# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2019, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/162 "2019-07-27T23:15:23Z")
A corporation can own a corporation. It limits its liability to the amount of money the exercise costs. A corporation can loan its totally owned corporation enough money to build and operate very dangerous equipment, and make the terms of the charter specifically prevent the subsidiary from retaining any capital during the probable time period based on the useful lifetime of the very dangerous equipment. When that equipment fails to function, even catastrophically, the owning corporation’s loss is never more than the cost of the loan. Profits from goods sold before the catastrophe have already been paid out as dividends. The very name Limited Liability Corporation comes from the function described. Tris * * * The rich get rich, the poor get pollution. ---
**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 28, 2019, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/163 "2019-07-28T06:33:22Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > WS, > > Of course there is an argument in favor of the financial benefits of the corporate form. But, that is not the issue under discussion. Can you argue that incorporation does not shield participants from personal responsibility? Of course I’m not arguing that, I’ve said the opposite twice, in posts #133 and #149. I’m saying that the establishment of corporations was a key element in how the modern capitalist economy evolved, and that the modern capitalist economy is, overall, a good for society. Do you think each individual who owns Volkswagen shares should have been directly fined based on the corporations fraudulent action to falsify diesel emissions? ---
**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 28, 2019, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/164 "2019-07-28T07:45:58Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Student loan debt is a problem for more than just the student. It is a problem for the economy, the job market, well for everyone. I personally have a bit of SLD, meaning that I give about $400 a month to some loan companies, rather than spending it in the economy. Now, if you understand debt, then you know that when you create debt, you create money, you grow the economy. **When you retire debt, you destroy money, you shrink the economy.** > > There is 1.5 trillion in student debt, and that is 1.5 trillion dollars that will not be contributing to the economy. > > It’s a double sided problem. Not only does the debt hold back students from becoming productive members of society, but the apprehension of taking on the debt will dissuade many from pursuing a degree. The ability to take on debt to finance education is one of the factors that allowed tuition costs to explode as they have. > > So, student loan debt makes students less able and/or willing to go to college, it burdens those students and prevents them from moving on with their life, and it drains money out of the economy that all these 20-30 college graduates should be spending. Let’s start with the bolded statement first. This is so thoroughly wrong that I’m wondering if you got your terms mixed up. Debt retirement is the act of paying off a debt completely. That’s what’s supposed to happen. When debtors pay back their loans, it enables the bank to loan out those funds to other borrowers, which grows the economy. Maybe you’ve mixed up debt retirement with bankruptcy? Regarding the economic effect, the students were borrowing money to obtain an education and a degree, both of which are enhancements that should increase their future earnings. Monetarily, they were assuming a future cost, betting that their future earnings would exceed that cost. Assuming they’ve graduated and are now paying off their student loans, the economic effect is that they’re now more productive than they would have been without the college education. (See here for a discussion about how a college education makes an individual more productive: [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879294](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879294) .) They’re also able to use the knowledge and skills from their education to come up with new ideas. Increased productivity and creativity are two major drivers of economic expansion. By the way, what is the debt stopping these former students from doing? If they’ve lost the bet about increased future earnings described above, then they’re spending less than otherwise. However, the money from that reduced spending already went into the economy - it went to the colleges those students attended. Are you saying that former college student spending has a greater macroeconomic effect than university spending? The debt may force the former students to work more than they want to. However, from an economic standpoint, increased work is a positive. Not to mention there’s much more to being “productive members of society” than spending. Moving to personal responsibility, those students knew how much they were borrowing. They should have known about the reputations of the schools they were attending. They should have had a fair idea of their career prospects. All of that information is readily available. They should have been personally responsible for analysing the costs and benefits before taking out the loan and attending college. If they did the analysis and got it roughly correct, they’ve got nothing to complain about. Maybe they made a mistake and their future prospects were below what they expected. Personal responsibility is accepting the results of your mistakes. Or maybe the students wanting their debt relieved didn’t really think about paying it off four years later, and just assumed everything would be good once they were out of college. Why should the rest of society, including people who didn’t go to college, pay for their lack of forethought? ---
**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 28, 2019, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/165 "2019-07-28T08:12:03Z")
> [@Triskadecamus](#): > > A corporation can own a corporation. It limits its liability to the amount of money the exercise costs. A corporation can loan its totally