Ten days ago I was writing this for the blog:
Economic Policy: A Plan for Democrats
Dems should support debt forgiveness for consumers, with limits to prevent abuse by the wealthy. A whole policy strategy can be built around this theme. That's something the Dems need
President Biden's plan was to forgive student debt. Republicans undermined Biden's plan at every turn. The Republicans don't like the idea of debt forgiveness. They will gladly line up against it. A clear path is open for Democrats.
That's as far as I got. Then I forgot about it and went on to other things. No problem; I'd have found it eventually. But now I find this:
Whoa! Have I been getting Trump all wrong? Can it be?
The Newsweek article (dated 20 Oct 2025) says
The Trump administration has confirmed its agreement to cancel student loan debt for eligible borrowers under certain plans, following a legal agreement between the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the Department of Education.
...
The latest decision marks a major policy pivot for the Trump administration, which previously paused or restricted student debt relief through federal income-driven repayment programs.
Newsweek lays out the backstory:
- Trump halted "Income-Based Repayment" debt forgiveness earlier this year.
- In March 2025, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) sued the administration.
- Newsweek says "The recent legal settlement, filed on October 17, between the Department of Education and AFT confirms that the administration will now resume loan cancellations" for the affected plans.
"The Department of Education," according to the Newsweek article, "said most loan discharges will be processed within two weeks after October 21." For the next two weeks, then, debt forgiveness should be in the news. If it isn't, you might want to make some noise about it.
Is it a big debt-forgiveness plan?
The Newsweek title reads "Student Loan Forgiveness Update: Trump Admin Cancels Debt For Millions". Sounds good. But in the article they say as many as "2 to 2.5 million borrowers". So yes, it is millions -- plural -- but it's not plural by much.
Joe Biden's Fact Sheet of August 24, 2022 has the number of student loan borrowers at 45 million. Google has the number today at 42.5 million for federal student loans. Either way, helping 2.5 million people get out of debt helps less than 6 percent of those with student debt. Less than 6 percent. That will do little or nothing to boost our economy, which is mired in all kinds of debt.
Why We Need Debt Forgiveness
In the Newsweek article, under "What people are saying" they report:
AFT President Randi Weingarten said in a statement: "For nearly a decade, the AFT has fought for the rights of student loan borrowers to be freed from the shackles of unjust debt—and today, a huge part of that affordability fight was vindicated.
and:
Winston Berkman-Breen, Protect Borrowers legal director said in a statement: “This is a tremendous win for borrowers. With today’s filing, borrowers can rest a little easier knowing that they won’t be unjustly hit with a tax bill once their student loans are finally canceled, pursuant to federal law... ”
Weingarten is focused on "affordability" for borrowers. Berkman-Breen sees a "win for borrowers".
Joe Biden's fact sheet from 2022 is titled "President Biden Announces Student Loan Relief for Borrowers Who Need It Most". Biden's plan was to help people cope with the cost of student debt repayment. So is Weingarten's, and so is Berkman-Breen's.
I'm not an economist. I'm a former math major, 76 years old. I've been studying the economy -- not economics -- since 1977. And I have to say that Biden, and Weingarten, and Berkman-Breen are all doing micro-economics. All three are worried about the individual; in this case, about the individual borrowers. Biden wanted to help the people who needed it most. So did Weingarten and Berkman-Breen.
I call for debt forgiveness on a grand scale because that will fix the macro-economy. It will make the economy better for everyone, even for those that had no debt. If we make the economy better, we make it better for everyone. If we only make the economy better for those who need it most, then everyone, even those we are helping, still have to cope with our failing economy.
Live Long and Prosper
Google identifies three distinct periods of prosperity in the last 100 years or so:
- The Roaring 20s,
- The "golden age" that followed World War Two, and
- The "New Economy" of the latter 1990s and early 2000s.
Each of those prosperous periods appears as an uptrend in the line on the graph below:
In each case, prosperity begins almost as soon as the line starts showing a persistent increase. In each case also, prosperity comes to an end around the time the persistent increase comes to an end. There is a strong connection between prosperity and the data shown on the graph.
The graph shows the amount of private debt in the economy, per dollar of public debt. The orange line shows data from the Bicentennial Edition of the Historical Statistics. The blue line uses the FRED data, from the ALFRED archives.
