4 ms·

Sometimes I wonder if the attachment of moral ideas to what are really just business contracts is part of the way modern individuals are being played by modern

Sometimes I wonder if the attachment of moral ideas to what are really just business contracts is part of the way modern individuals are being played by modern corporations. In my business experience breaking a contract is something to be proud of if the penalties of breaking it are a better option than the cost of fulfilling it. That was all laid out in the contract, the morality of the thing was laid down in writing at the start when how the contract might not be honoured was considered in the contract itself. Entering into the contract might have been a poor decision but compounding that poor decision by not breaking it when breaking it is the better option doesn't seem like a move in a positive direction either.

NoGravitas 11y ago
Very much so! David Graeber's Debt, the First 5000 Years deals a lot with how the language of debt and morality are intertwined, and what the consequences of that are, especially when different peoples' debts aren't treated the same way. There's a really good summary at Two Friars and a Fool: http://twofriarsandafool.com/2013/09/debt-on-the-experience-of-moral-confusion/ http://twofriarsandafool.com/2013/09/debt-on-the-experience-...
- rsync 11y ago
  I have read "Debt.." twice and really enjoy and appreciate it. However, even as I approach his summary and final chapter with an open mind, I remain unconvinced that monetary debt and financial contracts can be divorced so easily from personal morality (or reputation or "face" or whatever). Certainly there is some nuance to explore here when an entity or group of entities manufactures desires and then provides easy credit for those desires at bad terms and then uses morality as a strong-arm to enforce that debt. However, to whatever degree you cry foul to that exploitation is also the degree to which you admit your own gullibility or vulnerability to manipulation. You can't have it both ways and righteously walk away from your debts AND maintain the posture of someone who can't easily be duped.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054zdp6/episodes/guide http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054zdp6/episodes/guide BBC radio ran a short series where David Graeber himself explains his (very insightful) theories about debt.
mariodiana 11y ago
Moral sentiment evolved, more or less, on the plains of the Serengeti in groups numbering around 150 individuals, people who knew one another by sight. Compare that to the "sentiments" held by major corporations, corporations like Goldman Sachs that walk away from real estate deals that have gone bad, and do so without so much as a single qualm. When a major corporation defaults on a loan that has financed an endeavor that has gone bad, that's "just business." When an individual does such a thing, he's a "welcher." I think the smart individual plays by two sets of rules. If you borrow from a person, play by the rules that have existed from time immemorial. But if you borrow from a corporation, play by the same rules they play by -- do what's good for you. You have to realize that these are two very different environments. To do otherwise makes you a sucker.
- leephillips 11y ago
  There is a reputational cost in breaking the contract that's not part of the terms, if it becomes public knowledge (court case) or if you disclose it to future partners, as you may be obligated to do. This should be part of the calculation when deciding what's "good for you". And you may not even be aware how this damage to your reputation is affecting your life. As a landlord, I threw out one application from a tenant because he had defaulted on a student loan, and he never knew that.
  - mariodiana 11y ago
    It's a calculation, like any other. But my point is more to the idea of the moral aspect.
    - jfolkins 11y ago
      Your above description is excellent in helping explain the duality of our current system (corpVShuman) which I've struggled articulating to friends. Thanks!
      - mariodiana 11y ago
        It's gratifying to hear that. Thank you.
mcdougle 11y ago
This is a fantastic comment (so is the rest of the reply chain) and just upvoting doesn't feel like enough. I initially agreed with the parent poster (don't just walk away from your financial commitments) but your comment really takes a different perspective and made me re-think about the whole thing in a completely different way.
gmarx 11y ago
I disagree. The older I get the more I treasure the rare individuals I can trust. Going into business with someone like you would mean I have an extra job, watching you. Life is too short. I recommend against doing business with such individuals if one can avoid it (often a luxury, I admit)
- unics 11y ago
  I agree with you. If there ever was a man that epitomizes trustworthy and built a huge business because of his reputation there was RG LeTourneau. Early in his career he went far past expectations and cost him dearly to honor his word in fulfilling a contract. His biography is remarkable if you ever have a chance to read it.
  - JamisonM 11y ago
    I actually own a LeTourneau land-moving scraper! My main comment was motivated in part by the fact that trustworthiness is a two-way street, when one agent attaches a lot of value to honouring an obligation and the other does not then the first party is, for lack of a better term, a sucker. That is what a lot people encounter when they take on debt. On the lender's side they are simply a number attached to a contract and if an advantage can be had they will take it, if the debtor sees the agreement and something more than what is there on paper they are signing themselves up for something that the counter-party is not, the relationship is unequal and in some way unfair (I guess, it is complicated, no doubt).
  - gmarx 11y ago
    I'll look him up
- JamisonM 11y ago
  I think that this comment addresses that pretty well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9679557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9679557 If you are doing a business deal where you are confident the person you struck the deal with is in control of going forward then I think that the obligations and the relationship is very different. If the local bank lends you the money and you have a long-running relationship with the person you signed the papers with there is more of your personal bond attached to it. If you find out a week later that the loan has been sold off to another institution you are receiving the message that the relationship you thought you had with the original lender (and that person you met in that office) is quite different from the one you thought you were going to have. (They have, in your words, suddenly given you an extra job!)
shawnee_ 11y ago
A pretty good documentary that explores this idea further: https://archive.org/details/The_Corporation_ https://archive.org/details/The_Corporation_
Sideloader 11y ago
They are absolutely being played. Corporate America lecturing people about morality should be dismissed as the disingenuous hypocrisy it is. Or perhaps greed and Randian (Ayn) selfishness really are virtues? Nah, only the truly self-deluded would think that.
Sideloader 11y ago
They are absolutely being played. Corporate America lecturing people about morality should be dismissed as the disingenuous hypocrisy it is. Or perhaps greed and Randian (Ayn) selfishness really are virtues? Nah, only the truly self-deluded would think that.
Sideloader 11y ago
They are absolutely being played. Corporate America lecturing people about morality should be dismissed as the disingenuous hypocrisy it is. Or perhaps greed and Randian (Ayn) selfishness really are virtues? Nah, only the truly self-deluded would think that.

