5 ms·

The point that the morality of debt is based on the fact that it's a promise already appears on page 4. Similarly the very last paragraph, begins "What is a de

The point that the morality of debt is based on the fact that it's a promise already appears on page 4. Similarly the very last paragraph, begins "What is a debt, anyway? A debt is just the perversion of a promise. It is a promise corrupted by both math and violence..." And so on. Might want to read more than "chunks" of a book before lecturing the world on what's not in it.

losvedir 14y ago
Cool, are you the author? If so, thanks for joining in on the discussion. I hadn't heard of your book before people brought it up on here, but I just added it to my Amazon wishlist and plan to get it soon. The extent of my knowledge of your book (I'm assuming you are the author), is only what people are discussing here, but my quick impression was that the person you responded to characterized your view of debt pretty well. He seems to have a mental image of "debt" as something that a loan shark puts you in so that he can break your legs afterwards, rather than the vast majority of the world's responsible debt arrangements which wind up beneficial to both parties. planetguy said: "He seems to have a mental image of "debt" as something that a loan shark puts you in so that he can break your legs afterwards, rather than the vast majority of the world's responsible debt arrangements which wind up beneficial to both parties." This seems extremely in-line with what you just posted: "What is a debt, anyway? A debt is just the perversion of a promise. It is a promise corrupted by both math and violence..." This does strike me as needlessly negative, too, as many debts are mutually beneficial, no?
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  Debts for investment are mutually beneficial. However, history shows it has all too often been in the interests of society's upper class to create lots and lots of debt that was not for investment and is thus very difficult to pay back.
planetguy 14y ago
Dave, Dave, don't be so defensive! I mean, I spend time googling for my name too, but I manage to resist the temptation to throw myself into any discussion of my work, it just comes across badly. I mean, I did go and buy a copy of your book, hardback too, and I did just go and give you a semi-positive review in which I heartily recommended large chunks of it. I really did enjoy quite a lot of it. You're right, page 4 does mention the idea that a debt is a promise. But it's immediately pooh-poohed as an idea that's "dangerous because it's self-evident". And the last paragraph does call a debt a "promise corrupted by both math and violence", but it's not clear how anything is "corrupted" here. So yeah, you acknowledge this self-evident idea, but only to dismiss it without a proper argument. Also while you're here (actually yours is exactly the kind of book that I read while wishing that I could argue with the author about certain points, so it really is a privilege to have you here and I hope that doesn't sound like a backhanded compliment), the other point I think you dismiss without enough of a fight is the idea that all human interactions are based on reciprocity. There is of course one counter-example, the child-parent relationship in which the parent is generally happy to give selflessly, but that's a special case which seems to be more-or-less hard-coded into our genes; our minds are programmed to give selflessly to our children since from our genes' point of view they're nearly equivalent to ourselves. Once we step outside the parent-child relationship, however, your other examples of non-reciprocal human behaviour (apart from outright theft, extortion and other forms of behaviour where one party isn't consenting) don't ring true. Two labourers working on the same project will, of course, pass each other hammers, but there is an expectation of reciprocity even in group work, as anyone who has ever worked in a group with someone not pulling their weight will know. In conclusion, you've written an interesting history of debt, but I think you've started off with some kind of antipathy towards debt which has stopped you from really gaining a good perspective on it. I still don't understand the objection to the basic concept of debt: that if Alice has something and Bob needs it then Alice can lend Bob that thing and get it back in the future, for mutual benefit. I find that to be a glorious example of human interaction at its best. But then again, I've already paid off my mortgage.
- avstraliitski 14y ago
  This post is a perfect example of the quintessentially quippy, conceited, young male American perspective that dominates HN.
- calibraxis 14y ago
  Hopefully "Dave, Dave" will ignore this (maybe unwitting) trolling. There's many ways where those with surplus wealth can give it to those with insufficient wealth. Anyone here on HN can name multiple forms of investment/subsidy (such as venture capital, or the goverment subsidy which led to computers and the internet), and some may even be at work at more advanced forms of credit unions (such as Mike Leung's work on participatory credit unions). Furthermore, anyone who's skimmed the book's first chapter can see that this poster's original post was beyond uninformed, taking a point _Debt_ carefully discusses in the first few pages, and presents it as if the author never anticipated it. Same with the book's discussion of commercial reciprocity vs. mutual aid in chapter 5. David just helpfully posted here to point out the obvious...

losvedir 14y ago

Cool, are you the author? If so, thanks for joining in on the discussion. I hadn't heard of your book before people brought it up on here, but I just added it to my Amazon wishlist and plan to get it soon. The extent of my knowledge of your book (I'm assuming you are the author), is only what people are discussing here, but my quick impression was that the person you responded to characterized your view of debt pretty well. He seems to have a mental image of "debt" as something that a loan shark puts you in so that he can break your legs afterwards, rather than the vast majority of the world's responsible debt arrangements which wind up beneficial to both parties. planetguy said: "He seems to have a mental image of "debt" as something that a loan shark puts you in so that he can break your legs afterwards, rather than the vast majority of the world's responsible debt arrangements which wind up beneficial to both parties." This seems extremely in-line with what you just posted: "What is a debt, anyway? A debt is just the perversion of a promise. It is a promise corrupted by both math and violence..." This does strike me as needlessly negative, too, as many debts are mutually beneficial, no?

eli_gottlieb 14y ago
Debts for investment are mutually beneficial. However, history shows it has all too often been in the interests of society's upper class to create lots and lots of debt that was not for investment and is thus very difficult to pay back.

planetguy 14y ago

Dave, Dave, don't be so defensive! I mean, I spend time googling for my name too, but I manage to resist the temptation to throw myself into any discussion of my work, it just comes across badly. I mean, I did go and buy a copy of your book, hardback too, and I did just go and give you a semi-positive review in which I heartily recommended large chunks of it. I really did enjoy quite a lot of it. You're right, page 4 does mention the idea that a debt is a promise. But it's immediately pooh-poohed as an idea that's "dangerous because it's self-evident". And the last paragraph does call a debt a "promise corrupted by both math and violence", but it's not clear how anything is "corrupted" here. So yeah, you acknowledge this self-evident idea, but only to dismiss it without a proper argument. Also while you're here (actually yours is exactly the kind of book that I read while wishing that I could argue with the author about certain points, so it really is a privilege to have you here and I hope that doesn't sound like a backhanded compliment), the other point I think you dismiss without enough of a fight is the idea that all human interactions are based on reciprocity. There is of course one counter-example, the child-parent relationship in which the parent is generally happy to give selflessly, but that's a special case which seems to be more-or-less hard-coded into our genes; our minds are programmed to give selflessly to our children since from our genes' point of view they're nearly equivalent to ourselves. Once we step outside the parent-child relationship, however, your other examples of non-reciprocal human behaviour (apart from outright theft, extortion and other forms of behaviour where one party isn't consenting) don't ring true. Two labourers working on the same project will, of course, pass each other hammers, but there is an expectation of reciprocity even in group work, as anyone who has ever worked in a group with someone not pulling their weight will know. In conclusion, you've written an interesting history of debt, but I think you've started off with some kind of antipathy towards debt which has stopped you from really gaining a good perspective on it. I still don't understand the objection to the basic concept of debt: that if Alice has something and Bob needs it then Alice can lend Bob that thing and get it back in the future, for mutual benefit. I find that to be a glorious example of human interaction at its best. But then again, I've already paid off my mortgage.

avstraliitski 14y ago
This post is a perfect example of the quintessentially quippy, conceited, young male American perspective that dominates HN.
calibraxis 14y ago
Hopefully "Dave, Dave" will ignore this (maybe unwitting) trolling. There's many ways where those with surplus wealth can give it to those with insufficient wealth. Anyone here on HN can name multiple forms of investment/subsidy (such as venture capital, or the goverment subsidy which led to computers and the internet), and some may even be at work at more advanced forms of credit unions (such as Mike Leung's work on participatory credit unions). Furthermore, anyone who's skimmed the book's first chapter can see that this poster's original post was beyond uninformed, taking a point _Debt_ carefully discusses in the first few pages, and presents it as if the author never anticipated it. Same with the book's discussion of commercial reciprocity vs. mutual aid in chapter 5. David just helpfully posted here to point out the obvious...