Hacker News Reader

Comment by ben336 | Hacker News Reader

As somebody who is currently struggling with a huge amount of student debt, this strikes me as quite... self-righteous?

I can understand the idea that the government should give free education, or that they should support education with grants instead of loans, or that college tuition should be cheaper. I'm all for people advocating for those causes.

But if you take a loan, you've entered a contract. Breaking that contract isn't something to be proud of. Saying that his options were boring career with debt and soul crushing career without debt is disingenuous. If you took $60k (or whatever) of somebody elses money, be willing to put in the work to pay it off, then you get to do what you want. If you aren't willing to do that, then find a way to subvert the system that doesn't involve you taking large amounts of other peoples money, or at least admit that you made a poor decision.

View on HN

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.

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-...

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's a calculation, like any other. But my point is more to the idea of the moral aspect.

Your above description is excellent in helping explain the duality of our current system (corpVShuman) which I've struggled articulating to friends. Thanks!

It's gratifying to hear that. Thank you.

Yup, only a sucker would take the righteous bullshit spewed by by corporations at face value. Corporations are essentially asking one to "do as I say, not as I do". The game is rigged as the events of 2008 have clearly proven.

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.

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)

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.

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).

I'll look him up

I think that this comment addresses that pretty well: 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!)

yep

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

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.

> But if you take a loan, you've entered a contract. Breaking that contract isn't something to be proud of.

From the individual's end, there's a great amount of morality associated with paying back (or not paying back a loan).

From the lender's end, the probability that you will pay back your loan, and the resulting rate of return a lender would expect, is all something carefully calculated.

From the individual's end, a failure to pay a loan appears to be a moral failing, as if you didn't keep your promise.

From the lender's end, you're part of a larger calculus and thus already predicted and accounted for; morality doesn't even enter into it.

Let's not let morality on the individual's end become part of a financial strategy on the lender's end.

Yes, let's beat him down become of a decision he made at 17 because other adults promoted this plan of action.

I don't buy the idea of "you signed a contract" so end of story, especially when the risk is so unbalanced between the two parties. Isn't his mother (adult) more responsible for this loan then him (minor). Yes?

Breaking that contract isn't something to be proud of

You are conflating morals with a financially-based contract. The people the other side do not make that mistake, why would you?

>Breaking that contract isn't something to be proud of.

You want people to throw good money after bad, for the sake of their personal pride?

This morality is a one way street. I am not opposed to it but the party holding the contract does not think about morality. It only thinks about business. These institutions don't even blink when funneling cartel drug money. Worse still they don't even get prosecuted for it. Defaulting on the money is not a good thing because it ultimately tells you that the path you have chosen and the decisions made were wrong and time is lost. But sometimes its the right thing to do.

Just remember the difference between a loan and an investment. The student loan is not an investment and needs to be paid. I think the whole country is being contaminated by the idea that if someone gives me money, then I don't have the obligation to repay it if is not in my interest. It may be that we are learning this from what happens in Wall Street. That seems to be a dangerous direction for our society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com