This result shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has thought about what the construct of money/debt actually does.
Every bubble in the history of finance has always been the overvaluing of one asset in exchange for the devaluing of other assets. By overvaluing houses today, we are screwing over every field that requires property/land, retail stores for example. And renters which are predominantly youth. Now, the overvalued houses don't actually consume value directly - they give money to the people who have these assets or are employed in their use - home owners, property management companies - construction companies - etc etc.
Money has always allowed for bias and inequality in resources and work allotted. One sector like housing in exchange for sacrificing other sectors. Or sacrificing one nation/locale's wealth in exchange for another - ie. many 3rd world countries/ exchange rates. Or sacrificing young peoples' prosperity in exchange for old peoples' - inflation / housing / medicare / social security / stock market inflation.
Money is a tool for giving value, and hence prosperity, unequally for any kind of sociological category of people by way of empirical categories of valuables.
I don't hate capitalism but it is unavoidably discriminatory.
The very act of a loan is essentially an exchange of value temporally - why shouldn't the natural consequence be to see money as a way of moving allotted value around both spatially, sociologically, and temporally?
Every bubble in the history of finance has always been the overvaluing of one asset in exchange for the devaluing of other assets. By overvaluing houses today, we are screwing over every field that requires property/land, retail stores for example. And renters which are predominantly youth. Now, the overvalued houses don't actually consume value directly - they give money to the people who have these assets or are employed in their use - home owners, property management companies - construction companies - etc etc.
Money has always allowed for bias and inequality in resources and work allotted. One sector like housing in exchange for sacrificing other sectors. Or sacrificing one nation/locale's wealth in exchange for another - ie. many 3rd world countries/ exchange rates. Or sacrificing young peoples' prosperity in exchange for old peoples' - inflation / housing / medicare / social security / stock market inflation.
Money is a tool for giving value, and hence prosperity, unequally for any kind of sociological category of people by way of empirical categories of valuables.
I don't hate capitalism but it is unavoidably discriminatory.
The very act of a loan is essentially an exchange of value temporally - why shouldn't the natural consequence be to see money as a way of moving allotted value around both spatially, sociologically, and temporally?