owned corporation enough money to build and operate very dangerous equipment, and make the terms of the charter specifically prevent the subsidiary from retaining any capital during the probable time period based on the useful lifetime of the very dangerous equipment. When that equipment fails to function, even catastrophically, the owning corporation’s loss is never more than the cost of the loan. Profits from goods sold before the catastrophe have already been paid out as dividends. The very name Limited Liability Corporation comes from the function described. What you are describing is racketeering, which is illegal. If a corporation sets up a subsidiary with the intention of breaking the law, such as environmental regulations, the actors who set up the subsidiary can be criminally charged and the corporation is not shielded from fines nor liability. Also, in the US, the leaders of the corporation can be charged under the Sarbanes-Oxley act. For civil actions, such as creditors seeking payment, a corporate structure involving independent subsidiaries does provide a layer of protection against liability. However, that protection can be overcome by proof that there was a conspiracy to commit deceptive practices, or by proving that the independent subsidiary was not acting independently. Also, if the corporation is in a regulated industry such as financials services, the regulations will limit the actions of corporations to avoid financial responsibility. ---
**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 28, 2019, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/166 "2019-07-28T12:37:05Z")
A review of the above posts indicates we agree that the corporate form allows individuals to avoid personal responsibility. It’s not a value judgement and the form is useful in an industrial society. So, syllogistically: The corporate form allows individuals to avoid personal responsibility Some Conservatives use the corporate form :. Some Conservatives avoid personal responsibility So, accepting personal responsibility is not a universal attribute of Conservatives. ---
**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 28, 2019, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/167 "2019-07-28T13:22:10Z")
The OP addresses the issue of collective responsibility. Collective responsibility, for those of us who live in the United States, is defined by the preamble to our Constitution. The Constitution establishes that we strive for the following social norms: Support the federation of states Maintain domestic tranquility Participate in the common defence Promote our general welfare Provide for the future So, in that context, a definition of personal responsibility would be: Participate in the political process Conduct oneself in a manner that is not disruptive to others Volunteer for military service when necessary Support policies that enhance the national population, not just an individual or group Act in the context of history and the future not just the present This implies that one is productive, has an income and pays taxes. ---
**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 28, 2019, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/168 "2019-07-28T14:13:15Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > A review of the above posts indicates we agree that the corporate form allows individuals to avoid personal responsibility. It’s not a value judgement and the form is useful in an industrial society. > > So, syllogistically: > > The corporate form allows individuals to avoid personal responsibility > Some Conservatives use the corporate form > :. Some Conservatives avoid personal responsibility > > So, accepting personal responsibility is not a universal attribute of Conservatives. In post #107, I noted that a willingness to accept trade-offs is an aspect of conservatism. It’s called pragmatism. We tend to leave dogmatism to the liberals. Conservatives also believe that if something is working successfully, it should continue. This is known as the principle of prescription. Corporate capitalism has been successful as an economic system for over 400 years. So yes, we tend to back it. It’s not a mutually exclusive choice between backing personal responsibility and corporatism. I’ll have the best of each, thanks. If I see someone driving recklessly who then crashes, I’m going to call the emergency services, and then see if the person needs first aid. I’m not going to just move on because the driver has personal responsibility for the accident. Does that mean I lose my conservative credentials? On the other hand, I am going to support the person being punished for reckless driving. I’m not going to think “Oh the accident was punishment enough”, or think society failed the driver by not providing him with proper driver education. ---
**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 28, 2019, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/169 "2019-07-28T14:39:43Z")
WS, I’m not making a value judgement on corporations. The issue is the propensity of some conservatives to avoid personal responsibility. That, among others, eliminates personal responsibility as a universal attribute of conservatives. It’s not a value judgement of Conservatives. Just a fact. Some conservatives engage in business using the partnership form. They retain personal responsibility. Sorry, I’m not clever enough to follow your line of thought in the accident example. You are not personally responsible for the driving habits of others or for reporting incidents. It’s irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2019, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/170 "2019-07-28T15:12:24Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Let’s start with the bolded statement first. This is so thoroughly wrong that I’m wondering if you got your terms mixed up. Debt retirement is the act of paying off a debt completely. That’s what’s supposed to happen. When debtors pay back their loans, it enables the bank to loan out those funds to other borrowers, which grows the economy. Maybe you’ve mixed up debt retirement with bankruptcy? No, I made no mistake here, and for you to assert that paying off a debt destroying money is “thoroughly wrong” tells me that you