Since economics is transactional, there is almost always two sides of any given matter.
And the most common economic errors almost always stem from only seeing one side.
And the most common economic errors almost always stem from only seeing one side.
For example, this calling for the “cancelling” of student debt: are the creditors just to be screwed? They did nothing wrong — except perhaps trusting those who promised to repay them. Are the creditors to be paid off by the taxpayers?
Why should those of us who did not take loans or repaid their loans pay ALSO for the loans of others, who won’t pay their own loans? Why shouldn’t they repay their own debts? Because it’s inconvenient to them? Yes, debt is, but cancelling debt is inconvenient to others.
It seems that an inconvenience in doing something you promised to do and are obligated to do is less than an inconvenience inflicted on someone who did nothing wrong, because they are owed a debt by someone who doesn’t want to repay it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