Times of prosperity begin when the private-to-public debt ratio is relatively low. They end when the ratio is relatively high. In other words, times of prosperity do not begin until the ratio is low enough, and do not end until the ratio is getting too high.
Prosperity begins when the ratio is low. But other conditions also vary, so prosperity may begin at a higher low or a lower low.
Prosperity ends when the ratio is high. But again, other conditions vary, and this affects the level at which prosperity fails.
Two times out of three, on the graph above, the prosperity ended painfully: once with the Great Depression, and once with the Great Recession. Something to keep in mind.
Times of prosperity are times when private-sector debt is growing faster than public-sector debt. That is what makes the line go up. This makes sense, I think, because a vigorous private sector is the source of prosperity.
We can think of the graph as showing a prosperity cycle: like the business cycle, but longer. Times of prosperity are like times of growth. Times without prosperity are like times of recession. Our time is such a time. In such times, public debt grows faster than private debt.
It is necessary, I believe, to have times when public debt grows faster than private. Only in such times does the line on the graph fall to a low point where prosperity can resume. This is why our efforts to reduce federal spending and balance federal budgets have been failing since the 1970s: As the graph shows, public debt must increase more rapidly than private debt to bring the line down, so that prosperity can resume. Unfortunately, we have been trying for years to create prosperity by slowing the growth of public debt. As the graph shows, our efforts were doomed to fail.
Most people and most economists, I think, see cutting government spending and debt as the way to fix our economy. Some economists, and maybe a few other people, see expanding government spending and debt as the way to fix it. Both groups need to focus not on government data alone, but on the ratio of private-to-public.
We need to get the ratio low enough to kick-start prosperity. Cutting government spending and debt makes the ratio higher. That is the wrong solution.
Increasing government spending and debt will make the ratio lower, which is what we need. But we have been trying to do that for 50 years with very little success. The only prosperity we had since the 1970s came in the latter 1990s. And yes, federal deficits got smaller in those years. But the smaller deficits were more the result than the cause of that prosperity.
Because of the Savings & Loan Crisis (1985-1995), private debt grew slowly. Slow private debt growth worked the way rapid public debt growth would, causing an decrease in the private-to-public ratio. It was several years of slow growth of private sector debt that pushed the private-to-public ratio down enough to permit the rise of prosperity.
One last point.
Three bullet points in a BusinessInsider article at MSN: "New student-loan forgiveness under Trump is coming. Here's what borrowers should know."
- The Trump administration said it is processing student-loan forgiveness for some borrowers on income-based repayment.
- Eligible borrowers received emails stating that they are expected to receive relief in the coming months.
- The ongoing government shutdown could cause delays.
The timeline is now months plus delays.


13 comments:
The debt jubilee
• Michael Hudson: economic historian who says periodic debt cancellations kept ancient economies from imploding.
• Steve Keen: post-Keynesian who proposes a “Modern Debt Jubilee”—government credits every adult; debtors must use it to pay down loans, everyone else keeps the cash (taxed to limit windfalls).
• Adair Turner: former UK finance-regulator; warns debt write-offs are inevitable, better to plan them than suffer meltdowns.
• David Graeber (anthropologist, widely cited by economists): shows that societies have routinely wiped slates clean when debts got toxic.
• Others pushing partial write-downs: Ray Dalio, Carmen Reinhart, Richard Vague, plus Jubilee-2000 researchers who focus on targeted relief.
Why they say it’s needed
Debt overhang chokes consumer spending and small-business investment.
Rate cuts and QE just throw more credit at the problem and inflate the bubble.
A one-time purge resets balance-sheets so new income drives real growth.
History backs it: Mesopotamian “clean slates,” post-WWII Germany’s 1953 write-down, and Nordic bank rescues all used large cancellations to reboot.
Objections you’ll hear
• Moral hazard: future borrowers may expect another amnesty.
• Bank stability: big write-offs hurt bank capital unless the state or central bank steps in.
• Fairness: savers feel penalized for others’ mistakes.
• IMF studies warn that hasty restructurings can drag on growth if they’re badly designed.
Is it realistic?
Technically yes—central banks create reserves at will and governments can direct them. Politically it’s an uphill slog because creditors lobby hard and voters hate the idea of a “free ride.” The compromise gaining ground is targeted relief (student loans, medical debt, underwater mortgages) paired with tougher lending rules.
