I guess to rephrase, one way of thinking about it could be that working from the perspective that inflation is theft, you can sort of decide to what degree you want to take part in that theft.
If you take no part you get stolen from, but if you take part like Rich Dad Poor Dad you are sort of on the side that steals.
Is that morally neutral just because someone else made the rules?
I wouldn't get too wrapped up in moral purity. The reason is each central bank has their primary customer who will be taking out a volume of loans that we could never offset.
Went looking for a quote that addresses this line between ethics and reality and this is the best I found: "Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life so. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something." -Henry David Thoreau
What I take from that is not to deny yourself and family the advantage of assets that pretty much require loans to obtain just because you don't want to be complicit in a theft-based system. In that you really have no choice. If however you want to act and are willing to sacrifice then it should be collectively so that the effort scales to the point that central banks must respond.
I suspect this could work by forming an organization whose membership pledges not to take out any loans until inflation, real inflation not cherry picked numbers, falls below some rate.
Yeah, good response.
I think what I was pondering was if there is a line.
I don't blame people for taking out a loan to buy a house, as you are playing at a disadvantage if you don't. But if you are focusing your efforts on gaming the system by arbitraging expansive credit, the lines seems to get blurry to me
Oddbean new post about login | logout