It is so hard to understand how people can become so enamored of debt.  But they are.  And we as a nation are.

Yes, I know the typical responses.  Debt allows us to live above our means today; it gives us an advance on ‘the good life’ while we struggle to achieve it.  In advance cases, it even allows us to live beyond our lifetime earning capacity.

Economists have taught for a long time that interest is based on time-preference; it is the money we spend to allow us to live in the future today.  ‘Why wait’ is the mantra.

BUT, it comes at a cost!

Interest is the enemy of the consumer.  It is a transfer of money to the lender; it is a gift to the lender.  And since money is another form of labor, of earning capacity, interest is a transfer of our labor output to the lender.

And since what we are trading is future earning capacity, we stunt our long-term living standard proportionate to the interest we pay.  A portion of our future earnings will be given to the lender for his enjoyment, and will not be available for our own use.

Since people (and companies, and nations) continue to kick the can down the road by rolling over their debt, the truth of the decreased living standard is not always obvious at first.  But bankruptcy courts and people working in their 70’s to pay off their debts prove the point.  (For companies, it often happens during what we call recessions.  For nations, the time span is even longer, but the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela are among those who’ve shown the way.)

On a personal level, we reduce our potential living standard by giving a portion of our wealth away to the lender to increase his living standard.  Almost by definition, the lender is wealthier than the borrower, so the dynamics of debt transfers wealth from the poor to the wealthy.  This is true on the personal level as well as the societal level.  (This goes a long way to explain the increasing ‘wealth gap’ in America, for example.)

This is not to say that all debt is evil; sometimes it is necessary or worthwhile.  But for those who value their time and labor, those times are few and far between, and should be approached with caution.  Most debt is based on covetousness and a desire to hoodwink reality.  Neither end well!

The Fresno Grizzles were embarrassed when a video they showed between Memorial Day games had some unexpected editing in it.  The video had a speech by former President Reagan praising American troops.  But in a statement talking about “enemies of freedom,” the editors showed several pictures of such enemies – including Fidel Castro and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC).  The Grizzles apologized, saying the video was “misleading and offensive” and did not portray their opinion.

Now I assume the Grizzles’ front-office managers know more about baseball than do the editors of the video.  But they clearly have no understanding of politics or economics or history.  Politics, economics and history all clearly show socialism is, indeed, an enemy of freedom.  AOC is a socialist.  Even someone who doesn’t know the word syllogism understands the deduction that AOC is, therefore, an enemy of freedom.

Socialism requires some sort of central planning; freedom, with its ability to change course and make new deals rejects the concept of a national, central plan.  Economic freedom allows all participants in the market to pursue their own goals; socialism is premised on the edicts and dictates of the elite who set the vision for the group.  Historically, it has been the socialist countries who have had gulags and forced mass starvation; countries with less government interference in society have allowed people the chance to grow and blossom as individuals.

The Green New Deal is, undoubtedly, the most radical socialist scheme ever “seriously” proposed in modern times.  Calling AOC an “enemy of freedom” is a mild epitaph.  To identify the conjunction as “offensive” is itself offensive – and sad.