The other part is an invitation for Tully and the hairshirt hedonist to expound some more on an exchange from a lengthy open thread where they discussed monetary theory.
Tully: If I weren't so personally debt-adverse and could be assured of my ongoing income, NOW would be the time to borrow at locked-in low fixed rates.
HSH: I'm pretty debt-averse myself. The only debt I have is my mortgage, which I very recently refinanced to get the low fixed rate available. But I wouldn't go looking for new debt, either, regardless of the low rates. I'm just not built for that.
I'd call this an old-fashioned value that hasn't been "au courrant" enough for some time now. In other words, a good argument can be made that our current problems have been caused by insufficient attention to the gap between what folks want and what folks can afford.
I also carry only a mortgage as debt. This approach that HSH and I share used to be the dominant one, or at least more prevalent. And once upon a time, the approach Tully uses was in high favor. Or maybe even the only available approach.
We've seen a period in America where many borrowers have become cognitively and emotionally detached from debt and risk. And at the same time, lenders have found ways to functionally detach themselves from the financial risk they create, by offloading the risk onto a chain of other entities.
That's a problem. Any thoughts? Take this wherever you want guys, make any connections you want.