in low-income developing countries. Global public debt, on the other hand, has experienced a reversal of sorts. After a steady decline up to the mid-1970s, public debt has gone up since, with advanced economies at the helm and, of late, followed by emerging and low-income developing countries." -> Debt owned in the private sector isn't just about stock market but about all the small businesses which in the US are 99.9% of them (see https://www.chamberofcommerce.org/small-business-statistics/ https://www.chamberofcommerce.org/small-business-statistics/ ) -> Public debt is debt that we all deal with, and it might come as a surprise to you but a majority of people aren't actually rich What I'm trying to say here is that you can play on the technicality of the amount of people under poverty thresholds not being in debt because they can't even access debt, but it's not really changing anything about the people who ARE in debt being in significant amounts people who might not have the shoulders to take it on but are trying to get by and doing so as a requirement to get by.

dnautics 6y ago
No doubt that there is an increased burden on the lower-middle class, but when I phrase it that way, it should make clear why your take refers to an insignificant part of the equation. Nor am I suggesting that the lower class won't bear the brunt of this problem. They will eventually bear the brunt of the global debt issue in a different way - through prices that outpace pay increases.