NoGravitas 11y ago

Very much so! David Graeber's Debt, the First 5000 Years deals a lot with how the language of debt and morality are intertwined, and what the consequences of that are, especially when different peoples' debts aren't treated the same way. There's a really good summary at Two Friars and a Fool: http://twofriarsandafool.com/2013/09/debt-on-the-experience-of-moral-confusion/ http://twofriarsandafool.com/2013/09/debt-on-the-experience-...

rsync 11y ago
I have read "Debt.." twice and really enjoy and appreciate it. However, even as I approach his summary and final chapter with an open mind, I remain unconvinced that monetary debt and financial contracts can be divorced so easily from personal morality (or reputation or "face" or whatever). Certainly there is some nuance to explore here when an entity or group of entities manufactures desires and then provides easy credit for those desires at bad terms and then uses morality as a strong-arm to enforce that debt. However, to whatever degree you cry foul to that exploitation is also the degree to which you admit your own gullibility or vulnerability to manipulation. You can't have it both ways and righteously walk away from your debts AND maintain the posture of someone who can't easily be duped.
pdkl95 11y ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054zdp6/episodes/guide http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054zdp6/episodes/guide BBC radio ran a short series where David Graeber himself explains his (very insightful) theories about debt.

mariodiana 11y ago

Moral sentiment evolved, more or less, on the plains of the Serengeti in groups numbering around 150 individuals, people who knew one another by sight. Compare that to the "sentiments" held by major corporations, corporations like Goldman Sachs that walk away from real estate deals that have gone bad, and do so without so much as a single qualm. When a major corporation defaults on a loan that has financed an endeavor that has gone bad, that's "just business." When an individual does such a thing, he's a "welcher." I think the smart individual plays by two sets of rules. If you borrow from a person, play by the rules that have existed from time immemorial. But if you borrow from a corporation, play by the same rules they play by -- do what's good for you. You have to realize that these are two very different environments. To do otherwise makes you a sucker.

leephillips 11y ago
There is a reputational cost in breaking the contract that's not part of the terms, if it becomes public knowledge (court case) or if you disclose it to future partners, as you may be obligated to do. This should be part of the calculation when deciding what's "good for you". And you may not even be aware how this damage to your reputation is affecting your life. As a landlord, I threw out one application from a tenant because he had defaulted on a student loan, and he never knew that.
- mariodiana 11y ago
  It's a calculation, like any other. But my point is more to the idea of the moral aspect.
  - jfolkins 11y ago
    Your above description is excellent in helping explain the duality of our current system (corpVShuman) which I've struggled articulating to friends. Thanks!
    - mariodiana 11y ago
      It's gratifying to hear that. Thank you.

mcdougle 11y ago

This is a fantastic comment (so is the rest of the reply chain) and just upvoting doesn't feel like enough. I initially agreed with the parent poster (don't just walk away from your financial commitments) but your comment really takes a different perspective and made me re-think about the whole thing in a completely different way.

gmarx 11y ago

I disagree. The older I get the more I treasure the rare individuals I can trust. Going into business with someone like you would mean I have an extra job, watching you. Life is too short. I recommend against doing business with such individuals if one can avoid it (often a luxury, I admit)

unics 11y ago
I agree with you. If there ever was a man that epitomizes trustworthy and built a huge business because of his reputation there was RG LeTourneau. Early in his career he went far past expectations and cost him dearly to honor his word in fulfilling a contract. His biography is remarkable if you ever have a chance to read it.
- JamisonM 11y ago
  I actually own a LeTourneau land-moving scraper! My main comment was motivated in part by the fact that trustworthiness is a two-way street, when one agent attaches a lot of value to honouring an obligation and the other does not then the first party is, for lack of a better term, a sucker. That is what a lot people encounter when they take on debt. On the lender's side they are simply a number attached to a contract and if an advantage can be had they will take it, if the debtor sees the agreement and something more than what is there on paper they are signing themselves up for something that the counter-party is not, the relationship is unequal and in some way unfair (I guess, it is complicated, no doubt).
- gmarx 11y ago
  I'll look him up
JamisonM 11y ago
I think that this comment addresses that pretty well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9679557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9679557 If you are doing a business deal where you are confident the person you struck the deal with is in control of going forward then I think that the obligations and the relationship is very different. If the local bank lends you the money and you have a long-running relationship with the person you signed the papers with there is more of your personal bond attached to it. If you find out a week later that the loan has been sold off to another institution you are receiving the message that the relationship you thought you had with the original lender (and that person you met in that office) is quite different from the one you thought you were going to have. (They have, in your words, suddenly given you an extra job!)

shawnee_ 11y ago

A pretty good documentary that explores this idea further: https://archive.org/details/The_Corporation_ https://archive.org/details/The_Corporation_

Sideloader 11y ago

They are absolutely being played. Corporate America lecturing people about morality should be dismissed as the disingenuous hypocrisy it is. Or perhaps greed and Randian (Ayn) selfishness really are virtues? Nah, only the truly self-deluded would think that.

Sideloader 11y ago