are very poorly informed as to how debt works in a fractional banking reserve system. Your point as to money getting back into the system to be lent out again is valid in some times and circumstances, but, as the banks are currently sitting on plenty of e[xcess reserve that is just sitting there](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-reserves/the-u-s-banking-system-is-flush-with-cash-but-may-have-a-problem-idUSKCN1ST2DY), not doing anything but earning interest from the federal reserve on the taxpayer dime, this is not one of those times and circumstances. The banks are not waiting around for depositors to deposit, or borrowers to repay, before they can lend out more money. They are actually looking for worthy borrowers, desperate to get some of this money out into the economy. The worst thing you could do to a bank is to have all its borrowers pay off their loans. What do you think would happen if everyone paid off all their debt all at once? Well first, that’s impossible, as there isn’t enough money to pay off all the debt, but the attempt would crater the economy. Yes, when a loan is originated, money is created out of thin air. When a debt is retired, which means to pay it off completely(nothing to do with bankruptcy), that money is destroyed. I used the extremes of the life cycle of a loan to better illustrate the point, but anytime you make a payment against a debt, that money disappears into the same fiat void that it was created from. When you swipe your credit card, that money “magically” appears out of nowhere, and when you pay your statement at the end of the cycle, that money disappears again. I did not in any way mistake retirement for bankruptcy, which I may point out, is irrelevant where it comes to student loans, as they cannot be discharged through bankruptcy, unlike credit card debt that could have been ran up purchasing frivolites and luxuries. > [@](#): > > Regarding the economic effect, the students were borrowing money to obtain an education and a degree, both of which are enhancements that should increase their future earnings. Monetarily, they were assuming a future cost, betting that their future earnings would exceed that cost. Assuming they’ve graduated and are now paying off their student loans, the economic effect is that they’re now more productive than they would have been without the college education. (See here for a discussion about how a college education makes an individual more productive: [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879294](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879294) .) They’re also able to use the knowledge and skills from their education to come up with new ideas. Increased productivity and creativity are two major drivers of economic expansion. Not sure why you feel the need to point this out, of course higher education has the potential to increase your earnings, that is irrelevant to the discussion. > [@](#): > > By the way, what is the debt stopping these former students from doing? If they’ve lost the bet about increased future earnings described above, then they’re spending less than otherwise. However, the money from that reduced spending already went into the economy - it went to the colleges those students attended. Are you saying that former college student spending has a greater macroeconomic effect than university spending? The debt may force the former students to work more than they want to. However, from an economic standpoint, increased work is a positive. Not to mention there’s much more to being “productive members of society” than spending. What is it stopping them from doing? I dunno, 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 that make their lives better and bolster the economy. Some of that money already went into the economy, yes, at the schools, in the form of higher salaries for staff, or advertising, but given the nature of loans that you seem to have forgotten or skimmed over, most of the money that is paid is in the form of interest, which doesn’t go to the school, but rather, to Sallie Mae. The best way to stimulate the economy is to get money into the hands of those who will spend it the quickest, and the quickest spenders are young adults with their first taste of discretionary money. By removing that from not just a few, but from a substantial portion of an entire generation will lower the demand for goods and services, slowing the economy. While being a productive member of society does entail more than just spending, that doesn’t matter to the economy, where the only thing that does actually matter as a consumer _is_ spending. > [@](#): > > Moving to personal responsibility, those students knew how much they were borrowing. They should have known about the reputations of the schools they were attending. They should have had a fair idea of their career prospects. All of that information is readily available. They should have been personally responsible for analysing the costs and benefits before taking out the loan and attending college. If they did the analysis and got it roughly correct, they’ve got nothing to complain about. Maybe they made a mistake and their future prospects were below what they expected. Personal responsibility is accepting the results of your mistakes. Or maybe the students wanting their debt relieved didn’t really think about paying it off four years later, and just assumed everything would be good once they were out of college. Why should the rest of society, including people who didn’t go to college, pay for their lack of forethought? First, this doesn’t actually adress anything I’ve said, and your last question is pure strawman. Because I pointed out that student debt is a bigger problem to the economy and the country than just the individuals struggling with it doesn’t mean that the rest of society should pay for their lack of forethought, but rather, that society should recognize that this is a problem for more than just the individual student struggling to pay off the debt. Do I think that student debt should be wiped out overnight? No. Do I think that actions should be taken to help to prevent young adults from being trapped into a cycle of debt, and that means of working their way out of that debt should be