> It's interesting to imagine a world where there was no legal recourse to someone not paying back debt [...]
I think it sounds scary. If I enter into a contract that says I have to do something in exchange for something else, I'd like a court to honor that contract, and not -- somewhat arbitrarily I'd say -- declare debts in the contract invalid after seven years.
Imagine no one being able to issue debt with a maturity of more than 7 years. That would be the consequence of such an interference into the market. This means our economy as a whole would become even more sensitive to interest rate volatility, as you can't secure the interest on a loan for more than 7 years at a time.
I think it would be even scarier than that. I imagine very few people would even issue debt. I know I would not. People default on debt all the time now and there is some legal recourse. I can only imagine how many people would default if there was no consequence. So now even people with every intention to repay their debt won't even get it. I believe that this would lead to an even bigger class gap because people who don't have the money to start businesses, buy houses or cars, etc no longer can get a loan to do it. I think it really would create a bigger divide between the Haves and the Have-Nots.
I'm not saying that having a bunch of debt is good. But imagine where you'd be right now if you couldn't get a student loan for an education. Or finance a car or a house. I'm pretty sure I would not be where I am now if I hadn't gone to school... which I would not have been able to do without a student loan. And I never would have been able to get a house without a loan.
My perspective is that a whole lot of our economic problems (in the USA) stem from personal debt. It wouldn't be the end of the world if people typically had to earn enough money to own a house before buying a house--in fact, it would decrease home prices, since the ability to get mortgages and the promise of government violence if you don't pay them back inflates the cost of housing stock. And student loans are literally slavery--they similarly inflate educational expenses, and even worse can't be discharged in bankruptcy. An end result is otherwise educated people face a large marginal tax rate that cuts into productivity, and far too many choosing education that is mostly a waste of money since they don't have to pay for it, until some unforeseen point in the future.
I think it's also easy to overstate how much loaning would decrease. The widespread use of credit scores when issuing loans belies the idea that it's only state violence that ensures people pay back debts.
Why do you want the court to honor the contract? (Which is a bit euphemistic, to my mind: it means to use organized violence or the threat of it to extract value from someone.)
Maybe it'd make sense in a totally anonymous world, but why not just do business with people or entities you can trust? Think web of trust. That's what consumers and businesses de facto do nowadays anyway.
You could still issue debt; it's just you can't expect to have violence to back it up. Past decisions and alignment of lender and borrower self-interest determine the likelihood of it being paid back.
I think it sounds scary. If I enter into a contract that says I have to do something in exchange for something else, I'd like a court to honor that contract, and not -- somewhat arbitrarily I'd say -- declare debts in the contract invalid after seven years.
Imagine no one being able to issue debt with a maturity of more than 7 years. That would be the consequence of such an interference into the market. This means our economy as a whole would become even more sensitive to interest rate volatility, as you can't secure the interest on a loan for more than 7 years at a time.