# Personal responsibility, or avoiding responsibility? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 24, 2019, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550 "2019-07-24T16:29:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/222 "2019-07-30T19:59:25Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I like you much better when you are sedated. Knock it off. Keep the personalization to the Pit. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/223 "2019-07-30T22:18:03Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > On preview, I realize that this is actually all just a hijack of whataboutism in trying to point fingers at the democrats about personal responsibility and student debt, and is not relevant to the thread, so this will probably be my last post on this subject on this thread. If you’d like to discuss monetary policy further, we can do that elsewhere, and if you want to talk student debt, I think that there are probably already threads about it. If there’s a government benefit that conservatives favour but liberals want to cut, I’m happy to debate it. However, you’re unlikely to find one that I personally support. I’m not a great believer in corporate welfare, and I recognise the need for corporate income tax. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > But, as I did spend a decent amount of time on this, I’m gonna hit submit anyway. Let me know if you would like to continue this elsewhere. > > Are you under the impression that commercial banks only lend to commercial entities? I am stating specifically and simply that paying a debt destroys money, that’s how it works. > > [Here’s the bank of England on the subject.](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf?la=en&hash=9A8788FD44A62D8BB927123544205CE476E01654) > [@](#): > > From the BOE: > Whenever a bank makes a loan, it > simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the > borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. > … > Rather than banks receiving deposits when households > save and then lending them out, bank lending creates > deposits. > … > One common misconception is > that banks act simply as intermediaries, lending out the > deposits that savers place with them. In > … > Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, > by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example > to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not > typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of > banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank > deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new > money is created. > … > Just as taking out a new loan creates money, the repayment of > bank loans destroys money. For example, suppose a > consumer has spent money in the supermarket throughout the > month by using a credit card. Each purchase made using the credit card will have increased the outstanding loans on the > consumer’s balance sheet and the deposits on the > supermarket’s balance sheet. If the consumer were then to pay their credit card bill in full at the end of the month, its bank would reduce the > amount of deposits in the consumer’s account by the value of > the credit card bill, thus destroying all of the newly created > money. That’s not how it works and I’m having to guess at what your incorrectness is based on. The point of the first four quotes is that the loan creates a deposit, and that deposit is considered part of the money supply. I think it would be tedious for both of us for me to walk through the credits and debits of fractional reserve banking. The basic idea is that there is a given amount of currency in the system (the m0/mB component of money supply), some of which is held by banks. That money then goes through a cycle where 1) the bank loans the money to a consumer, 2) the consumer pays the money to a supplier, 3) the supplier deposits the money into the bank, and 1) the bank loans the money to a another consumer. Go through this cycle three times, and the bank has three times more in loans and deposits than it’s holding in currency. The deposits and currency are money (the m1 component of money supply), the loans are not. Paying off the loans moves additional funds into the bank. It doesn’t touch the deposits. I disagree with the authors of the BOE’s paper that paying off a credit card balance destroys money. When I use my credit card at a store, I’m creating a liability for myself. There’s a corresponding transaction at the bank which records my liability as an asset and then transfers funds to the store’s bank account. That’s neutral as far as the money supply goes. The authors seem to be saying that if I have money in my bank account at the beginning of the month, and use my credit card which results in a deposit in the store’s bank account, there’s a temporary increase in the money supply. That increase then disappears when I pay the credit card balance from my account. However, they aren’t saying what’s on the the other side of the store’s deposit. Maybe there’s a component such as settlement or interbank lending that I’m not considering. After looking around a bit, I think the premise that you and the authors are working off is that within the banking economy, there are both loans and deposits. If the deposits are used to pay off the loans, then that does reduce the money supply. However, loans are usually paid off with future earnings, not currently present deposits. If you’re discussing another concept, please detail it. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > My cite was solely to refute your assertion that banks are waiting on deposits to be made or loans to be repaid before they are able to issue new loans. The reason that they are not issuing as many loans as they would like, where they get a much higher interest rate than off the excess reserves, is because there is not enough demand from qualified borrowers, and the reason that there is not enough demand from qualified borrowers is because there is not enough demand for increasing our capacity for delivering new goods and services. This is a consumer driven economy, and while supply side economics may occasionally be valid, at most times, including this one, it is not. You’re taking a general concept, that banks receive loan payments and then reloan those funds, a concept that fractional reserve banking, the subject that you brought up, depends on and you’re trying to refute it by bringing up a specific circumstance, and then using a poor cite that only marginally relates to that circumstance. You’re also arguing that lending is at a low point but ignoring that as recently as 2017, lending was at an all-time high. Most economists are worried that worldwide debt is too high, not too low. > [@](#): > > Me:A much worse thing you can do to a bank is create a moral hazard where customers feel it is unnecessary to pay off their loans, and then the government, or whatever other intervening agency, also refuses to pay off those loans. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > That would be bad, but it would be hard to compare, as either would crater the economy, fortunately, no one is suggesting any such thing. I’m suggesting it. If you forgive a set of student loans, you better ensure that no equivalent of future student loans is available. Because if it is, the next set of borrowers who’ve made bad lending decisions will expect their debt to be forgiven and will howl with outrage if they don’t receive the same giveaway the previous borrowers received. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > To get back to the thread, you may say it is detrimental to create a moral hazard where a CEO is able to write their own paycheck, and make millions or more off a company going bankrupt, where they get to gain great personal wealth and leave their employees and creditors to pay for it. At the start of the thread, didn’t you object to whataboutism? I’m happy to respond, but I don’t want to react to something you object to. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I put “magic” in quotes for a reason, but are you trying to say that you think that lending is dependent on deposits, and not on fiat currency? Yes. We’re discussing money supply in an aside to student debts, which is an aside to personal responsibility. But as described earlier, fractional reserve banking is dependent on deposits. Fiat currency, which I’ve described as the m0/mB component of the money supply acts as part of that process, but is not expansive (within an FRB economic model), whereas the the m2 component of the money supply is. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Would you say that declaring bankruptcy is personal responsibility? No. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Actually, you are correct in that statement is not entirely correct. That 1.5 is the current debt. Not only will that number be going up as more students go into debt, but the repayment of that 1.5 trillion will be more like 3-4 trillion in actual payments after interest. > > But yes, I am sticking to my statement that money that goes towards paying debts is money that is not being spent in the economy. You have not refuted that, nor posed anything that makes a good go at rebutting it. I’ve already refuted that. The students paid for their education. Their payments entered the economy. Those payments were based on borrowed funds. If the students made poor forecasting decisions about borrowing for their education, then their personal economy is certainly hurt. However, the effect that subset economy is offset by the subset that received the funds, the university economy. Anyway, enough about banking and economics. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2019, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/224 "2019-07-30T23:54:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Me: The single-best economic stimulus is investment, which funnily enough is often government investment. Picking an easy two, federal vaccination programmes and the US interstate system are two incredibly effective economic stimuli. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Funny you should say that, as the actual best government investment in economic stimulus is education. This is a thread hijack, which I started, but within modern times, I don’t think you can find a better government investment than vaccinations. The benefit/cost ratio is probably in the hundred-thousands. I agree and have stated that education is a societal investment. However, at some point, the beneficiaries of that investment need to pay it back. This is especially true if the students have received greater benefits than someone who opted out of those benefits due to cost. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > If you get rid of the mountain of debt that a new student is signing up for, then you create more graduates, who make more innovations and spend more money, didn’t you put up a cite before that having college graduates is good for the economy? Why would you choose to follow policies that make people avoid going to college? Because at a certain point, societally necessary education turns into personally beneficial education. There’s no clear dividing line between the two, and indeed the point isn’t binary, but a crossing of a variable percentage threshold. Nevertheless, American society has determined that point to be high school graduation. Students who pursue college education are generally expected to pay for at least a part of their education and often the entirety. The students borrow student loans to receive the personally beneficial education. No one is forcing them to do so, and if the education is not personally beneficial to them, they can choose not to pursue it. > [@](#): > > Me: > Actually, deferred spending in terms of saving and investment matter hugely to the economy. Also, relevant to this thread, hasn’t spending already happened? A purchase of a college education has taken place. Are you discounting a college education and saying it has less value than “moving out, renting an apartment, buying a car, buying a house, starting a family, starting a business, or just spending their money on small comforts and luxuries”? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > They are not deferring their spending in terms of saving and investment, they are deferring spending because they are paying off loans. As far as saving and investment, that is another thing that they are being denied. If you start saving for retirement in your 20’s, you are going to be in a far better position than if you start in your 30’s. This is forcing them to deffer their savings and investment until later in life when it will do them less good. The students are making an investment in their university education that they will have to pay off later, unless that debt is relieved. While attending university, they are undergoing an expense which they are not paying off with an asset, but are instead accepting a liability. My argument is that they are knowingly accepting this liability, which will need to be paid off later. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > your last question is pure strawman. > [@](#): > > Me (repeating my question that was an alleged strawman): “Why should the rest of society, including people who didn’t go to college, pay for their lack of forethought?” Which statement of yours am I creating a false likeness of in order to burn down? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > None of my statements, as that is more or less out of whole cloth. I may as well ask you “Why won’t you stop beating your wife?” for as leading and inaccurate as your statement was. If I’m not creating a strawman, why are you accusing me of doing so? Also, in a thread discussing personal responsibility, to state that a question relating to personal responsibility is a false question is a dodge of the question. I’m sure there’s more to the remainder of your response to debate, but I think this current post is long enough. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/225 "2019-07-31T00:16:10Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > The deposits and currency are money (the m1 component of money supply), the loans are not. Loans create M1 money, assuming the funds are allocated to a checkable account. **k9bfriender** ’s cite seems to mean M1 money when they say “money”. Below is an example. You can see M1 expand when loans are made in steps 2 and 5, while it shrinks when deposits are made (to savings accounts) in steps 1 and 4. It also shrinks when a loan is repaid in step 9. ```auto step Bank Joe Bob Sue desc 0 100 200 0 0 Nobody owes anybody anything ---- ---- ---- --- 100 200 0 0 = 300 total money supply (M1: 200) 1 110 100 0 0 Joe deposits 100 in bank -100 +100 (bank liable to Joe for 100) ---- ---- ---- --- 100 200 0 0 = 300 total money supply (M1: 100) 2 150 100 0 50 Bank loans Sue 50 -100 +100 (bank liable to Joe for 100) + 50 -50 (Sue liable to bank for 50) ---- ---- ---- --- 100 200 0 0 = 300 total money supply (M1: 150) 3 150 120 10 20 Sue pays Bob 10 and Joe 20 -100 +100 (bank liable to Joe for 100) + 50 -50 (Sue liable to bank for 50) ---- ---- ---- --- 100 220 10 -30 = 300 total money supply (M1: 150) 4 180 100 0 20 Joe deposits 20; Bob deposits 10 -120 +120 (bank liable to Joe for 120) + 50 -50 (Sue liable to bank for 50) - 10 + 10 (bank liable to Bob for 10) ---- ---- ---- --- 100 220 10 -30 = 300 total money supply (M1: 120) 5 80 100 100 20 Bank loans Bob 100 -120 +120 (bank liable to Joe for 120) + 50 -50 (Sue liable to bank for 50) - 10 + 10 (bank liable to Bob for 10) +100 -100 (Bob liable to bank for 100) ---- ---- ---- --- 100 220 10 -30 = 300 total money supply (M1: 220) 6 80 100 100 20 Bank adds 2% interest to Joe's account -122.4 +122.4 (bank liable to Joe for 126) + 50 -50 (Sue liable to bank for 50) - 10 + 10 (bank liable to Bob for 10) +100 -100 (Bob liable to bank for 100) ------ ------ ---- --- 97.6 222.4 10 -30 = 300 total money supply (M1: 220) 7 80 100 100 20 Bank adds 6% interest to Sue's loan -122.4 +122.4 (bank liable to Joe for 126) + 53 -53 (Sue liable to bank for 50) - 10 + 10 (bank liable to Bob for 10) +100 -100 (Bob liable to bank for 100) ------ ------ ---- --- 100.6 222.4 10 -33 = 300 total money supply (M1: 220) 8 80 100 5 115 Bob pays Sue 95 -122.4 +122.4 (bank liable to Joe for 126) + 53 -53 (Sue liable to bank for 50) - 10 + 10 (bank liable to Bob for 10) +100 -100 (Bob liable to bank for 100) ------ ------ ---- --- 100.6 222.4 -85 62 = 300 total money supply (M1: 220) 9 133 100 5 62 Sue pays off her loan -122.4 +122.4 (bank liable to Joe for 126) - 10 + 10 (bank liable to Bob for 10) +100 -100 (Bob liable to bank for 100) ------ ------ ---- --- 100.6 222.4 -85 62 = 300 total money supply (M1: 167) ``` ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/226 "2019-07-31T02:34:54Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If presented with the opportunity to leave my (fictional) infant in the care of my normal babysitter versus a recently convicted infant abuser, although she may _say_ she is a changed person, I would most likely politely decline the convict’s offer. I follow Stoicism to the point of honoring justice, I might not even judge her character in making that decision. She isn’t necessarily giving me a lie, but I don’t care if she is lying or not. I still judge her risk as to my child based on her history. Why would I place my child, or anybody’s child, or any innocent in danger when there is a clear and just cause for concern and a safe alternative? > > Or in the case of a man asking for a loan from the bank, were I the loan-maker, I may evaluate his risk to the company without assuming his state of mind. If it is clear based on the record that he spends his available funds on demerit goods before turning around and defaulting on payments, I would be ill-disposed to extend credit. “I promise to timely repay my debt”, he pleads, and “that was a long time ago” or “that doesn’t reflect me now”. It makes no difference as to his character or state of mind, the fact is that he has a record of reneging on promises and wasting funds. If there is no compelling excuse by which to absolve him of his own acts, if he cannot show that he had no choice in the matter, I will not extend credit. > > If a man says “I will surely starve”, I am bound to refer him to some form of assistance, or provide it myself, that he does not die on my doorstep or after walking away. I would not provide cash assistance by default. If he lingers or returns I would reach out to charities, neighbors, and possibly the state for his and my relief. But this is a form of charity and to be done in a private capacity; I would support a business policy doing the same but I would not misappropriate business assets (contrary to policy) for this purpose unless the beggar was actually at risk of immediate tangible harm, in which case I would call an ambulance. I would also support public and private services for such situations (such as a soup kitchen). > > If these actions are contrary to Stoicism, then I am not a Stoic; I claimed to be conservative, not necessarily a Stoic. Nevertheless I believe I find support in eg: _Seneca’s letters to Lucilius_, CXII. 🙂 > I believe a person is absolved of personal responsibility to the extent that they are a victim of circumstance. That should settle this particular concern; I think **Shodan** takes this view as well. When I was talking about judging, I was talking about being judgemental. What you are talking about is using judgement to arrive at a sound decision. I perhaps did not do a good job distinguishing this. My bad. > [@](#): > > That is a powerful thought, although I think your _duty_ to be a good inspiration was derived from some other doctrine, not personal responsibility. Presumably you did not cause your own burns, or at least not the injury of other burn patients. The question is “why?” Why was it your job to be the example? > > You don’t need to tell me what it was, as this is a highly personal question. This line of thinking can take you to very dark places, or very bright places. That being said, if we are to separate personal responsibility from theodicy or karma, the answer is not personal responsibility. Hmm. It’s not a question I asked myself. It’s just what my father told me at the time. I sort of figured he knew what he was talking about. Plus, as horrific as my injuries seems to to before I got to the burn center, once I was there I felt **incredibly** lucky. There were children there who’s survival was doubtful because of infection. There was a kid who accidentally pulled a pot of boiling oil onto his head, and his face basically melted off. For a lot of those kids the fact that they were burned was going to be the primary thing in their life for the rest of their life. Horrific stuff. I was essentially going to fully recover. So, what my father just said seemed true and obvious. > [@](#): > > Unless the Alaskan planegoer felt that they _caused_ the accident (plausible), personal responsibility gives way to another doctrine. There may be an evolutionary or biologic basis for empathy which comes into play, but from a philosophical standpoint I find that argument beside the point. If there is a strong instinct there, philosophy takes a back seat and we need not debate this scenario further; if it does not, the point is probably lost. A Stoic consequentialist might take into account the greater chance of survival when caring for an injured person, but I do not see myself as a consequentialist. I disagree. Personal responsibility is about one’s choices. Choosing inaction can be very significant. One is responsible for the consequence of that choice just as they are for the positive choices./QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/227 "2019-07-31T02:36:03Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > First, a “living wage” varies wildly. Consider an expensive medical condition or student loans. What about dependents? All said and done, one person’s living wage can shoot up into the top 20% of incomes, and that’s my wild guess. If you don’t know how to cook, or don’t have time (working multiple low paying jobs), the food bill skyrockets or you/your kids suffer from malnutrition. And none of these are solved by declaring bankruptcy, except that you might have your kids taken away. > > I mean, I remember reading a story about a highly specialized surgeon who accidentally cut off his finger. Suddenly he can’t be a surgeon any more and the weight of his student loans mean he had to work multiple “normal” jobs, lost his house and kids, and barely makes his child support payments. He fell in a hole and will never get out. > > Closer to home there was a high school teacher who trained to be a doctor, and right near the end of his training got in a bad car accident that screwed up his body, bad. Medical complications prevented him from finishing residency. He found a job as a biology (or was it chemistry?) teacher, supplemented by a secondary job, welfare, poverty, and the (voluntary but reluctant) loss of child custody. It’s a modern story of Sisyphus, but without any sense of justice. > > These examples assume we have rational actors. I may have technically failed Econ 101, but people are _not_ ideal rational actors as assumed in introductory economics. Consider the following examples of economically irrational behavior: racism; sexism; political considerations; strikebreakers; crimes that fund drug addiction; having more children that you cannot afford; falling for the old $0.99 trick; consumer hysteria; indecisiveness; and short-sightedness in general. I suspect most if not all markets are and always have been heavily influenced by irrational economic behavior. Perhaps most importantly of all, most people must make important economic decisions in the dark - an entirely rational decision based on the available information can easily end up being the wrong decision. > > ~Max I agree. I made a similar point pertaining to geography earlier in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/228 "2019-07-31T02:37:30Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > “People own their own labor and can sell it as they see fit.” (Scylla) > > Surely you jest. Is that some kind of Libertarian nonsense? Certainly is single dimensional. In 2004 I was living in a small New Mexico town and consulting for companies in Si Valley, Texas and Israel. I billed $100 an hour. My Navaho friends were lucky to bill $5.00 an hour when they could find a job. I was selling fifty years of experience thru contacts I had made during that time. Do you propose that my cowboy buddy, Hector Apachito, could hitch hike to Sunnyvale CA and land a job that would even pay him enough to live there? Your economics education is wanting. > > Supply and demand are just 2 of the parameters that determine the compensation paid for labor. What I said is true. Whether or not they get any takers if they overprice their labor is besides the point. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/229 "2019-07-31T06:07:50Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Loans create M1 money, assuming the funds are allocated to a checkable account. **k9bfriender** ’s cite seems to mean M1 money when they say “money”. > > Below is an example. You can see M1 expand when loans are made in steps 2 and 5, while it shrinks when deposits are made (to savings accounts) in steps 1 and 4. It also shrinks when a loan is repaid in step 9. > > ```auto > > step Bank Joe Bob Sue desc > > 0 100 200 0 0 Nobody owes anybody anything > ---- ---- ---- --- > 100 200 0 0 = 300 total money supply (M1: 200) > 1 110 100 0 0 Joe deposits 100 in bank > -100 +100 (bank liable to Joe for 100) > ---- ---- ---- --- > 100 200 0 0 = 300 total money supply (M1: 100) > 2 150 100 0 50 Bank loans Sue 50 > -100 +100 (bank liable to Joe for 100) > + 50 -50 (Sue liable to bank for 50) > ---- ---- ---- --- > 100 200 0 0 = 300 total money supply (M1: 150) > 3 150 120 10 20 Sue pays Bob 10 and Joe 20 > -100 +100 (bank liable to Joe for 100) > + 50 -50 (Sue liable to bank for 50) > ---- ---- ---- --- > 100 220 10 -30 = 300 total money supply (M1: 150) > > > 4 180 100 0 20 Joe deposits 20; Bob deposits 10 > -120 +120 (bank liable to Joe for 120) > + 50 -50 (Sue liable to bank for 50) > - 10 + 10 (bank liable to Bob for 10) > ---- ---- ---- --- > 100 220 10 -30 = 300 total money supply (M1: 120) > 5 80 100 100 20 Bank loans Bob 100 > -120 +120 (bank liable to Joe for 120) > + 50 -50 (Sue liable to bank for 50) > - 10 + 10 (bank liable to Bob for 10) > +100 -100 (Bob liable to bank for 100) > ---- ---- ---- --- > 100 220 10 -30 = 300 total money supply (M1: 220) > 6 80 100 100 20 Bank adds 2% interest to Joe's account > -122.4 +122.4 (bank liable to Joe for 126) > + 50 -50 (Sue liable to bank for 50) > - 10 + 10 (bank liable to Bob for 10) > +100 -100 (Bob liable to bank for 100) > ------ ------ ---- --- > 97.6 222.4 10 -30 = 300 total money supply (M1: 220) > 7 80 100 100 20 Bank adds 6% interest to Sue's loan > -122.4 +122.4 (bank liable to Joe for 126) > + 53 -53 (Sue liable to bank for 50) > - 10 + 10 (bank liable to Bob for 10) > +100 -100 (Bob liable to bank for 100) > ------ ------ ---- --- > 100.6 222.4 10 -33 = 300 total money supply (M1: 220) > 8 80 100 5 115 Bob pays Sue 95 > -122.4 +122.4 (bank liable to Joe for 126) > + 53 -53 (Sue liable to bank for 50) > - 10 + 10 (bank liable to Bob for 10) > +100 -100 (Bob liable to bank for 100) > ------ ------ ---- --- > 100.6 222.4 -85 62 = 300 total money supply (M1: 220) > 9 133 100 5 62 Sue pays off her loan > -122.4 +122.4 (bank liable to Joe for 126) > - 10 + 10 (bank liable to Bob for 10) > +100 -100 (Bob liable to bank for 100) > ------ ------ ---- --- > 100.6 222.4 -85 62 = 300 total money supply (M1: 167) > > ``` > > ~Max Hi Max, Thanks. I think I followed most of that. A few comments: 1. I think at times you’re example is looking at the version of m0 measure of money supply which doesn’t include bank deposits, and referring to it as m1. 2. m1 includes both currency and demand deposits. So the act of depositing cash into a bank account increases the amount of demand deposits, but doesn’t move the m1 measure of money supply. 3. Interest charges aren’t part of the money supply, and at a transactional level don’t cause it to move up and down. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/230 "2019-07-31T12:14:16Z")
Scylla, I don’t understand. How are the Navahos overpricing their wages? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/231 "2019-07-31T12:46:39Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Scylla, > > I don’t understand. How are the Navahos overpricing their wages? I will do your taxes. I will charge $5,000/hr. Would you like to hire me. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/232 "2019-07-31T12:49:07Z")
How about beer drinker? I will drink your beer for $5/hr. Want to hire me? I can price my labor wherever I want. But if I want takers I need to offer a service that is wanted at a price people are willing to pay. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/233 "2019-07-31T12:52:44Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I will do your taxes. I will charge $5,000/hr. Would you like to hire me. I’m sure that he understands but is baffled why others value that labor at a lower number. He is still on ‘living wage’ etc ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/234 "2019-07-31T13:24:36Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > I have a question to springboard off of this - should the same standard apply to a business, run by a person or board of people over the age of 18? Because I have seen a lot of people who advocate ‘personal responsibility’ also advocate for Right To Work laws, and it seems rather strange to me that a ‘near 18-year-old’ is expected to bear personal responsibility for a potentially bad contract decision, but that a business run by a much older person gets the possibility of a contract they don’t like outright forbidden by law. Why is a business owner negotiating with employees held to a much lower standard of personal responsibility than some kid with no real-world experience yet? It would seem to me that advocates of Personal Responsibility should be staunchly opposed to Right to Work laws, especially if they are also fans of “Small Government”, and yet the majority of the time they just aren’t. I’m not sure I understand the question. I personally don’t have a