available? Yes. That is entirely different than how you choose to frame the issue. As to the personal responsibility thing you are calling for here, you do realize that these are 16-18 year olds that you are talking about, right? Kids who are being told that they will be in poverty their whole lives if they don’t go to college. Kids who are swayed by snazzy advertising and marketing campaigns that are paid for by current students who are going into debt. Should they be better informed as to the decisions that they are making? Absolutely. Are we, as a society, properly preparing and educating these teenagers in how to make a proper and informed decision on taking on the debt that is required for them to get ahead in life? No, I do not think so. As an extreme example, if I force you to choose envelope 1 or 2, without telling you what is in either of them, and one is a million dollars, and the other is a million dollar debt, do you consider the person who got the million to be more personally responsible than the one that got saddled with the bill? And with tuition rates rising significantly faster than inflation, this is not a problem that will go away on its own. Yeah, when people went to school 20 or more years ago, they could take on a more reasonable debt load in order to attend college. Now the debt that is asked of our students is nearly an order of magnitude higher, and it will only continue to increase unless the problem is addressed. ---
**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 28, 2019, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/171 "2019-07-28T15:57:42Z")
**Amen - “promote the general welfare”.** ---
**Author:** ![Skypist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skypist/32/169_2.png) [@Skypist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skypist)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/172 "2019-07-28T17:08:47Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > My impression is personal responsibility is a way to justify callousness. To justify cuts to the social safety net or harsh criminal sanctions. Also as OP mentions a way to justify lack of empathy towards minorities who do not have it as good. > > When it comes to Republicans committing crimes, the mantra disappears. The modern conservative movement is based on paranoid fantasies of victimization, which is the exact opposite of the personal responsibility they claim to stand for. Railing that white Christians are victims because their iron grip on power is slipping is the exact opposite of personal responsibility. > > Where is this mantra when coal miners see their jobs disappear and they refuse to train for a 21st century economy? Or when farmers vote for trump and then he passes tariffs that damage their companies? Or when Roy Moore and Donald trump threaten the people they sexually assaulted rather than accept what they did was wrong and their voters applauded? All of this. It’s used as a way to justify cutting social safety nets and as a way for the speaker to feel superior to others. “So-and-so made a bad choice but I myself am perfect and have never made a mistake or done something stupid.” So they don’t have to feel bad about the US having very little safety net and people suffering miserable, short lives when many of them could have learned to lead productive lives with a little help. America seems to be determined to be a harsh and judgmental wasteland. And yes, 45 goes on and on about trying to reel back outdated jobs for groups he likes such as coal miners, and nobody ever suggests that maybe a gov’t program to retrain displaced workers would help them more, be more cost effective, and be better for everyone. As if there are no workers from other outdated fields who are also finding dwindling job prospects but nobody ever heard of them and 45 doesn’t care about them so fuck them - nobody will help retrain them or try to yank back _those_ outdated jobs. I guess 45 just got a hard-on for coal miners since Obama tried to reduce our dependence on coal. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2019, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/173 "2019-07-28T17:43:36Z")
> [@Skypist](#): > > All of this. > > It’s used as a way to justify cutting social safety nets and as a way for the speaker to feel superior to others. “So-and-so made a bad choice but I myself am perfect and have never made a mistake or done something stupid.” So they don’t have to feel bad about the US having very little safety net and people suffering miserable, short lives when many of them could have learned to lead productive lives with a little help. America seems to be determined to be a harsh and judgmental wasteland. > > And yes, 45 goes on and on about trying to reel back outdated jobs for groups he likes such as coal miners, and nobody ever suggests that maybe a gov’t program to retrain displaced workers would help them more, be more cost effective, and be better for everyone. As if there are no workers from other outdated fields who are also finding dwindling job prospects but nobody ever heard of them and 45 doesn’t care about them so fuck them - nobody will help retrain them or try to yank back _those_ outdated jobs. I guess 45 just got a hard-on for coal miners since Obama tried to reduce our dependence on coal. It’s the standard conservative mindset that’s _your_ mistakes were foreseeable and avoidable, but _my_ mistakes were due to factors outside of my control. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/174 "2019-07-28T18:26:25Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I mentioned several different part-timers besides teenagers. You know there is data on this? About 1 in 5 workers is a part time worker? Contrary to your opinion, the part time labor force is pretty big. Do you know that we have a whole government agency that does nothing but complete labor statistics? If you can’t get into statists, you might check out [bus.gov](http://bus.gov) and take a look at some actual data. > > Yes. You said this beforehand and I explained to you that not everybody who is working needs or is willing to commit to a job that provides a living wage [Bus.gov](http://Bus.gov) appears to be about bus driving. [Bls.gov](http://Bls.gov) may be what you were actually after. From that site, and specifically from [https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf) > [@](#): > > The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 4.3 million in June. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.) Of course there are people who prefer part time work; and of course some of those people don’t need more money (others are simply flat out unable to take full time jobs because they have obligations for unpaid work; and of course some are physically unable to.) But 4.3 million (a number which is not currently going down) who want full time work but can’t get it is not a trivial number of people. And, as I keep saying, the problem is also people who are working full time but still aren’t paid enough to live on. > [@Scylla](#): > > Big whoop. It’s not going to. You are just going to some businesses suffer, others close, and a bunch of workers who need the job getting fired.’ > > forcing all jobs to pay a certain amount tends to make jobs below that threshold of value disappear, removing the marginal utility that those jobs and paychecks and services provide to the economy. Raising low wages also puts more money into the hands of people who will spend most of it, thereby increasing the amount of goods and services that businesses can sell. > [@Scylla](#): > > Maybe you could do that. I don’t have that kind of cash laying around. > . The society as a whole, obviously. As you perfectly well know that I meant. > [@Scylla](#): > > Oh my fucking God, what a disaster!!! You mean they bought a house for 60k a long time ago and now it’s Worth millions? Those poor bastards!. Fifty years of inflation and probably a whole lot of work put into the place over those years aside, that probably looks like a good argument to some. Of course, as most people can only get at that money if they pack up their lives and move, it’s only a good argument to those for whom the word “home” means the same thing as “amount of money for which one could purchase alternative shelter”. I’ve come to realize over the years that there are a lot of such people; and that it’s probably not possible to fully explain to them why to a lot of other people that’s the equivalent of saying ‘why would it matter if you’d never be able to see your spouse again? There’s probably somebody else who’d move in with you’. I ask those who don’t understand it, however (though with little hope in some cases that this will get through) to recognize that there are quite a lot of humans to whom those statements are pretty much equivalent; and to whom it’s the claim that unwillingly trading their home for money is a fair exchange which is nonsense. > [@Scylla](#): > > Quantitatively, that is exactly what I said, only pessimistically phrasesd. > . You said that a lack of incentives means that people are satisfied. I said that it can mean that they’re extremely dissatisfied. I don’t see how we said the same thing. > [@Scylla](#): > > So, you want the government to compete with private industry? You are aware that these types of industries already exist, yes? You’re aware that fossil fuel subsidies already exist, yes? I gave you a cite. And you’re aware that private industries demand subsidies from various levels of government all the time? Why do you think that existing private alternative-energy industries don’t want to get some of the benefits? > [@Scylla](#): > > What if good locations for solar and wind aren’t near where the miners are? I wasn’t suggesting putting the installations there; or, at any rate, not most of them, though I’m sure some would fit the particular locations. I was suggesting putting manufacturing facilities for the components there. You are aware that such components are currently shipped around world wide? > [@Scylla](#): > > No. I gave that to you as an example to show how flawed that kind of thinking was. Virtually all the shit you buy and everything you do causes harm… Arguably true. And some choices of what you buy and what you do cause a lot more harm than others. You said (post #129) that people are responsible for the results of their choices, and for being aware of the likely results. But you appear to agree with that for only a very limited subset of such choices. > [@Crane](#): > > The OP addresses the issue of collective responsibility. > > Collective responsibility, for those of us who live in the United States, is defined by the preamble to our Constitution. The Constitution establishes that we strive for the following social norms: > > Support the federation of states > Maintain domestic tranquility > Participate in the common defence > Promote our general welfare > Provide for the future > > So, in that context, a definition of personal responsibility would be: > > Participate in the political process > Conduct oneself in a manner that is not disruptive to others > Volunteer for military service when necessary > Support policies that enhance the national population, not just an individual or group > Act in the context of history and the future not just the present > > This implies that one is productive, has an income and pays taxes. The second half of your last line doesn’t follow. It’s entirely possible to be productive and useful to society but wind up with either no income at all, or not enough income to pay income tax. ---
**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 28, 2019, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/175 "2019-07-28T21:33:39Z")
tl, You are correct. Perhaps I could say the above assumes that citizens have income and pay taxes’. ---
**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 29, 2019, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/176 "2019-07-29T00:00:23Z")
So much to refute here. Apologies to Bone, but it’s going to require me to use your fisking style to point out all the wrongs in your statements. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > No, I made no mistake here, and for you to assert that paying off a debt destroying money is “thoroughly wrong” tells me that you are very poorly informed as to how debt works in a fractional banking reserve system. Since you’ve referred to the fractional banking system, I assume your definition of money is “commercial banking money”. I can only guess as why you failed to type the two extra words. There is a causation effect between commercial banking money and the M2 value of money supply. However, you’re really stretching it if you mean that a lower market for loans results in lower interest rates which further results in a reduction in deposits leading to a diminishment in money supply is “destroying money”. Or perhaps you’d like to explicitly detail your explanation of how loan repayments are “destroying money”. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Your point as to money getting back into the system to be lent out again is valid in some times and circumstances, but, as the banks are currently sitting on plenty of e[xcess reserve that is just sitting there](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-reserves/the-u-s-banking-system-is-flush-with-cash-but-may-have-a-problem-idUSKCN1ST2DY), not doing anything but earning interest from the federal reserve on the taxpayer dime, this is not one of those times and circumstances. The banks are not waiting around for depositors to deposit, or borrowers to repay, before they can lend out more money. They are actually looking for worthy borrowers, desperate to get some of this money out into the economy. Your cite discusses the US Federal Reserve management of interest rate policy, and indicates they may be overpaying for “interest on excess reserves”. The federal reserve is ensuring that banks are able to borrow cheaply, in order for the banking system to have liquidity, but also ensuring that banks maintain adequate reserves – in other words hold more than the required minimum. Basically the article is saying that the federal reserve is getting the balancing act wrong. There may be a slowdown in some global lending, but if so it’s due to: 1) fears that the current upward business cycle is coming to an end, both because of a fear that the cycle has reached a natural peak, and because of uncertainty regarding US, Chinese, and European trade policies, 2) inflationary pressures which may require tighter monetary policy, and 3) the weaning off of cheap credit which, regardless of the fears outlined in point 1, is a move towards long-term monetary policy stability. Any shortage in current lending is not due to people paying off their loans. Furthermore, according to the IMF, global lending was at an all-time high in 2017. [https://blogs.imf.org/2019/01/02/new-data-on-global-debt/](https://blogs.imf.org/2019/01/02/new-data-on-global-debt/) Do you want debt to continually rise, or would you prefer it to taper off after reaching a peak? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > The worst thing you could do to a bank is to have all its borrowers pay off their loans. 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](#): > > Yes, when a loan is originated, money is created out of thin air. When a debt is retired, which means to pay it off completely(nothing to do with bankruptcy), that money is destroyed. I used the extremes of the life cycle of a loan to better illustrate the point, but anytime you make a payment against a debt, that money disappears into the same fiat void that it was created from. When you swipe your credit card, that money “magically” appears out of nowhere, and when you pay your statement at the end of the cycle, that money disappears again. This statement is so problematic, I’m not sure if I’m being whooshed. You started your response addressing the fractional banking system. You do realise that is dependent on deposits and not magical money? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I did not in any way mistake retirement for bankruptcy, which I may point out, is irrelevant where it comes to student loans, as they cannot be discharged through bankruptcy, unlike credit card debt that could have been ran up purchasing frivolites and luxuries. Congratulations. Ignoring the misspelling of frivolities, it’s one of the few things you haven’t got wrong. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Not sure why you feel the need to point this out, of course higher education has the potential to increase your earnings, that is irrelevant to the discussion. Here’s your statement: “There is 1.5 trillion in student debt, and that is 1.5 trillion dollars that will not be contributing to the economy.” I’m rebutting that statement. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > What is it stopping them from doing? I dunno, 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 that make their lives better and bolster the economy. Some of that money already went into the economy, yes, at the schools, in the form of higher salaries for staff, or advertising, but given the nature of loans that you seem to have forgotten or skimmed over, most of the money that is paid is in the form of interest, which doesn’t go to the school, but rather, to Sallie Mae. If the students taking on the loans have correctly bet that their future earnings will exceed their debt payments, their debt payments haven’t stopped them from doing anything. If they were wrong, then yes, they are undergoing some hardship, but it’s a hardship they signed up for. The initial economic benefit went to the school. You’re right that a subsequent economic benefit is going to Sallie Mae, which, if I’m understanding correctly, is the bank collecting interest on the loans? Please correct me if I have a misunderstanding. Otherwise, please explain to me why you object to a bank receiving interest on a loan? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > The best way to stimulate the economy is to get money into the hands of those who will spend it the quickest, and the quickest spenders are young adults with their first taste of discretionary money. By removing that from not just a few, but from a substantial portion of an entire generation will lower the demand for goods and services, slowing the economy. 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. Beyond the simple true-false refuting of your statement, it’s quite complicated. You’re assuming that the money spent by Sallie Mac will have less economic impact than the money that would have been spent by the loan paying students. If you’d like to discuss that idea, feel free to open up a new thread. Your assumption is not a self-evident truth. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > While being a productive member of society does entail more than just spending, that doesn’t matter to the economy, where the only thing that does actually matter as a consumer is spending. 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](#): > > First, this doesn’t actually adress anything I’ve said, and your last question is pure strawman. My statement: “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](#): > > Because I pointed out that student debt is a bigger problem to the economy and the country than just the individuals struggling with it doesn’t mean that the rest of society should pay for their lack of forethought, but rather, that society should recognize that this is a problem for more than just the individual student struggling to pay off the debt. Do I think that student debt should be wiped out overnight? No. Do I think that actions should be taken to help to prevent young adults from being trapped into a cycle of debt, and that means of working their way out of that debt should be available? Yes. That is entirely different than how you choose to frame the issue. I’m basing my arguments on the CNBC article I originally cited: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., introduced a bill Tuesday that would forgive student loans for tens of millions of Americans. Three-quarters of borrowers would have their balances reset to zero.” > **[Elizabeth Warren's plan to forgive student debt would help 45 million students](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/elizabeth-warrens-student-debt-bill-would-help-45-million-students.html)** > > Sen. Elizabeth Warren introduced a bill Tuesday that would forgive the student debt of tens of millions of Americans. Under the bill, all 45 million Americans with student debt would see at least a portion of their balance greatly reduced.... If you think that Elizabeth Warren’s bill is wrong, then we’re in agreement. If you think that more information should be supplied more explicitly to students requesting student loans, then we’re probably in agreement, although I doubt the relevant information is actually hidden. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > As to the personal responsibility thing you are calling for here, you do realize that these are 16-18 year olds that you are talking about, right? Kids who are being told that they will be in poverty their whole lives if they don’t go to college. Kids who are swayed by snazzy advertising and marketing campaigns that are paid for by current students who are going into debt. Should they be better informed as to the decisions that they are making? Absolutely. Are we, as a society, properly preparing and educating these teenagers in how to make a proper and informed decision on taking on the debt that is required for them to get ahead in life? No, I do not think so. I’m assuming that if they’re under 18, there’s a parent approving the loan, but please correct me if I’m wrong. Beyond that, yes, I do believe an 18 year old, or a near 18 year old should be able to do a risk assessment. I’d hope there would be guidance counsellors available to assist them with that risk assessment. If such guidance counsellors aren’t available, then that’s a community flaw. [QUOTE=k9bfriender;21774835As an extreme example, if I force you to choose envelope 1 or 2, without telling you what is in either of them, and one is a million dollars, and the other is a million dollar debt, do you consider the person who got the million to be more personally responsible than the one that got saddled with the bill? [/QUOTE] Yes. There is always an element of risk in life. One person may choose to drive drunk and not be caught. A second person may choose to drive drunk and get caught and punished. They each had personable responsibility for their actions. The luck of the unpunished drunk driver’s outcome does not provide moral justification for his decision. Choosing a path through college is far less binary than either of the above examples. However, choosing to accept and pay a loan is, compared to many other decisions in life, a straightforward choice and on where the debtor should be personally responsible for accepting the loan. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/177 "2019-07-29T01:17:35Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > [Bus.gov](http://Bus.gov) appears to be about bus driving. [Bls.gov](http://Bls.gov) may be what you were actually after. > > From that site, and specifically from [https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf) > [@](#): > > Of course there are people who prefer part time work; and of course some of those people don’t need more money (others are simply flat out unable to take full time jobs because they have obligations for unpaid work; and of course some are physically unable to.) But 4.3 million (a number which is not currently going down) who want full time work but can’t get it is not a trivial number of people. That’s between 2-3% of the workforce. Do you remember when we talked about unemployment? Unemployment at 3. 7% is really too low because it means we are through actual full employment and there is a labor shortage. This number usually falls somewhere below the unemployment number (which is where it is now.) like unemployment, this number actually supports the opposite of what you are arguing. It tells us that there are too few part-timers seeking full time employment. You seem to be trying to argue this idea that the economy is shitty for workers. It’s not. It is the best it has ever been, according to the data. That’s a fact that anybody who knows anything about this kind of thing is aware of. > [@](#): > > And, as I keep saying, the problem is also people who are working full time but still aren’t paid enough to live on. The issue you bring up is found in “the working poor” figure. I don’t think we have the data from 2018 yet, but for 2017 that figure was around 4.5%. That figure is the lowest it has been since they started tracking it in 1986. It appears to be dropping really fast, and will probably be lower in this year’s figures. This number is **NOT** the number of people working full time who are living in poverty. It is the percentage of people who have been in the workforce for at least 27 weeks who are living in poverty. The workforce are those who are employed full-time, part time, and those who are unemployed and seeking work. Those who usually work full time living in poverty equal 2.9%. This is also a really good number. 