Setting aside whether the actual calculations and data in the paper are accurate, the overall conclusions in "Discussion", i.e. linking current liquidity to pro

Setting aside whether the actual calculations and data in the paper are accurate, the overall conclusions in "Discussion", i.e. linking current liquidity to propension to take new debt, seems to make sense: >Further, the finding that the increased consumption (through borrowing) is concentrated among never delinquent borrowers, whose creditworthiness hardly changes, highlights an important interaction between liquidity and credit. >The policy serves as a liquidity shock that induces increased use of credit. >The effects do not appear to be driven by the subset of borrowers who saw an improvement in their credit scores. This raises the question of why such credit was not previouslybeing used. >We speculate that using credit requires a certain level of liquidity for making down payments or making the first due monthly payments. This interaction between liquidity and credit is important for policy design and highlights that policymakers should consider them jointly. Though the real (troubling) conclusion seems to me that the more educated people are not (in large numbers/statistically) particularly good at managing their finances, which might indirectly mean that the less educated are really terrible at it.