3 ms·

There is shame in breaking a promise. Bankruptcy breaks a promise. Being a tool in your toolbox, even being necessary some times, doesn't neutralize a shamefull

There is shame in breaking a promise. Bankruptcy breaks a promise. Being a tool in your toolbox, even being necessary some times, doesn't neutralize a shamefully act, to the extent that your choices contributed to it.

rootusrootus 8y ago
It is as shameful as the bank charging you interest. Which is to say, not shameful. It's just business.
- hirundo 8y ago
  Charging interest within a voluntary agreement is shameful? Or just for a bank? Why? This point of view seems to be associated with Islam, is that your faith?
  - andrepd 8y ago
    What? Re-read the comment you just replied too.
  - beagle3 8y ago
    I am not OP and not muslim, but I hold a similar PoV: The bank is a business, not your friend. In the 2008 crisis, banks (and hotels and many other businesses) had mailed the keys back to lenders when their non-recourse loans were underwater. As long as one does not fraudulently acquire the credit, and makes a good faith effort to repay it, there is no problem. It is NOT shameful for the bank to take interest, which takes into account both the lost-time-value-of-money (inflation and opportunity cost) and the probability of default. They are a business, and the interest takes defaulting loans into account. It is NOT shameful to use bankruptcy if you qualify. It wasn't added to the legal code to give people a "get out of jail free" card - It was added because, done right, it is more helpful to society at large (as well as individuals) to be able to reset debts that cannot be paid. So these things are as shameful, which is to say, not shameful.
  - salawat 8y ago
    Islam is mot the only religion which frowns on usury. Christianity for most of its' history condemned the practice, even if in modern times no one bothers to enforce it. It was quite a contentious topic. St. Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas both condemned the practice, and the only positive (in favor of contemplation) I can find in a 3 minute search were the musings of Cardinal Hostiensis in the 13th century which were never elevated to the level of doctrine. All in all, it is somewhat ironic that in the western world, a large part of the inner workings of the economy is predicated on practices condemned or otherwise historically shunned by the major 3 religions. Yes, yes, I know, times change, women can work and vote, slavery ended, and all that, but there's still value in understanding those pesky historical details to keep one in the present from shooting oneself in the foot. The main gist of Christian theological thinking though is that living on interest charged to others is immoral and sinful. Lending is a practice through which those that can absorb risk do so, with the hope of some reward come success of the venture. Lending only goes foul when the lender places their right to profit ahead of of their obligation to shoulder risk. My two cents anyway.
throwaway123x2 8y ago
The bank charged you interest based on what they thought the risk was of you breaking that promise. They knew the risk when they put out that loan.
- hirundo 8y ago
  True, but I feel I would still feel shame in failing to keep my word, regardless of the intention of the other party, as long as they keep theirs.
  - throwaway123x2 8y ago
    Of course you should /intend/ to, when all else is equal. But once the cost to yourself of keeping that commitment skyrockets, it's just not worth it. Think of it as a captain staying with his ship. All else being equal the captain should stay on his ship. But if the ship is damaged beyond repair and it's sinking, a human life is far more valuable than a ship. Bankruptcy is leaving the ship when things are too far gone to save.
  - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
    > True, but I feel I would still feel shame Please keep your shame to yourself. Your other comments in this thread sound like you're trying to invoke your shame upon others for declaring bankruptcy. If your intention was consistently "I would still feel shame" rather than "You should feel shame", that's fine, but please make that clearer.
    - hirundo 8y ago
      I would still feel shame, to the extent that the bankruptcy was due to my choices. I would judge others on the same basis.
      - beagle3 8y ago
        May I ask what your cultural background is? "Choice" is a funny concept. There are cultures that made people choose between Seppuku and shame, with Seppuku being the honorable "choice". You seem to be accepting and even advocating a financial version of that "choice". It's not quite as common these days, and for the best IMO.
howard941 8y ago
The process itself is demeaning and success carries ten years of lasting, painful consequences. Moral pronouncements of shame and that one is a promise-breaker are superfluous and cruel.
beagle3 8y ago
The implicit promise was "I will act lawfully, which means that I will do my best to repay; however, if I find I am unable to repay, I will lawfully use the legal recourse for this situation, bankruptcy". It was not broken. One can't just declare themselves bankrupt - you have to go through the legal system to do that, which supposedly verifies that you indeed qualify for the protections afforded by bankruptcy. Note that this is the same legal system that enforces the lender's rights in case you are able to repay but will not.