particular opinion about Right To Work laws. Conceptually I can understand someone who advocates personal responsibility also advocating for workers being allowed to perform their own work agreement negotiations - and then having to live with them. Likewise, I can understand a business owner wanting the freedom to choose whether union membership in his business is optional or not. If you’re asking me if a business owner should follow the terms of a contract that he agreed to, even if the law doesn’t require him to, then yes I believe he should. > [@Pantastic](#): > > Further question: Shouldn’t the people giving loans take some responsibility for their loans in the first place? By making the loans not dischargeable in bankruptcy, it removes the risk to the lender of making the loan to someone who is not going to be able to actually pay the loan in the first place. You would think that advocates of ‘personal responsibility’ would argue that the lender of this specific type of loan should have to take the same risk of non-payment as the lenders of other loans, but for some reason people who make this loan aren’t required to take responsibility for their bad lending decisions. Why doesn’t any of the blame for these bad decisions lie on the person who’s protected by law from the consequence of the bad decision? Yes, the loanmakers should be responsible for making bad loans and bankruptcy for people who genuinely can’t pay off their loans should be allowed. I’d be in favour of there being a minimum period after graduation before a student can claim bankruptcy, and also a grace period where the loan is frozen but the student can’t declare bankruptcy. But if someone is in a low-paying job 5 years after college and has an overwhelming amount of debt, then yes they should be allowed to declare bankruptcy. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/235 "2019-07-31T13:48:26Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > 1. I think at times you’re example is looking at the version of m0 measure of money supply which doesn’t include bank deposits, and referring to it as m1. Both of the bank deposit accounts in my example were savings accounts, so m1 was in fact m0 minus the total under the bank column. > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > 1. m1 includes both currency and demand deposits. So the act of depositing cash into a bank account increases the amount of demand deposits, but doesn’t move the m1 measure of money supply. Those deposits (steps 1 & 4) were to savings accounts, which don’t count towards m1. Think of each person’s balance, the top row of an entry under their own column, as their checking accounts or cash on hand. > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > 1. Interest charges aren’t part of the money supply, and at a transactional level don’t cause it to move up and down. Correct. Note that neither m0 (total money supply) nor m1 change when the bank credits Joe’s savings account in step 6, or when it charges interest on Sue’s loan in step 7. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/236 "2019-07-31T14:26:12Z")
Scylla, Yes, you make my point. There are qualitative components involved. ‘Supply and demand’ is just one parameter that unfortunately is often casually thrown about as a platitude. Another is ‘productivity’. What is obvious to you and me is not obvious to Hector. He is 37 years old and nothing is going to get better for him. He can still break horses and build fences when work is available but he has used up his body and it is failing him. The Indian Health Service patches his body, but the current administration is reducing funding. They seem to think Hector should buy private health insurance. A more recent problem for Hector is the ID card thing. He was raised by the Apachito family when his father deserted his pregnant mother. The name on his social security card is Apachito but on his birth certificate it’s Begay. He can’t renew his drivers license unless he hires a lawyer to petition the court for a name change. Without the internal passport of a drivers license (or ID card) Hector is a non-citizen. This is part of a national problem for which we, as citizens, are responsible. Citizenship is a personal responsibility. It’s not a matter of moving people or handing out money. It’s a matter of long term cultural change on both sides of the equation. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/237 "2019-07-31T15:12:20Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > To say I’ve had trouble following this thread is… an understatement. I’ve read it all a couple times through and might as well start back up at the top. I find **Wrenching Spanners** ’s post #12 to be self-contradictory: > > That situation _is_ unfair for the children of Neighborhood B. The children are not responsible for their parent-teacher association’s effectiveness, but it is the children whose education suffers as a result. I’ve put a long explanation below, in case that doesn’t make sense. > > If we make a few basic assumptions, which I hope you will find uncontroversial, I hope to expose the precise contradiction in this position. > [ul][li]First is the doctrine of equity or _fairness_: an assumption that all children have the right to a good education. In your own words you “regard fairness as a conservative value”.[/li] > [li]Second is the assumption that Neighborhood B school, on account of its ineffective parent-teacher association, is incapable of providing a good education for many of its students.[/li] > [li]Third is the assumption that some parents of Neighborhood B are responsible for the ineffective parent-teacher association; it is in no way the fault of the schoolchildren or the teachers (who are excellent). It is not necessarily that the parents are bad or malicious, just that they are not _effective_.[/li] > [li]Fourth is the assumption that the ineffective parents of Neighborhood B may not be denied representation in the parent-teacher association, nor may they be expelled from the school, nor may they be forced to give the state custody of their children, nor may they be forced to be effective.