Talk:Debt slavery

	This Economics related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Debt slavery is a very widespread problem and is the most widespread form of slavery today. Despite this, the article is mostly only focused on the conspiratorial aspect, which can make it seem like it's not a huge issue.

Delete

Spring cleaning binge again. ^{d hominem} 15:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to Tax protester? And if this is deleted, someone should fix the incoming link. --ZooGuard (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be about tax protest (though quite possibly the same supporters). This looks like it could be OK with the addition of a couple of examples or citations & maybe a better title. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say keep, possibly merge. Even if the article is crap the topic is important. Blue (is useful) 04:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not as common as Tax Protester's, but usually it's a subset sold to people who don't know what garnishment is. Hard to find good examples, as anyone with more then 2 brain cells can logically deduce only an raging idiot with a ton of debt thinks it is a great idea. I like the merge idea myself ~~Subsound~~

Well, if we are to keep this, we should improve it. As of right now I am supporting a merge.Quacky | Talk! Scream! Share! 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this gets it fleshed out a bit more, and added some references. ~~Subsound~~

I think somewhere in here there should be mention (even if oblique) to national debt/deficit etc. Blue (is useful) 04:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, feel free to dink around with it :-) The references I found hit a little bit better of a fit on the policies of struggling economies of third world dictatorships that just stole the money and begged the World Bank to forgive their debt (just to have the next leadership steal more, and repeat). I just wasn't sure how to phrase the US deficit in relation to this topic ~~Subsound~~

someone named 199.7.157.87 added a option peace claming that this page is worng on how banking works. I have undo there addition. they are welcome to put it back as long a they can defend it here in the talk section.

When is debt slavery actually debt slavery?

Could a capitalist please explain this? In Wikipedia it says that most debt slavery is somehow "mostly in Asia," but why isn't it slavery in all other nations, like USA? Most Americans owe lots more for car & house loans, but in Asia they owe a lot less, so I can't believe they say that debt slavery is "mostly in Asia?" That doesn't make sense at all! Is it because USA spends millions giving advice in advertisements, which makes it seem too "modern" to be called slavery? Debt is always slavery, so it's actually illegal right now, because all forms of slavery are illegal. 05:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

^ Debt isn't considered slavery if it's contracted without coercion. Ancient or medieval despotic forms of debt was and is certainly slavery. I think there's an issue in differentiating between people being forced to go into debt by circumstances, and those who are forced into debt by the creditor. You couldn't have a country like America without debt--unfortunately. Though personally I appreciate the idea of structural debt slavery, since that can really, really screw up a person's life; I think it's only considered a conspiracy theory because of the sort of people it attracts. Wage-slavery was a popular criticism 100 years ago, and is coming back into fashion. But debt is here to stay. 50.153.135.141 (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wiki article is about debt bondage where the debtor is literally enslaved, i.e. is put to work without any say so in the matter, with this bondage/slavery sometimes encompassing the entire family as well. By contrast, in the US, Europe etc. you can have your assets seized and/or future earnings too as payment for unpaid debts, but the debtor can't seize either you or your family as collateral. The conspiracy theories tend to equate these two systems, but you could, in theory, avoid at least some of the types of debts usually cited by, for instance, living in a rental (thus, no mortgage), saving up for a car (or perhaps forgoing one - depending on your circumstances), and earning your way through education or only educating yourself to the limit of what you can pay from savings (no student loans - even easier in those countries with low or no tuition fees). I'm not saying it's an ideal solution, but it illustrates that it is possible to avoid at least some of the structural debt issues often cited by conspiracists.

Sure, much of our current economic system is centred on having a lot of debt, but contrary to the conspiracists' ideas, it's not some sinister scheme set up by [insert sinister cabal of choice here]. Instead, it's a combination of wanting everything now and what the debtor is willing to pay for this, which also means that the debtor gets to, for instance, drive his debt-purchased car during the time he would otherwise had been saving up for it; the lenders who profit from interests and fees; and the financial markets which can invent new kinds of debts, trade them, and speculate in them.

Debt is not only a burden, but also a lubricant which greases the wheels of the economy - as the credit crunch clearly illustrated. For instance, it's a clear advantage that a business can take out a loan to invest in a new machine or whatever which can then immediately start earning money for the business (as long as the earnings are above the interest payments, of course), rather than having to wait for a sufficient surplus to build up.

The problems occur when lenders are tempted into schemes they don't understand and/or can't afford, or when loans are used for simple consumption (sure, it stimulates demand and thus help the macro-economy, but it also stores up trouble for later). Especially in the U.S., middle class lending has been making up for stagnating real wages for decades which means that the U.S. economy becomes extra vulnerable in tough times as lay-offs cannot be cushioned by savings, but instead exacerbates the effects of pre-existing household debts. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Student Loans

I hear a lot about Debt Slavery in relation to Student Loans (and all the talk about the value of education, loans, etc.). Could this also be included in the article?132.3.61.82 (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

WHY WAS THIS DELETED

I added the following to the header. It is just as supported as the current information in header ... why was it removed???