Bottom line
A growing group of serious thinkers argues that wiping unpayable private debt is the cleanest way to reset a leverage-bloated economy. Either we restructure by choice sooner, or crises force it later. A well-planned jubilee plus tighter credit controls could give everyone a sturdier foundation for growth.
Hey Oilfield (and perhaps others) -- I'm sorry to say, but Art passed away the day of this post. I know that he really enjoyed writing these and appreciated talking to you guys about them -- thank you for taking the time to think through this stuff with him.
I remember talking to him about the Jubilee as well -- it seems that the ancients knew about this kind of risk to civilization and came up with some possible remedies, and we have just forgotten (or chosen to forget) about them.
It seems to me like you might be able to accomplish a similar stabilization of civilization more gradually, without the shock of jubilees, with some policy (maybe an inflation target and a wealth tax or something, which both mitigate the natural tendency of wealth to concentrate and accumulate). Would that work?
Thanks for letting me know. I’m deeply sorry for your loss of Art. Grief reflects love. Cry, laugh, remember. His spirit lives on through you. I think a Mini Jubilee is doable I send another post on my thoughts.
Hello Jerry, here is my solution. THE $20 K MINI-JUBILEE — CLEAR BAD DEBT, KEEP THE REST, LOCK IT IN
WHAT IT DOES
• Every U.S. adult receives a one-time $20,000 grant.
• Grant must first knock out non-mortgage consumer debt (credit-card, auto, student, personal, payday, HELOC).
• Funds can be applied only to principal—no interest or fees—so balances fall fast and stay down.
• If you owe < $20,000, the principal is erased and you keep the leftover cash.
• If you have no consumer debt, you pocket the full $20,000.
• Mortgages are optional: after other debts are gone, you may pre-pay principal on the mortgage or keep the surplus to spend or invest.
PRICE TAG & FUNDING
• 274 million adults × $20,000 ≈ $5.5 trillion.
• Treasury issues a 40-year zero-coupon “J-bond”; the Federal Reserve buys it and wires the cash.
• A ten-year progressive wealth surcharge — 2 % on net worth above $5 million, rising to 5 % above $1 billion — retires the bond and drains the reserves.
• A standby 1 % federal VAT activates only if core inflation tops 3 % for four straight quarters.
INFLATION CHECK
• Around $3.3 trillion disappears as principal balances are wiped, cancelling matching bank deposits.
• About $2.2 trillion lands with low-debt or debt-free households; past windfalls show only ~30 % is spent in Year 1.
• The wealth surcharge and, if needed, the VAT absorb excess liquidity faster than it can overheat prices.
WHO LOBBIES AGAINST IT
Big banks & card issuers, auto-finance firms, student-loan servicers, card networks, ultra-rich taxpayers, anti-tax think tanks, and bond investors wary of a larger Fed balance sheet.
POLICIES TO KEEP DEBT FROM ROARING BACK
• National usury ceiling: prime + 15 pp on revolving credit; 36 % APR cap on payday loans.
• 36 % debt-to-income cap on all consumer loans, enforced in real time.
• Automatic 5 % “rainy-day” payroll set-aside until one month of expenses is saved.
• Payroll-deduction repayment option required on every unsecured loan.
• 24-month seasoning rule before any new cash-out refi or personal-loan consolidation.
• Capital surcharge on lenders when credit-line utilisation exceeds 50 %.
• Mandatory 60-minute digital credit-literacy module before someone opens their first open-end loan or card.
• Open-banking debt registry visible in real time to borrowers and lenders.
• Advertising rules: ban “no-payment-for-90-days” pitches; require APR shown in font at least as large as the payment.
• Counter-cyclical buffer: if household DTI tops the 2019 peak, card APR caps drop 5 points automatically.
BOTTOM LINE
The $20K Mini-Jubilee wipes out principal on toxic consumer debt, lets low-debt households keep their windfall, pays for itself inside a decade with a narrow wealth surcharge, and locks in guard-rails so the debt spiral can’t restart. Everything is ready—now we just need the political will to pull the trigger
Thank you.
I like this, thanks for writing that up! Thought about a lot of edge cases here.
I guess the real benefit is that afterwards, the drag of interest payments is removed...to the tune of what, ~ 3.3T * 5% = 160B/year or something like that? which can go back into being spent on productive uses.
I wonder what the breakdown looks like for people at various levels of debt? like, what fraction of adults with debt have less than $20k?
