On facebook, some people have been putting around petitions about forgiving student debt as a good, real way to stimulate the economy. And certainly it is true that this would be hugely helpful to many people. After all, many people are calling student debt the next housing bubble, and the crushing burden puts many options off the table for graduates, as they must immediately find a job (when I lived in Japan -- teaching because I had to make money to pay down student loans -- I always knew that anyone there for a year to "find themselves" after college hadn't gone to school in the US). I've been arguing, though, that it would be better for people to simply refuse to pay these ridiculous debts. Not only is that a fairly risk-free point of resistance(they might ruin your credit, but it isn't like they can repossess your education), but it could be a touching-off point for what we really need at both the personal and national level: massive debt refusals. No one pays. That is the kind of beginning to an economic and political revolution we really need, and best of all the main way to participate in it is to do nothing, which surely would appeal to Americans.
Anyway, it seems to me that a useful intro to a talk about debt refusal is understanding what we mean by "debt" (So sue me; I'm a philosophy student: this is how we start every intro). I just read a great interview with the anthropologist David Graeber where he answers the question posed in the subject of this blog post. Basically he takes the whole idea of barter --> money --> credit/debt and stands it on its head. He also goes a bit into Mauss's idea of "gift economies" which is important enough to be its own post.
Anyway, take a look. You'll never look at owing money the same way again.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment