5 ms·

Studies, especially in recent years, have shown that punishment is not an effective way of improving on self-destructive behavior. Usually things like procrasti

by _bxg1 8y ago

Studies, especially in recent years, have shown that punishment is not an effective way of improving on self-destructive behavior. Usually things like procrastination and substance abuse are irrational symptoms of emotional drain and hopelessness, and punishment exacerbates those problems. There was an HN post about it just the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19487411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19487411. Poverty and debt tend to also protract out from this kind of emotional bankruptcy. I hold some small hope that despite their lack of empathy, regimes will at least see the practical side of how ineffective this kind of policy is and how much it inevitably will hurt their economy, after trying it out for a while. Hopefully that lesson will be learned while it's still mostly contained to China.

_bxg1 8y ago
Also, keep in mind that China has an economy right now that is in many ways precarious, and big parts of that include corruption and debt. That doesn't make this right, but it makes it more understandable and contextual, and may bode better for the rest of the world's countries which aren't in that kind of situation (and for future China).
est 8y ago
The truth is simple: In China, banks are run by the government, yet there are shit ton of scams that borrows money from the party and never pays it back. In many cases the loan guarantor has no mortgage to payback at all. In this "social credit" system from Supreme Court, 90% of the victims are worthless loan guarantors involved in some kind of loan scam.
alanwong 8y ago
OP and Inkstone editor here. I think you raised a really, really interesting point. One thing I think many people overlook in China's social credit system is its stated goal – to create a system that rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior – and whether this system can really tackle self-destructive behavior you describe, like debt. And what's going to happen to people who're entering a debt spiral, and are as a result further punished by the system? Does the idea of social credit mean these people are simply abandoned?
- dis-sys 8y ago
  > And what's going to happen to people who're entering a debt spiral, and are as a result further punished by the system? please stop spreading false info. people on that "laolai" list are those who intentionally refuse to pay their debt when they have the resources to do so. as also explicitly mentioned in your own article, they are punished to the extent of being inconvenience to do certain things, e.g. in your described case, they can still ride a train just not the high speed one.
  - alanwong 8y ago
    The point is, as demonstrated in the article, high speed train isn’t always a luxury. And the punishment can have the opposite effect of making people to pay their debts.
    - dis-sys 8y ago
      You are defending those offenders with a passion by completely ignoring the real victims here. When those "laolai" refuse to pay their debts when they have the resources to do so, rather than defending for those "laolai", how about show some decency by thinking about the real life situations of the actual victims who couldn't get their money back from those "laolai" even after court orders? With 1.4 billion people, surely you can dig up some "opposite effect", but again - how about look at the vast majority of those real victims here? When someone owes you money and the court order says they should pay you back, yet they choose to completely ignore that. It is just shockingly unbelievable that you choose to defend such offenders because they now can't ride high speed rail!
      - _bxg1 8y ago
        At least in America, the vast majority of the time, creditors are huge companies and debtors are individuals who happened to fall on hard times or make financial decisions that didn't pan out. Therefore it's much, much worse when a debtor is unjustly punished than when a creditor unjustly goes unpaid. It's the difference between completely ruining an individual's life, and removing a meaninglessly small amount of money from the pockets of rich people who will remain rich regardless. Are creditors in China commonly non-rich individuals? Are micro-loans a significant portion of what's being talked about here? I'm asking this as a serious question.

by _bxg1 8y ago

_bxg1 8y ago

Also, keep in mind that China has an economy right now that is in many ways precarious, and big parts of that include corruption and debt. That doesn't make this right, but it makes it more understandable and contextual, and may bode better for the rest of the world's countries which aren't in that kind of situation (and for future China).

est 8y ago

The truth is simple: In China, banks are run by the government, yet there are shit ton of scams that borrows money from the party and never pays it back. In many cases the loan guarantor has no mortgage to payback at all. In this "social credit" system from Supreme Court, 90% of the victims are worthless loan guarantors involved in some kind of loan scam.

alanwong 8y ago

OP and Inkstone editor here. I think you raised a really, really interesting point. One thing I think many people overlook in China's social credit system is its stated goal – to create a system that rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior – and whether this system can really tackle self-destructive behavior you describe, like debt. And what's going to happen to people who're entering a debt spiral, and are as a result further punished by the system? Does the idea of social credit mean these people are simply abandoned?

dis-sys 8y ago
> And what's going to happen to people who're entering a debt spiral, and are as a result further punished by the system? please stop spreading false info. people on that "laolai" list are those who intentionally refuse to pay their debt when they have the resources to do so. as also explicitly mentioned in your own article, they are punished to the extent of being inconvenience to do certain things, e.g. in your described case, they can still ride a train just not the high speed one.
- alanwong 8y ago
  The point is, as demonstrated in the article, high speed train isn’t always a luxury. And the punishment can have the opposite effect of making people to pay their debts.
  - dis-sys 8y ago
    You are defending those offenders with a passion by completely ignoring the real victims here. When those "laolai" refuse to pay their debts when they have the resources to do so, rather than defending for those "laolai", how about show some decency by thinking about the real life situations of the actual victims who couldn't get their money back from those "laolai" even after court orders? With 1.4 billion people, surely you can dig up some "opposite effect", but again - how about look at the vast majority of those real victims here? When someone owes you money and the court order says they should pay you back, yet they choose to completely ignore that. It is just shockingly unbelievable that you choose to defend such offenders because they now can't ride high speed rail!
    - _bxg1 8y ago
      At least in America, the vast majority of the time, creditors are huge companies and debtors are individuals who happened to fall on hard times or make financial decisions that didn't pan out. Therefore it's much, much worse when a debtor is unjustly punished than when a creditor unjustly goes unpaid. It's the difference between completely ruining an individual's life, and removing a meaninglessly small amount of money from the pockets of rich people who will remain rich regardless. Are creditors in China commonly non-rich individuals? Are micro-loans a significant portion of what's being talked about here? I'm asking this as a serious question.