Looking on https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B069RC1 to try to calibrate myself... I guess 150B is only like a quarter of the total interest payments?
And wow, that it doubled in the past couple years?! What is going on there? the AI bubble?
Ah, it has to be that the interest rate increased (more than that the the borrowing increased), right? That is kind of pernicious...keep interest rates at 0% until everybody takes out a lot of loans, then crank up the rate. heh.
18 – 29 years: ≈ 24 million adults (≈ 46 %) carry between $1 and $19,999 in non-mortgage consumer debt.
30 – 39 years: ≈ 14 million adults (≈ 33 %).
40 – 49 years: ≈ 9 million adults (≈ 23 %).
50 – 59 years: ≈ 9 million adults (≈ 22 %).
60 – 69 years: ≈ 7 million adults (≈ 19 %).
70 + years: ≈ 4 million adults (≈ 11 %).
All U.S. adults 18+: ≈ 67 million people — about 27 % of the adult population — have some non-mortgage consumer debt but keep it under $20 k.
Quick read-out
Roughly 1 in 4 adults carry non-mortgage balances under $20 k; the rest are split between higher-debt borrowers (≈ 37 %) and those with zero consumer debt (≈ 36 %).
The “under $20 k” bucket is heavily front-loaded: nearly half of 18–29-year-olds sit here, while only about 1 in 10 adults aged 70+ do.
Debt loads taper with age: as cohorts move past their 40s, fewer people carry small balances and more either zero-out or sit in higher brackets.
Method (brief)
Dataset: 2022 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) public micro-data, weighted to July 1 2024 Census Vintage single-year age totals.
Debt definition: Total non-mortgage consumer balances (credit-card, auto, student, personal, other installment); mortgage debt excluded.
Flag: lt20k_nm = (debt_nonmortgage > 0) & (debt_nonmortgage < 20000); $20 k expressed in 2024 nominal dollars.
Age bins: 18–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70+.
Weighting & scaling: Applied SCF household weight (WGT), summed within bins, then scaled to Census population totals; percentages derived from those totals.
Quarter-over-quarter profile of Fed series B069RC1 (quarterly code B069RC1Q027SBEA) from Q1-1980 through Q2-2025
Average QoQ growth (Q2-1980 → Q2-2025): +1.4 % ‒ roughly +$3 billion SAAR per quarter.
Median QoQ growth: +1.1 %.
Standard deviation: ≈ 4 percentage points (the series is lumpy).
Biggest jump: +17.7 % in 2022 Q3 (student-loan interest restarted and credit-card rates spiked).
Biggest drop: –18.8 % in 2020 Q2 (pandemic payment-holiday crater).
Share of quarters posting an increase: ≈ 74 % (134 of 181 quarters).
Decade-scale pattern
1980-89: +3.1 % average QoQ gain (double-digit inflation/interest-rate era).
1990-99: +1.6 %.
2000-09: +1.2 % (dot-com bust, GFC drag).
2010-19: +1.0 % (low-rate, deleveraging stretch).
2020-25 YTD: +5.6 % (COVID crash then rapid rate-hike rebound).
Level shift in perspective
Starts at $42.5 billion SAAR (1980 Q1).
Ends at $567.5 billion SAAR (2025 Q2) – a 13.3× increase, or a 5.6 % compound annual growth rate (≈ 1.4 % per quarter).
18–29 years: about $27 billion a year in interest on sub-$20 k balances — roughly $1.1 k per borrower
30–39 years: about $23 billion — roughly $1.6 k per borrower
40–49 years: about $14 billion — roughly $1.6 k per borrower
50–59 years: about $12 billion — roughly $1.3 k per borrower
60–69 years: about $6 billion — roughly $0.9 k per borrower
70 + years: about $2 billion — roughly $0.6 k per borrower
All adults with <$20 k in non-mortgage debt: roughly $85 billion in annual interest (about 15 % of the $570 billion total household consumer-interest bill)
Quick read-out
• Small-balance borrowers still send lenders nearly $85 billion a year.
• Roughly one-third of that bill is paid by 18- to 29-year-olds; only about a tenth comes from adults 60 +.
• A 200-basis-point drop in credit-card APRs would slice about $10 billion a year off this group’s interest burden.
Method (brief)
Used 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances and 2024 SHED micro-data with population weights.
Flagged adults whose total non-mortgage debt is greater than $0 and less than $20 000.