[/li] > [li]Fifth is the doctrine of personal responsibility: one is only responsible for one’s own actions. This is the traditional definition, not the one **Scylla** advanced (which I recently adopted in [POST=21769463]post #34[/POST]"). “You and the other residents of your neighborhood have a personal responsibility for the actions that take place in your neighborhood, not the neighborhood down the road.” The parents in Neighborhood A are responsible for the parent-teacher association in Neighborhood A; they are _not_ responsible for the parent-teacher association in Neighborhood B. “Blame is not an inheritable liability”.[/ul][/li] > Now on to the analysis. It is clear that the students of Neighborhood B school are being denied a good education (2), and that a good education is their right (1), therefore the children are being denied a right. Further, the blame falls entirely upon some parents of Neighborhood B (3). Neither the parents of Neighborhood A nor the children of either neighborhood are to blame or have any personal responsibility in the matter (5). > > Therefore we have a situation where some parents have deprived many children of their rights, but there is no recourse (4). This is perfectly fair to the parents of Neighborhood B, and possibly to the “families” of Neighborhood B, who are effectively curtailing their own rights; it is fair for you, a parent in Neighborhood A, who had nothing to do with the matter. But if you _think of the children_, it becomes clear that children are being deprived of their rights due to no fault of their own, which is in and of itself _unfair_. > > Therefore you, on behalf of the whole of society, have the choice between reneging the rights of Neighborhood B (expelling certain parents from the PTA, taking custody of the children), waiving your immunity from responsibility (throwing money at the school, shuttering the school and busing students to Neighborhood A school), or abandoning fairness by allowing the children to suffer (status quo). > > Barring some other doctrine, > > ```auto > > personal responsibility alone cannot make this choice > > ``` > > . > > Now on to a more controversial idea. Collective responsibility might make the choice. The state runs the school. The state guarantees every child’s right to a good education; in fact, the state/society guarantees the rights of all innocents. Some might make an exception for acts of God, but that doesn’t apply here where the causes are all acts of man. The state is at fault when, for whatever reason, the children do not have the opportunity for a good education. And all citizens, even those of Neighborhood A, take part in the collective responsibility represented by the state. Therefore the liability shifts from the parents to the state; the state is responsible for the education of children, and the parents are responsible to the state (not the children) for being effective in their PTA. Should the parents fail, the state is still obliged to provide a good education, therefore everybody’s taxes go up and the status quo is definitively eliminated from the list of valid options. Then limitations on state power and a cost-benefit analysis (not free) would determine which course of action is appropriate. > > ~Max Let’s take a step away from the OP, and assume Neighbourhoods A and B are equal. Likewise their schools are equal: same budgets, same number of students and teachers, same level of parent involvement, etc. In year one of our hypothetical, because of all this equality, the schools have equal results. After year one, the parents in Neighbourhood A decide they want to improve their children’s education. They increase their parental involvement, and sure enough it works. In year two, School A has better results than School B. Your proposal is to rebalance the schools. This means either taking money away from School A’s budget and giving it to School B, or taxing everyone in order to increase School B’s budget. You’re punishing Neighbourhood A for improving their school. This is exactly the liberal response that conservatives object to. Anyway, let’s assume that the rebalancing works and in year three, the schools have equal results. Neighbourhood A’s parents decide to raise their game and become even more involved in their children’s education. So in year four School A again does better than School B. Are you going to punish Neighbourhood A again? In real life, it’s probable that School A and School B are not equal even if they have the same budgets and parental involvement. Neighbourhood B may have systemic problems that cause hardships for their students. I’m in favour of proposals to relieve those hardships if they’re in the nature of free breakfasts, after school programs, school security, etc. And I do recognise these programs require money, but I’m in favour of spending that money because it will solve problems Neighbourhood B has that Neighbourhood A doesn’t. By the way, I hope that you appreciate that I built the above strawman with the cleanest straw, the straightest sticks, and the strongest twine I could find. Also, for anyone who thinks my scenarios are totally fictional, there are calls in the UK from liberals to ban private schools because of the advantages they give to rich students. They’re not just in favour of rebalancing parent-funded advantages, they want to ban them. > **[Why I want to see private schools abolished](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/21/private-schools-abolished-privileged-education-advantage-money-legislation)** > > There would still be inequality, but it would be minimised. Absolutely level playing fields are, and always will be, a myth > **[Abolish private schools, Alan Bennett argues](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/9923369/Abolish-private-schools-Alan-Bennett-argues.html)** > > Alan Bennett, the award-winning playwright, has called for the abolition of the private school system, as he argues he would never have been able to attend university nowadays due to the high tuition fees. > **[The rigged private school sector must be abolished](https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/rigged-private-school-sector-must-be-abolished)** > > Private schools serve to maintain the status quo and the old boys’ network. Teacher ROBERT POOLE explains why the AbolishEton campaign is seeking to bring such schools into the public sector ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/238 "2019-07-31T16:04:45Z")
