For most of modern history, the Federal Reserve’s ability to lower interest rates has been one of the most powerful levers for stimulating the economy. Lower the cost of borrowing, the thinking goes, and businesses will invest, consumers will spend, and jobs will follow. In past economic cycles, this approach often worked well enough — growth picked up, unemployment dropped, and the benefits, while not evenly distributed, were at least visible to most working households.
But the economic landscape today is very different.
We now live in what many describe as a “haves and have-nots” economy: a growing upper class with expanding wealth, a shrinking middle class under pressure, and a lower class carrying the crushing weight of consumer debt. Under these conditions, it’s hard to see how simply lowering rates can meaningfully improve life for the people struggling the most.
Why Lower Rates May Not Help Struggling Workers
In theory, cheap credit encourages business investment and hiring. In reality, 2025’s economy has a twist: advances in AI and automation mean companies don’t necessarily respond to lower capital costs by hiring more workers. They may choose instead to invest in technology that reduces their reliance on human labor over the long term.
For the wealthy, lower rates tend to boost the value of stocks, real estate, and other assets they already own. But for debt-burdened households, cheaper credit doesn’t erase what they already owe — it may even tempt them to take on more. This is especially problematic when wages haven’t kept pace with living costs.
Debt, Prices, and the Modern Consumer
If workers are left unemployed or underemployed, even the most efficient, AI-driven companies face a demand problem. In a pure free market, weak demand would force prices down. But in today’s debt-driven consumption model, easy credit props up spending power — even when incomes are stagnant. That keeps prices high in the short run but deepens the long-term debt trap.
The risk here is obvious: if too many people are sustaining their lifestyle through borrowing rather than earnings, the system becomes fragile. Eventually, defaults rise, demand collapses, and wealth tied to inflated asset values can erode quickly.
The Symbiosis of Greed and Debt
It’s tempting to frame this as either “greed unchecked” or “debt unchecked,” but the truth is they feed each other.
- Financial greed encourages overly aggressive lending.
- Easy lending creates excessive consumer debt.
- Rising debt sustains demand and inflates asset prices.
- Asset gains disproportionately benefit those who already hold wealth.
Without intervention, this loop widens inequality and leaves the economy increasingly dependent on perpetual credit expansion.
The Upward Mobility Argument — And Why It’s Not the Full Story
A common defense of loose lending standards is that credit access fuels upward mobility. The idea is simple: people without wealth can borrow to invest in their education, start a business, or buy a home — all of which can, in theory, lift them into higher income brackets.
And yes, there is some truth here. Studies show that for certain groups, like young adults from low-income neighborhoods, taking on student loans can slightly improve the odds of moving into better neighborhoods or earning more. But while access to student loans can provide opportunities for upward mobility, research shows that the overall impact on socioeconomic advancement is modest and benefits only a small portion of borrowers. Many graduates still face significant financial burdens that can delay wealth accumulation and limit their ability to improve their economic standing in the long term.
The bigger picture is harder to ignore:
- Student loan debt delays wealth building. A University of Kansas analysis found that every $10,000 in student debt delayed borrowers reaching median income by 9% and median wealth by 26%.
- Low-income borrowers often face the steepest repayment burdens, forcing them to delay homeownership, retirement saving, or starting a family — key drivers of long-term stability.
- Loose lending can create the illusion of opportunity, while in reality trapping borrowers in a cycle that slows their ability to accumulate real assets.
Equity-funded opportunities — like scholarships, grants, or family savings — tend to deliver far more stable and lasting gains. They let people pursue education or entrepreneurship without the permanent drag of high-interest repayment. In other words, lending can open doors, but it also installs a toll booth right in the doorway.
The question isn’t just “Does lending enable upward mobility?” but rather “Does it enable it more than it hinders it?”
And when debt is the default path, the toll can outweigh the trip.
The Three Paths Forward
If debt is allowed to spiral endlessly, wealth itself loses meaning — because it’s built on a foundation of IOUs that can’t be repaid. That leaves us with three broad policy options:
1. Do Nothing
This is the “let the fire burn itself out” approach. Debt keeps rising until defaults cascade through the economy, triggering a crisis. The market resets — but the underlying cause remains. Because lending practices go unchanged, the cycle can and will repeat.
The damage each time isn’t just economic; it’s social and political. Wealth evaporates for many, but the heaviest toll falls on those already in the most vulnerable positions. This path isn’t reform — it’s a recurring self-inflicted wound.
