[tonyedgecombe]

I understand your point but when most Americans can't put together $1000 for an emergency[1] it's clear that the majority don't have their finances in order.

It's also important to remember that for most activities there are alternatives that cost little to nothing but offer the same fulfilment. I enjoy having my family around for a meal as much as going out to a restaurant with them.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/most-americans-dont-have-the...

[im3w1l]

People who have their finances in order are overrepresented here, so it does make sense to advocate balance.

[md_]

I'm reminded of David Graeber's writing in "Debt". Apologies for the long quote; I find the whole text goes together, and I can't see what part can be edited out.

Graeber writes:

All these moral dramas start from the assumption that personal debt is ultimately a matter of self-indulgence, a sin against one's loved ones — and therefore, that redemption must necessarily be a matter of purging and restoration of ascetic self-denial. What's being shunted out of sight here is first of all the fact that everyone is now in debt (U.S. household debt is now estimated at on average 130 percent of income), and that very little of this debt was accrued by those determined to find money to bet on the horses or toss away on fripperies. Insofar as it was borrowed for what economists like to call discretionary spending, it was mainly to be given to children, to share with friends, or otherwise to be able to build and maintain relations with other human beings that are based on something other than sheer material calculation. One must go into debt to achieve a life that goes in any way beyond sheer survival.

...

To this, most ordinary Americans have responded with a stubborn insistence on continuing to love one another. They continue to acquire houses for their families, liquor and sound systems for parties, gifts for friends; they even insist on continuing to hold weddings and funerals, regardless of whether this is likely to send them skirting default or bankruptcy — apparently figuring that, as long as everyone now has to remake themselves as miniature capitalists, why shouldn't they be allowed to create money out of nothing too?

Granted, the role of discretionary spending itself should not be exaggerated. The chief cause of bankruptcy in America is catastrophic illness; most borrowing is simply a matter of survival (if one does not have a car, one cannot work); and increasingly, simply being able to go to college now almost necessarily means debt peonage for at least half one's subsequent working life. Still, it is useful to point out that for real human beings survival is rarely enough. Nor should it be.

[tonyedgecombe]

>One must go into debt to achieve a life that goes in any way beyond sheer survival.

I strongly disagree with this. Personal debts aren't like government debt, they need to be repaid. The interest rates on personal loans and credit cards are high.

Being indebted closes off opportunities that are available to people with savings. It enslaves you to your job.

Note this has very little to do with being rich or poor. Anybody can spend more than they earn. In fact the poorest need to be most careful because they are the ones most exposed to usurious interest rates.

[md_]

> Personal debts aren't like government debt, they need to be repaid.

Why?

Serious question. Do you mean this morally (like, "you gave your word"), practically ("if consumers defaulted in high numbers, it would cause economic ruin"), or something else?

As Graeber points out, many ancient societies had a notion of jubilee years, where all outstanding debts were forgiven and debt-servitude eliminated. There doesn't seem to be a fundamental reason why personal debt should be somehow fixed.

Or did you mean that all just practically: in the US (??), one ought to avoid debt, because it's hard to escape in the current legal regime? (Which I'm not entirely sure I agree with; personal bankruptcy is quite common, but, sure, it wouldn't be my first choice.)

[triceratops]

Practically. The banks can come after all your money if you default. It's unlikely you can organize a debt strike personally. The government has way more leverage when it owes money.

[tonyedgecombe]

Practically. If you fail to make payments then they will attempt to recover their money, often with violence.

As a lender, if I expected a debt jubilee then I would stop lending. But I suspect that was the purpose. It's interesting that most religions have an aversion to debt.

[md_]

Ah. In that case, I misunderstood you. :)

Yes, practically, Graeber is not suggesting consumers go out and take on debt willy nilly. He's suggesting rather that we stop moralizing the issue of debt.

The religious connotations of debt are more subtle and surprising than that, at least in Graeber's telling. But I'll leave that to him. The book, by the way, is free: https://archive.org/details/Debt-The_First_5000_Years. ;)

[paulryanrogers]

> ...many ancient societies had a notion of jubilee years, where all outstanding debts were forgiven and debt-servitude eliminated.

Even if ancient accounts are accurate then is there evidence such debt forgiveness was carried out ? And if so how consistently?

[md_]

I really don’t know more on the subject than Graeber writes. He describes it as a fairly regular occurrence in some societies, associated with upheaval (like citizens getting angry about overburdening debt or a new regime wanting to ingratiate itself).

Sort of like the current debate on college debt.

[musicale]

> simply being able to go to college now almost necessarily means debt peonage for at least half one's subsequent working life

:( Basically true except for community colleges, which are the best deal in higher education.