My argument is that a very large proportion of people benefit from borrowing from the future (obviously some more than others). Enough that it is politically unpopular to vote against the government ensuring these returns.
For example, taxes are lower today because of off the books borrowing from the future via these expected future asset valuations, as well as people liking their own 401k/IRA account numbers going up.
Whatever the actual proportion is, it is evident over many decades, that it is sufficiently large to ensure the election of leaders that will backstop asset prices.
> Whatever the actual proportion is, it is evident over many decades, that it is sufficiently large
Sufficiently-powerful. Don't confuse the two. In an ideal world, one would be indicative of the other, but history suggests this hasn't been the case. (No comment on the contemporary political situation.)
For example, taxes are lower today because of off the books borrowing from the future via these expected future asset valuations, as well as people liking their own 401k/IRA account numbers going up.