2. Stop Unfair Lending, No Debt Forgiveness
This is the most classically capitalist option. It addresses the root cause by imposing stricter lending standards and cracking down on exploitative practices, but it stops short of forgiving existing debt.
Upside:
- Avoids large-scale government wealth transfers that critics could label as “socialist” redistribution.
- Sends a clear message that personal responsibility matters — people are expected to repay what they borrowed.
- Corrects the system for the future, ensuring new debt is far less likely to trap borrowers.
Downside:
- The road to recovery is long and painful. Millions will remain stuck with debt they took on — whether through coercive lending tactics or their own poor financial decisions — and will have to work their way out over years or decades.
- The economy will run sluggishly during this period because a large share of consumer income will go toward servicing old debt instead of buying goods and services.
- It will test the social fabric, as some will argue it’s unfair to “punish” debtors while lenders escape with past profits intact.
This path essentially says: Yes, some loans were unfair — but borrowers also freely signed the agreements. The way to stability is to change the rules for tomorrow, not rewrite the past. It’s the slower burn, but it preserves more of the free-market ethos.
3. Stop Unfair Lending, Forgive Unfair Debt
This is the fastest and least painful option for ordinary people — and the most politically charged. Here, we not only end predatory lending and impose strict credit standards going forward, but we also forgive debt deemed unfair or exploitative.
Upside:
- Immediate relief for millions, freeing up disposable income and stimulating economic activity almost overnight.
- Rapid closing of inequality gaps caused by decades of financial exploitation.
- A fresh start for large segments of the population, which could reset the economy on a healthier, more sustainable footing.
Downside:
- Politically, this runs headfirst into ideological opposition about fairness, moral hazard, and the role of government. Opponents will argue it rewards bad decisions, undermines contract law, and discourages personal accountability.
- Constitutionally, it could raise questions about property rights and the sanctity of contracts — core tenets of the U.S. legal and economic system.
- Without airtight safeguards, lenders might simply bide their time until the next forgiveness cycle, and borrowers might assume risky debt in the hope it will one day be wiped away.
This path is the economic equivalent of a clean surgical removal: the pain is minimal in the short term, but the political surgery to get it done could be bloody.
In short:
- Path 1 is not a fix at all — it’s a reset button with no safeguard against repeating the mistake.
- Path 2 is slow and painful but aligns with responsible capitalism, while Path 1 is pure, unchecked capitalism.
- Path 3 is fast, relatively painless for households, but it carries enormous political, legal, and cultural hurdles.
- Both Path 2 and Path 3 require the same starting point: ending the culture of reckless and predatory lending so we never return to the same dangerous spiral.
Capitalism Without the Debt Spiral
This isn’t about abandoning capitalism. In fact, some of the most stable, prosperous economic systems have been low-debt capitalism: slower growth, yes, but also fewer boom-bust cycles and less systemic fragility.
In a no-debt capitalism model:
- Lending is rare, tightly regulated, and not the main driver of growth.
- Investment relies more on equity and savings than leverage.
- Consumer debt is discouraged, if not outright restricted.
- Growth is steadier, and wealth is built on real productivity, not inflated asset prices.
It’s not the freest form of capitalism — because it involves more rules to prevent exploitation — but it’s also not socialism. It’s a middle ground: regulated capitalism with guardrails that protect both consumers and the broader economy.
Why Fiscal Policy Now Matters More
In today’s climate, broad monetary policy is blunt and limited. Lowering rates without complementary fiscal measures risks inflating prices, enriching the already wealthy, and accelerating automation without expanding the workforce.
Fiscal policy — targeted government spending, investment, and regulation — is now more critical than ever. It can:
- Fund debt relief where loans were predatory or unsustainable
- Invest in education and retraining for an AI-driven economy
- Expand public goods like healthcare and housing, reducing the need for consumer borrowing
- Support stable wages and fair labor markets
A Reckoning Is Coming
If nothing changes, rising consumer debt will eventually undermine the very wealth it has propped up. We can either wait for that reckoning to come naturally — through crisis and collapse — or we can address it directly.
That means recognizing debt’s role not just as a financial tool, but as a structural vulnerability. It means having the political will to regulate lending, discourage unhealthy borrowing, and in some cases, unwind debt that never should have been issued.
And it means embracing a capitalism that values long-term stability over short-term acceleration.
Because if debt becomes meaningless, wealth does too.
Leave a Reply