Something like your A/B comparison is occurring. Charter schools are putting pressure on the public school system to clean house. No top down funding shift is required. Just the presence of charter schools has changed public expectations. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/239 "2019-07-31T16:39:13Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > When I was talking about judging, I was talking about being judgemental. What you are talking about is using judgement to arrive at a sound decision. I perhaps did not do a good job distinguishing this. My bad. I would then ask you to re-examine your position from [POST=21768660]post #28[/POST]: > [@Scylla](#): > > Personal responsibility is not about judging others or expecting others not to take help when they need it. It is certainly not an excuse to refrain from helping other people in need, or withholding aid from them. > > Personal responsibility is just the ethic for how you choose to live your life, hence the “personal.” It has nothing to do with anybody else. In all three of the counter-examples I provided in [POST=21769463]post #34[/POST] (loan, interviewee, date), it is possible and necessary to judge somebody’s personal responsibility. Further, these judgments directly affect people’s lives. The loan applicant is granted or denied a loan, the interviewee is granted or denied a job, and your friend might call off a date, all based on your decision alone. Do you still think personal responsibility “has nothing to do with anybody else” except oneself? > [@Scylla](#): > > Hmm. It’s not a question I asked myself. Your narrative is powerful, and I thank you for sharing it, but it just doesn’t seem relevant. That’s not personal responsibility as we have been discussing it, it is just plain old responsibility. The personal responsibility we are discussing is being responsible for one’s own actions. > [@Scylla](#): > > I disagree. Personal responsibility is about one’s choices. Choosing inaction can be very significant. One is responsible for the consequence of that choice just as they are for the positive choices. Let me elaborate. Pretend I purchase a chartered flight in Alaska, for sightseeing purposes. The proprietor is also the pilot, and he takes me up over Denali. He starts drinking over my objections and after a while we stall and start falling. He can’t regain control and we ditch the plane which crashes below. I land with only minor injuries but the drunk pilot released late (he may have lost consciousness during the fall), therefore I saw him glide into the trees half a mile uphill. If I keep a level head, I would call the state troopers on my sat phone (if I have one) while setting out to find the pilot. Why go after the pilot? It’s not out of a sense of personal responsibility. The pilot is entirely responsible for the whole situation, as far as I am concerned. It was his plane, his drinking, his piloting. I’m in the clear and I’ll probably sue him if we make it out alive. I guess you could say I have a small incentive to save the pilot, so I can hold him personally responsible for the mess. There is also the fact that he probably knows the area better than I, and might know how to get to a rest house or how to salvage things from the plane, etc. Neither of those are my primary motivation in going to save the pilot. I would go after him out of a sense of humanity, not personal responsibility. Now, if it had been me drinking and I reached over and messed with the pilot’s controls, which caused us to stall and crash, _then_ I would be personally responsible for the pilot’s condition. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/240 "2019-07-31T17:07:17Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Let’s take a step away from the OP, and assume Neighbourhoods A and B are equal. Likewise their schools are equal: same budgets, same number of students and teachers, same level of parent involvement, etc. In year one of our hypothetical, because of all this equality, the schools have **equal results**. > > After year one, the parents in Neighbourhood A decide they want to improve their children’s education. They increase their parental involvement, and sure enough it works. In year two, School A has better results than School B. Your proposal is to rebalance the schools. The dilemma remains. Personal responsibility and egalitarianism are conflicting doctrines. I identify as conservative but I take a middle path here. I say there is a threshold, a minimum quality education that all students are entitled to. Children are entitled to a “good” education, not an “equal” education. I believe in nondiscrimination, not necessarily equal results. If Neighborhood school B doesn’t meet that minimum, I don’t care how hard Neighborhood A worked to make themselves better, we are diverting funds to school B. A basic education is important. The long term societal benefit of meeting that minimum outweighs the cost of keeping Neighborhood A down. That doesn’t necessarily mean I would rebalance the schools in the scenario you have written. It would depend on whether Neighborhood school B provides a minimum quality education each year. If Neighborhood school B meets the baseline, I won’t complain about further inequality but will respond to complaints by pointing at Neighborhood A as a model. “Look at what they’re doing, you could be doing that”. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/241 "2019-07-31T17:13:38Z")
Max, Add a small variable. Suppose you were a geologist and had packed some heavy rock samples in your bag. You did nothing ‘wrong’ but it was your extra weight that prevented a recovery from the stall. Are you then responsible? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550.md?page=13)