>
New Study Obliterates the "Millions Saved" COVID Shot Myth
The Meltdowns Over Jimmy Kimmel Show Pulled from Air by ABC
Mike Rowe: This is HUGE story, and it's not being covered
This "Printed" House Is Stronger Than You Think
Top Developers Increasingly Warn That AI Coding Produces Flaws And Risks
We finally integrated the tiny brains with computers and AI
Stylish Prefab Home Can Be 'Dropped' into Flooded Areas or Anywhere Housing is Needed
Energy Secretary Expects Fusion to Power the World in 8-15 Years
ORNL tackles control challenges of nuclear rocket engines
Tesla Megapack Keynote LIVE - TESLA is Making Transformers !!
Methylene chloride (CH2Cl?) and acetone (C?H?O) create a powerful paint remover...
Engineer Builds His Own X-Ray After Hospital Charges Him $69K
Researchers create 2D nanomaterials with up to nine metals for extreme conditions
Let's start with a household analogy. A married couple have four fine children, and since expenses are higher than income, they borrow money in their children's names to fund their lifestyle and investments. Once the offspring reach 18 years of age, the debt their parents borrowed is theirs to service.
The offspring didn't get a say in how much money was borrowed or how it was spent, but the debt is now theirs to service (i.e. pay the interest) for their entire lifetimes, as the debt is simply too large to pay off with conventional wages.
The economy changed, and since wages don't go as far and costs keep rising, the four offspring borrow in their own children's names to afford the basics of a middle-class life.
The parents are now comfortably retired, drawing on their investments bought with borrowed money. The two generations behind them are now debt-serfs who funded their own lifestyles by borrowing even more money. Since the kind of house their parents bought for 3-times-income is now 6-times-income, the debt required to own a house and fund what is considered the minimum middle-class entitlements is multiples of their parents' borrowing.
Is anyone willing to call this offloading of ever-expanding debt onto future generations wrong, as in morally wrong, or have we lost the vocabulary and ability to declare the offloading of debt as morally disgraceful, a line that should never have been crossed?
Debt that cannot be extinguished and that is offloaded onto future generations is a manifestation of moral decay, a decay of the moral foundations of the economy and society that is terminal.
So here we are, cheering on a big reduction in the Fed Funds Rate to encourage an expansion of debt, as more debt means more spending and that means more taxes and corporate profits. The manipulation of interest rates and the financial machinery to encourage more debt is viewed as bloodless, absolutely devoid of moral judgment: when it comes to "growth" of asset prices, spending, taxes and profits, there is no wrong, as "growth" is the only good anyone cares about.
This is the perfection of moral decay. Offloading debt onto future generations–money borrowed to prop up a self-serving status quo that focused on expediencies, not future consequences–and then telling the debt-enslaved generations, "we'll inflate away the debt, and your wages will buy less and less, but no worries, we'll just borrow more to pay the interest due"–how is this not morally repulsive?