[reedjosh]

I agree that it's nice if you have assets, but I believe for most people we can't have nearly as many assets and or connections as the wealthy.

And for young people, they're basically priced out of assets by this system. _This_ literally is the reason owning a home is next to impossible for millennials and gen-zs.

Further, this encourages a debt based society that may encourage growth in the short run (debt giveth first), but then when the debts are due it holds the economy back. Typically this looks like the 2008 crash and is coined the `business cycle` by modern economists.

[bun_at_work]

> when the debts are due it holds the economy back.

This is just wrong. The only debt that holds the economy back is debt that didn't actually generate growth. If you borrow to start a business, you are stimulating the economy with growth, through debt. If you rack up credit debt at the bar every weekend, you're going to cause yourself problems.

The topic is just more nuanced than you're implying. Debt is very good for the economy overall, as long as you're not overdoing it or taking on frivolous debts that don't let you grow.

Student loans seem relevant here. I take out 50k of student loans. The degree I earn empowers me to make 50k/year. After 2 years that debt has been turned into profit, and that's only for me personally, ignoring the value my education will bring to my employer, the community, and the economy at large.

Another example of good debt can be a car. I purchase a 20k car, with credit, which allows me to make 70k instead of 50k, in the next town over. After a year, that debt has paid itself off and is now earning for me, despite the fact that the value of the car instantly dropped 20+% as soon as I purchased it.

The idea that debt holds the economy back is terribly misinformed and over simplified. It's literally how we grow, and how the US has become the economic powerhouse it is. The most wealthy nation in the history of the world (what we do with the money is a different topic).

[dragonwriter]

> I agree that it's nice if you have assets

Most people have nonfinancial assets (e.g., durable items of personal property.)

> _This_ literally is the reason owning a home is next to impossible for millennials and gen-zs.

No, its not, because its been true (and inflation higher) for preceding generations, so it can’t possible explain why Millenials and beyond have it worse than Gen X who had it worse than Boomers. Tax and spending policy shifts (Reagan's being the biggest single one nationally, but there have been several subsequent national ones, and CA Prop 13 and its — mostly much weaker — copycats play a role, too) are a much bigger factor

> Typically this looks like the 2008 crash

The 2008 crash wasn't a regularly occurring event. (And as bad as it was, wasn't nearly as bad in and of itself as it is widely perceived; it gets magnified because — again for reasons that trace directly back to fiscal policy choices — the expansion after the brief and shallow 2001 recession was, up to that point, pretty much the most hollow expansion in modern US history, with, IIRC, every income quintile but the top doing worse, and even the top being mostly flat except for the top couple percent.)