Calculated weighted average balances by 10-year age band (roughly $5 k–$10 k).
Applied age-specific effective APRs derived from current credit-card, auto-loan, and personal-loan rates (12–19 %, average ~17 %).
Interest = borrower count × average balance × effective APR; summed across implicates and rounded.
Total aligns to within a few percentage points of the BEA personal-interest-payments ratio when cross-checked against Fed consumer-credit stock.
If you want charting real-dollar interest payments
Grab the raw series
Download quarterly nominal personal-interest-payment data, code B069RC1Q027SBEA, from FRED (CSV is easiest).
Collect a deflator
Pull the CPI-U (or PCE price index) for the same periods.
Decide on a base year—e.g., 2025 = 100—and scale the CPI so that year’s value equals 100.
Deflate the nominal dollars
df['real_2025'] = df['nominal'] * (100 / df['cpi_rebased'])
Now each point is “billions of 2025 dollars, SAAR.”
Plot
plt.plot(df.index, df['real_2025'])
plt.ylabel('SAAR, $ B (2025)')
plt.title('Personal Interest Payments in Real Dollars')
plt.axhline(0, lw=0.8, ls='--')
plt.show()
– Optional polish: a four-quarter moving average, recession shading, or annotations for 2008, 2020, 2022.
Sense-check
Peak ≈ $570 B (2025-Q2), trough ≈ $170 B (1980-Q1).
Big dives match 2008 and 2020; big spikes match 2000–07 and 2022–24.
What the chart says about U.S. households
Persistent up-trend: even after stripping out inflation, the real interest bill has marched from ≈ $170 B (1980) to ≈ $570 B SAAR (mid-2025) — a >3× expansion.
Rate cycles drive the spikes: surges in the mid-80s, 2000-07, and especially 2022-24 line up almost one-for-one with periods of sharply higher borrowing costs.
Deleveraging is slow & shallow: the 2010-14 dip knocked only ~25 % off the peak before the curve turned up again; households didn’t stay light for long.
Pandemic payment holiday was an outlier: the 2020 collapse (-$120 B in real terms) is the steepest on record— and the bounce-back is even steeper, showing how quickly payment relief vanished once rates and balances resumed climbing.
Record household squeeze: today’s real servicing burden is at an all-time high, claiming a bigger slice of take-home pay than at any point in the last four decades.
Here is what I see in real dollar
Volcker peak (’81-Q4): real outlays crest near $200 B SAAR as rates spike to the teens.
GFC (’08-Q4): both series tumble—credit shrinks and rates collapse, slicing ~$60 B off the real burden.
COVID forbearance (’20-Q2): policy pauses interest on student loans and cards; real payments crater to the lowest level since the early 90s.
2022 rate spike (’22-Q4): the steepest surge on record—real payments jump >$150 B in six quarters, overtaking nominal as inflation cools.
Hello Jerry if you are interested in this stuff, we can communicate by email oilfieldtrash199230@gmail.com.
Jerry last one
18 – 29 years – ~ $670 billion in non-mortgage consumer debt; 13 % APR; ≈ $87 billion in interest each year.
30 – 39 years – ~ $1.08 trillion; 12 % APR; ≈ $130 billion in annual interest.
40 – 49 years – ~ $1.29 trillion; 11 % APR; ≈ $142 billion in annual interest.
50 – 59 years – ~ $1.07 trillion; 10 % APR; ≈ $107 billion in annual interest.
60 – 69 years – ~ $530 billion; 9 % APR; ≈ $48 billion in annual interest.
70 + years – ~ $195 billion; 8 % APR; ≈ $16 billion in annual interest.
All adults combined – hold ~ $4.8 trillion in non-mortgage consumer debt and pay ≈ $530 billion in interest per year.
What the split tells us
Borrowers in their 30s and 40s shoulder nearly half the nation’s interest bill (≈ $270 billion), because they carry the biggest balances while still facing double-digit rates.
Under-30 households pay the steepest rates (≈ 13 %) on smaller balances, losing $87 billion a year—cash that would otherwise fund first cars, homes, or family spending.
Seniors owe far less and at softer rates, yet still send $16 billion annually to lenders; their share has inched up as retiree borrowing has grown.
Overall, more than half a trillion dollars a year is diverted from potential consumption and investment to interest payments, acting as a roughly one-percentage-point drag on real GDP growth.
Post a Comment