A debtor once told me that avoiding bankruptcy was like an intricate chess game you play with your creditors. As the reader well knows, chess can only have two outcomes: checkmate or stalemate. Throughout this book, we have seen the elaborate measures undertaken by debtors to bring about a permanent stalemate between them and their lenders. The costs of this are severe and only grow worse with time. This book has sought to go beyond traditional academic accounts of indebtedness, which do not usually include the lived experience of seeking debt relief. I hope by now that the reader is convinced of the utility of this approach and that we have a better understanding of why debtors do what they do. This conclusion will summarize the main takeaways and will consider the limitations of this framework, before ending by arguing that we must push for a new jubilee of mass debt cancellation, but also that debt relief must be reformed.

The takeaways

Morality matters

The moral landscape of debt is vast and complex, and my principal argument throughout this book has been that the calculations behind whether we accept debt relief are moral, not economic. It depends on the perceived moral character of the debtor, how they have handled their debts, and even the type of debt they possess. If we begin with the latter, it is readily apparent that more sympathy is shown to those who are the victims of predatory loan schemes or who borrowed for survival, with so-called payday loans growing in popularity. Similarly, those who take out a loan for medical purposes or childcare are viewed more sympathetically; they have a morally valid reason for taking out the loan and their defaulting on it is usually not seen in a negative light.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who borrow for naked consumerism, who are perhaps the most stigmatized of all. Those who are lent money for televisions, smartphones, laptops, or to maintain an unsustainably lavish lifestyle are seen as terribly irresponsible, having bought something they did not need with money that was not theirs.