[md_]

> Personal debts aren't like government debt, they need to be repaid.

Why?

Serious question. Do you mean this morally (like, "you gave your word"), practically ("if consumers defaulted in high numbers, it would cause economic ruin"), or something else?

As Graeber points out, many ancient societies had a notion of jubilee years, where all outstanding debts were forgiven and debt-servitude eliminated. There doesn't seem to be a fundamental reason why personal debt should be somehow fixed.

Or did you mean that all just practically: in the US (??), one ought to avoid debt, because it's hard to escape in the current legal regime? (Which I'm not entirely sure I agree with; personal bankruptcy is quite common, but, sure, it wouldn't be my first choice.)

[triceratops]

Practically. The banks can come after all your money if you default. It's unlikely you can organize a debt strike personally. The government has way more leverage when it owes money.

[tonyedgecombe]

Practically. If you fail to make payments then they will attempt to recover their money, often with violence.

As a lender, if I expected a debt jubilee then I would stop lending. But I suspect that was the purpose. It's interesting that most religions have an aversion to debt.

[md_]

Ah. In that case, I misunderstood you. :)

Yes, practically, Graeber is not suggesting consumers go out and take on debt willy nilly. He's suggesting rather that we stop moralizing the issue of debt.

The religious connotations of debt are more subtle and surprising than that, at least in Graeber's telling. But I'll leave that to him. The book, by the way, is free: https://archive.org/details/Debt-The_First_5000_Years. ;)

[paulryanrogers]

> ...many ancient societies had a notion of jubilee years, where all outstanding debts were forgiven and debt-servitude eliminated.

Even if ancient accounts are accurate then is there evidence such debt forgiveness was carried out ? And if so how consistently?

[md_]

I really don’t know more on the subject than Graeber writes. He describes it as a fairly regular occurrence in some societies, associated with upheaval (like citizens getting angry about overburdening debt or a new regime wanting to ingratiate itself).

Sort of like the current debate on college debt.