"Debt-slavery" is a concept that is tied to the "debt-state". A "debt-state" can be seen as a state that has used socio/economical policies to make the use of debt creating loans a required part of life for large portions of its citizenry and has rigged its national debt into a "risk-free" investment scheme for the super-wealthy. Why does this page cater to people who use to derisive language to push an uninformed agaenda?^{— Unsigned, by: Jwood / talk / contribs}

I added an explanation on your talk page. Bongolian (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not see where you have explained why this specific edit was removed. Why can't you answer here. Since I am asking about about this article specifically doesn't the answer belong here? Im starting to understand why so few people bother to come back after the first day.

Lol this is from the alert box on my screen right now ... "Many readers disagree with the content or tone of our articles. That's fine! Open discussion is very important. If this is you, make sure to point out (1) the specific problems in the article and (2) why they're problematic, so that we can discuss the merits of your case.

However, openly bigoted comments will probably be removed. "

HAH that is down-right laughable!!!

Discussion moved from Jwood's talk page

You've taken out too many references and added just 1 crap reference. Most of your statements are unsupported by references. You need to do a better job of supporting your changes with references if you're going to make major changes like this. Bongolian (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I cited (perhaps incorrectly ) multiple articles from a good reference. YOU calling something crap does not qualify anything as such. Additionally, the existing citations are frequently derisive in nature and additionally presumes that anyone who is using the phrase "debt-slave" can be lumped in with "cranks" and "nut-jobs". Additionally the provided citations seem to be aimed at proving that the idea is associated with "cranks" instead of investigate / prove /disprove the existence of Debt Slavery. At best the bulk of the current content is no better than purposeful misinformation. The site should be embarrassed to host such uninformed nonsense.^{— Unsigned, by:}

Jwood / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on signing things :) --Jwood (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That may be the case, and I didn't comment on the quality of the article before you edited. But you removed all those references and replaced them one a single reference that was political in nature (Roar Magazine, "journal of the radical imagination"). Political references can be OK, but not just a single one. You're welcome to restore your changes if you can provide some quality references to back them up. Also, please use the wiki reference format (not in-line citations). See Help:References for how to make references. Also, see our general Help pages. Bongolian (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

And now the page is locked?!? I read the formatting guide i made sure my info was at least as cited as the text I was placing it next to, and it still got removed. And now its locked. I now have a whole lot of work that has been reformatted so its proper for you guys (truly sorry, this is my first time contributing to a wiki) and its been locked and somebody else gets to choose that my info isnt valuable. Wouldn't it have been just as easy for someone to take the information ( read research ) and help me reformat it. Im fine with the main rollback, I could have gotten carried away, but the whole thing is useless misinformation that only uses citations to call people nuts. Surely actually researched content provided in a broken format that can actually be fixed is more valuable that that ???? Whatever, I suspected this would turn out to be a waste of my time. You guys should strong considered changing the name of your site to biasedanduninformedwiki. --Jwood (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)--Jwood (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! The reason the page is locked is that you were edit warring, you can discuss this further on the talk page. Christopher (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I was not, I reinstated an edit that had no business being removed. The text currently in that spot has no citations and is pure opinion. Why remove mine then (which by the way does not use derisive language) ... and I didn't use that phrase ... I suggested a name change... which I still say the site needs. --Jwood (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The directives above said I was allowed to reinstate my text so long as I improved that status of my references. You, removed my last addition without even so much as indicating why? Is THAT how this place works? --Jwood (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

So, please use your powers of pedantism to explain the seeming incongruence between this sentence, "RationalWiki (RW) is a community working together to explore and provide information about a range of topics centered around science, skepticism, and critical thinking." and the idea that an article which is clearly biased and whose citations (while properly formatted) attack straw men is superior to an article that has (misformetted) citations from reputable sources, who in this case, are citing other reputable sources. The preference should clearly be reversed. --Jwood (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

GEE THANKS

I didnt say I didnt see messages from you, I didnt see one about this message being removed which happened AFTER you posted the message startgin "That may be the case." . As I have pointed out the the text it sits directly beneath at the header of the page also cites 0 sources .. here it is for reference.--Jwood (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Where are the citations here?

Debt slavery seems to be a popular term bandied about by cranks and conspiracy theorists, especially on personal finance websites, since the credit crunch of 2008. It comes from the peculiar idea that everyone is enslaved by evil debt holders (rich people, banks, corporations, the Rothschilds, etc.) and if people all stop paying their debts to financial institutions that were run up during the housing boom the economy will reset, everyone will have jobs again, and everyone will be absolved of their debts while keeping all the stuff they bought. ^{— Unsigned, by: Jwood / talk / contribs}

Where are the "citation needed marks"

Earlier, as directed, I marked the text as needing citation in many places. These have all been removed. Why is that OK? ^{— Unsigned, by: Jwood / talk / contribs}

The last several edits by Christoper and Cheeseburger face are nonsense and should be questioned

They have removed calls for citations and any info that questions the bigoted beliefs of the current text. ^{— Unsigned, by: Jwood / talk / contribs}

CheeseburgerFace changed "Why it might be wrong" to "Why it is wrong" without providing any additional fact.

Correlation with a group does not mean the entire notion is flawed. This is clear bigotry. ^{— Unsigned, by: Jwood / talk / contribs}