rootusrootus 8y ago

It is as shameful as the bank charging you interest. Which is to say, not shameful. It's just business.

hirundo 8y ago
Charging interest within a voluntary agreement is shameful? Or just for a bank? Why? This point of view seems to be associated with Islam, is that your faith?
- andrepd 8y ago
  What? Re-read the comment you just replied too.
- beagle3 8y ago
  I am not OP and not muslim, but I hold a similar PoV: The bank is a business, not your friend. In the 2008 crisis, banks (and hotels and many other businesses) had mailed the keys back to lenders when their non-recourse loans were underwater. As long as one does not fraudulently acquire the credit, and makes a good faith effort to repay it, there is no problem. It is NOT shameful for the bank to take interest, which takes into account both the lost-time-value-of-money (inflation and opportunity cost) and the probability of default. They are a business, and the interest takes defaulting loans into account. It is NOT shameful to use bankruptcy if you qualify. It wasn't added to the legal code to give people a "get out of jail free" card - It was added because, done right, it is more helpful to society at large (as well as individuals) to be able to reset debts that cannot be paid. So these things are as shameful, which is to say, not shameful.
- salawat 8y ago
  Islam is mot the only religion which frowns on usury. Christianity for most of its' history condemned the practice, even if in modern times no one bothers to enforce it. It was quite a contentious topic. St. Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas both condemned the practice, and the only positive (in favor of contemplation) I can find in a 3 minute search were the musings of Cardinal Hostiensis in the 13th century which were never elevated to the level of doctrine. All in all, it is somewhat ironic that in the western world, a large part of the inner workings of the economy is predicated on practices condemned or otherwise historically shunned by the major 3 religions. Yes, yes, I know, times change, women can work and vote, slavery ended, and all that, but there's still value in understanding those pesky historical details to keep one in the present from shooting oneself in the foot. The main gist of Christian theological thinking though is that living on interest charged to others is immoral and sinful. Lending is a practice through which those that can absorb risk do so, with the hope of some reward come success of the venture. Lending only goes foul when the lender places their right to profit ahead of of their obligation to shoulder risk. My two cents anyway.

throwaway123x2 8y ago

The bank charged you interest based on what they thought the risk was of you breaking that promise. They knew the risk when they put out that loan.

hirundo 8y ago
True, but I feel I would still feel shame in failing to keep my word, regardless of the intention of the other party, as long as they keep theirs.
- throwaway123x2 8y ago
  Of course you should /intend/ to, when all else is equal. But once the cost to yourself of keeping that commitment skyrockets, it's just not worth it. Think of it as a captain staying with his ship. All else being equal the captain should stay on his ship. But if the ship is damaged beyond repair and it's sinking, a human life is far more valuable than a ship. Bankruptcy is leaving the ship when things are too far gone to save.
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  > True, but I feel I would still feel shame Please keep your shame to yourself. Your other comments in this thread sound like you're trying to invoke your shame upon others for declaring bankruptcy. If your intention was consistently "I would still feel shame" rather than "You should feel shame", that's fine, but please make that clearer.
  - hirundo 8y ago
    I would still feel shame, to the extent that the bankruptcy was due to my choices. I would judge others on the same basis.
    - beagle3 8y ago
      May I ask what your cultural background is? "Choice" is a funny concept. There are cultures that made people choose between Seppuku and shame, with Seppuku being the honorable "choice". You seem to be accepting and even advocating a financial version of that "choice". It's not quite as common these days, and for the best IMO.

howard941 8y ago

The process itself is demeaning and success carries ten years of lasting, painful consequences. Moral pronouncements of shame and that one is a promise-breaker are superfluous and cruel.

beagle3 8y ago

The implicit promise was "I will act lawfully, which means that I will do my best to repay; however, if I find I am unable to repay, I will lawfully use the legal recourse for this situation, bankruptcy". It was not broken. One can't just declare themselves bankrupt - you have to go through the legal system to do that, which supposedly verifies that you indeed qualify for the protections afforded by bankruptcy. Note that this is the same legal system that enforces the lender's rights in case you are able to repay but will not.