4 ms·

maybe not as uncommon as you may think. I do 2) a lot; most of my friends from college are not software engineers and I don't want any of my friends to be "pric

maybe not as uncommon as you may think. I do 2) a lot; most of my friends from college are not software engineers and I don't want any of my friends to be "priced out" of hanging out. I usually try to do it in a subtle way (eg, spend $30 on pizza, not mention what it really cost, and ask everyone for one or two dollars), not sure if that makes it more or less awkward. 3) and 4) I agree with, though I never find myself in a situation where that would be relevant. I do 1) differently. I was more generous in the past, but some people took advantage of that. I've also come to feel that simply giving money jeopardizes the peer relationship. instead, I now give any friend who asks a 0% interest loan with no due date. no questions asked, but I do keep track (roughly) of how much I've lent out to each person. I never say anything about it, but if they hit $1000 or so, I start saying no to further requests. I guess this probably violates the spirit of your policy, but I prefer this approach over having to decide yes or no for each individual request.

pessimizer 6y ago
I've come to believe that the problem of 1) shows a basic mistake that capitalist theory makes about human behavior. Helping people is a show of dominance. It creates resentment from the people helped; "You think I need help? You think you can help me?" is about a millimeter away from "You think you're better than me?" It also often creates resentment in the helper if the helped person doesn't show proper submission (euphemistically called "gratitude" but evaluated through performance), or doesn't change their behavior "You wasted the money I gave you for food on beer?" The idea that you accumulate wealth in order to give more away than anybody else, and through that gaining power, proving your superiority to the people you help e.g. "potlatch" culture, is completely left out of the capitalist theory of mind. I've been reading Bataille lately, who was onto something like that with "The Accursed Share." His ideas surrounded by a lot of mystical trappings, though - he seemed to see himself as a sort of anarchist neocon - intentionally creating myths and rituals to get people to follow material goals. edit: It's the gift that creates resentment, whether or not there's the boilerplate of a loan. Even repayment doesn't eliminate the resentment. Capitalists try to solve that with interest and an abstract time-value of money. Outside of capitalism it's solved through the person receiving the gift either 1) accumulating resources that could help the gift-giver, and watching them carefully to find the time when they could offer an equally effective reciprocal gift, or 2) helping others even weaker to show that they still have the ability to dominate. I have personally adopted a "never loan, only give" policy since I was a teenager, which has often been a "I understand that you're definitely going to pay me back, so if you need to consider it a 0% loan with a balloon payment due at the heat death of the Universe, consider it that" or a "do a nice thing for someone else" (similar to you both.) I don't know that all of the verbiage made a difference. edit2: I'm pretty sure we recognize the most dominant person as the person who has no possessions, but who everyone feels obligated and honored to host and to help. It's the fantasy of what people think the Dalai Lama is (rather than the title of the former heads of state of Tibet.)
- leetcrew 6y ago
  I don't have anything to add other than to say that was a great explication of what I meant by "simply giving money jeopardizes the peer relationship". I didn't quite know how to explain that further myself, thanks!

pessimizer 6y ago

I've come to believe that the problem of 1) shows a basic mistake that capitalist theory makes about human behavior. Helping people is a show of dominance. It creates resentment from the people helped; "You think I need help? You think you can help me?" is about a millimeter away from "You think you're better than me?" It also often creates resentment in the helper if the helped person doesn't show proper submission (euphemistically called "gratitude" but evaluated through performance), or doesn't change their behavior "You wasted the money I gave you for food on beer?" The idea that you accumulate wealth in order to give more away than anybody else, and through that gaining power, proving your superiority to the people you help e.g. "potlatch" culture, is completely left out of the capitalist theory of mind. I've been reading Bataille lately, who was onto something like that with "The Accursed Share." His ideas surrounded by a lot of mystical trappings, though - he seemed to see himself as a sort of anarchist neocon - intentionally creating myths and rituals to get people to follow material goals. edit: It's the gift that creates resentment, whether or not there's the boilerplate of a loan. Even repayment doesn't eliminate the resentment. Capitalists try to solve that with interest and an abstract time-value of money. Outside of capitalism it's solved through the person receiving the gift either 1) accumulating resources that could help the gift-giver, and watching them carefully to find the time when they could offer an equally effective reciprocal gift, or 2) helping others even weaker to show that they still have the ability to dominate. I have personally adopted a "never loan, only give" policy since I was a teenager, which has often been a "I understand that you're definitely going to pay me back, so if you need to consider it a 0% loan with a balloon payment due at the heat death of the Universe, consider it that" or a "do a nice thing for someone else" (similar to you both.) I don't know that all of the verbiage made a difference. edit2: I'm pretty sure we recognize the most dominant person as the person who has no possessions, but who everyone feels obligated and honored to host and to help. It's the fantasy of what people think the Dalai Lama is (rather than the title of the former heads of state of Tibet.)

leetcrew 6y ago
I don't have anything to add other than to say that was a great explication of what I meant by "simply giving money jeopardizes the peer relationship". I didn't quite know how to explain that further myself, thanks!