Debt: The First 5,000 Years: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Debt: The First 5,000 Years (view source)

Revision as of 10:54, 17 March 2021

413 bytes removed ,  17 March 2021
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 21: Line 21:


The distinction between a [[debt]] — quantifiable obligation to pay a sum of money on a certain date; which in its [[fungibility]] and transferability is an impersonal thing — and a personal  obligation in the wider sense  (the same distinction between a [[liability]] and an [[obligation]]) is profound, and we lose something important when we ignore it.
The distinction between a [[debt]] — quantifiable obligation to pay a sum of money on a certain date; which in its [[fungibility]] and transferability is an impersonal thing — and a personal  obligation in the wider sense  (the same distinction between a [[liability]] and an [[obligation]]) is profound, and we lose something important when we ignore it.
===Exchange and cancellation of debts===
An ongoing relationship implies  a complicated web of reciprocal obligations (in the wider sense): these are not an imposition of a cost to the relationship, but its fuel:  in a sense a relationship is a preparedness to grant, and accept, indulgences over time. That one is “obliged” is a ''good'' thing: literally, to be in a relationship is to be ''bound'' to one another. Thus, to exactly reconcile one’s outstanding obligation to another exactly — to leave nothing on the table — is to indicate that one wants the relationship to end: one wants the freedom to leave.


This, it seems to me, goes deep. It resonates strongly with observations by a diverse range of impressive writers – {{author|James C. Scott}}, {{author|Jane Jacobs}}, {{author|Rory Sutherland}}, {{author|W. Edwards Deming}},  {{author|Nassim Nicholas Taleb}} — that far from being indicators of of weakness and a feeble governance, a certain looseness — ''planned'' slack and redundancy — in fact speak to ''confidence'' in one’s purpose. They are vital to the durability and flexibility of any enterprise.  
This, it seems to me, goes deep. It resonates strongly with observations by a diverse range of impressive writers – {{author|James C. Scott}}, {{author|Jane Jacobs}}, {{author|Rory Sutherland}}, {{author|W. Edwards Deming}},  {{author|Nassim Nicholas Taleb}} — that far from being indicators of of weakness and a feeble governance, a certain looseness — ''planned'' slack and redundancy — in fact speak to ''confidence'' in one’s purpose. They are vital to the durability and flexibility of any enterprise.  
Line 26: Line 29:
This is Graeber’s point: we should always leave something on the table. To leave something unsaid builds trust; it strengthens ties; it reinforces the sense of relationship and personal obligation. By way of reductio ad absurdum Graeber takes the debt that a child goes to its parent for its upbringing. Should the child repay that debt in full? Kennett? And more tellingly, if it does, what does that say about the future of the relationship between that parrot and that child? Is it over? Thus, the absurdity of treating interpersonal relationships as some kind of ledger of account. Yet what ''is'' business if it is not a complex web of interpersonal relationships?
This is Graeber’s point: we should always leave something on the table. To leave something unsaid builds trust; it strengthens ties; it reinforces the sense of relationship and personal obligation. By way of reductio ad absurdum Graeber takes the debt that a child goes to its parent for its upbringing. Should the child repay that debt in full? Kennett? And more tellingly, if it does, what does that say about the future of the relationship between that parrot and that child? Is it over? Thus, the absurdity of treating interpersonal relationships as some kind of ledger of account. Yet what ''is'' business if it is not a complex web of interpersonal relationships?


Yet this is what our current [[modernist]] orthodoxy promises to do: to convert what should be interpersonal relationships — life — into a sterile ledger of account — to comprehensively ''monetise'' it. But you literally cannot put a value on “doing the right thing”. The economic equivalent — “discharging one’s obligations” is to do the bare minimum. It is is a “cheapest to deliver” option. When the bare minimum fully discharges your contractual obligation, your relationship is moot. As we have observed many times in these pages, the ''potential'' forward value of a business [[relationship]] is necessarily greater the present value of any transaction, because if the relationship stays healthy ''there will be more transactions''.
Yet this is what our current [[modernist]] orthodoxy promises to do: to convert what should be interpersonal relationships — life — into a sterile ledger of account — to comprehensively ''monetise'' it. But you literally cannot put a value on “doing the right thing”. The economic equivalent — “discharging one’s obligations” is to do the bare minimum. It is is a “cheapest to deliver” option. When the bare minimum fully discharges your contractual obligation, your relationship is moot. As we have observed many times in these pages, the ''potential'' forward value of a business [[relationship contract|relationship]] is necessarily greater the present value of any transaction, because if the relationship stays healthy ''there will be more transactions''.


Of course, the smartest firms realise this; only, over their accountants’ objections.
Of course, the smartest firms realise this; only, over their accountants’ objections.


But the point goes even deeper, for we cannot, even if we want to, fully articulate the financial value, or risk, of our commercial situation, imperfect as our information is, and shifting as the dynamics of the landscape necessarily are. The redundancy commerce lack and overlap is the fat we burn to adapt to our changing circumstances.
But the point goes even deeper, for we cannot, even if we want to, fully articulate the financial value, or risk, of our commercial situation, imperfect as our information is, and shifting as the dynamics of the landscape necessarily are. The redundancy, slack and overlap is a necessary buffer: it is the fat we burn to adapt to our constantly changing circumstances.
===Exchange and cancellation of debts===
An ongoing relationship implies  a complicated web of reciprocal obligations (in the wider sense): these are not an imposition of a cost to the relationship, but its fuel:  in a sense a relationship is a preparedness to grant, and accept, indulgences over time. That one is “obliged” is a ''good'' thing: literally, to be in a relationship is to be ''bound'' to one another. Thus, to exactly reconcile one’s outstanding obligation to another exactly — to leave nothing on the table — is to indicate that one wants the relationship to end: one wants the freedom to leave.
 
 
{{quote|“Cancel student loan debt? But that would be unfair to all those people who struggled for years to pay back their student loans.” Let me assure the reader as someone who struggled for years to pay back his student loans and finally did so, this argument makes about as much sense as saying it would be unfair to a mugging victim not to mug their neighbours too.}}


The question now is how to ratchet things down a bit: to configure society so that people can live a bit more by working less.
{{sa}}
*{{br|Bullshit Jobs: A Theory}}
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/55276"

Navigation menu