2.32% of these experienced a Labor market problem. One of these problems is low wages. 1.554% suffered from this. This is another really good number. There are any number of reasons why a person who usually works full time, has suffered from low wages and is living below the poverty line. The most common of these is that they are also suffering from one of the other labor market problems. There are other reasons why somebody might be suffering from low wages for reasons unrelated to the economy or job market. These are things like health issues, drug addiction, being jailed, being an unreliable or bad worker. That’s about as simple as I can make it for you. The fact though is that this is not actually a real problem for our society. Again, it fits with the other unemployment numbers that we are looking at. The very bottom of the labor force, the most undesirable of workers are still doing very well because there is a labor shortage. This problem that you are talking about is almost nonexistent, and in fact, like the other numbers we have discussed, it is actually lower than is actually good for the economy. > [@](#): > > Raising low wages also puts more money into the hands of people who will spend most of it, thereby increasing the amount of goods and services that businesses can sell. That’s technically possible, but in most economies it will be untrue. I can explain why, but we would now be in economics 317 (or something) and in order to do so I would have to go into detail about other factors and concepts that we haven’t discussed yet, and no offense, you don’t really have knowledge of. > [@](#): > > The society as a whole, obviously. As you perfectly well know that I meant. No. I don’t. The “society as a whole” doesn’t have a checkbook. > [@](#): > > Fifty years of inflation and probably a whole lot of work put into the place over those years aside, that probably looks like a good argument to some. > > Of course, as most people can only get at that money if they pack up their lives and move, it’s only a good argument to those for whom the word “home” means the same thing as “amount of money for which one could purchase alternative shelter”. I’ve come to realize over the years that there are a lot of such people; and that it’s probably not possible to fully explain to them why to a lot of other people that’s the equivalent of saying ‘why would it matter if you’d never be able to see your spouse again? There’s probably somebody else who’d move in with you’. I ask those who don’t understand it, however (though with little hope in some cases that this will get through) to recognize that there are quite a lot of humans to whom those statements are pretty much equivalent; and to whom it’s the claim that unwillingly trading their home for money is a fair exchange which is nonsense. I’m struggling to find a rational argument in the above. They have something that is worth a whole lot of money but they don’t want to sell it because they are either emotionally attached to it, or doing so is a pain in the neck. But, they need money and/or owning this thing costs more money than they can afford to spend and so we need to help them why? I had the exact same problem, except it was an ‘83 Porsche 911 turbo that was willed to me by the neighbor I worked for as a kid. He had no wife or kids, but was basically like a really close uncle. It was really hard and it was really sad to let it go. I loved that car, but I had kids, we just moved, I needed to be saving for my kids’ college. It was expensive as hell to run and maintain. the insurance was really high, and I couldn’t fit the wife and two baby seats in it. I sold it and bought a sedan, and put the rest Into UTMAs for the kids. Boo-fucking-hoo!!! Poor me. > [@](#): > > You said that a lack of incentives means that people are satisfied. I said that it can mean that they’re extremely dissatisfied. I don’t see how we said the same thing. I’m sorry that you don’t have the knowledge to grasp it. You should if you wish to argue these things. I’ve been explaining a lot and it’s an undo burden to have to educate my debating opponent. What I said is that they are quantitatively the same thing, and that is true whether or no you grasp why. > [@](#): > > You’re aware that fossil fuel subsidies already exist, yes? I gave you a cite. > > And you’re aware that private industries demand subsidies from various levels of government all the time? > > Why do you think that existing private alternative-energy industries don’t want to get some of the benefits? I am going to stop right there and give up. The rest of your posts is a lot like arguing labor statistics with you.l. You don’t know enough to have this discussion, and it’s not my place to bring you up to speed. I doubt you will find that satisfying. You may think I am being arrogant, or insulting, or what have you, but it is time for me to move on, because it is not rewarding for me to try to bring someone unwilling up to speed. If you have questions about things that you don’t know, I would be happy to answer them, but I am not going to argue with you to do so. You can have the last word. ---
**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 29, 2019, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/178 "2019-07-29T13:04:37Z")
Scylla, The OP asks if it is our personal responsibility to make compensations for the racist history of our economy. What is your view? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/179 "2019-07-29T13:41:06Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Scylla, > > The OP asks if it is our personal responsibility to make compensations for the racist history of our economy. > > What is your view? I think to the extent that any individual is personally responsible for racist history, they should make compensation to the victims. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/180 "2019-07-29T13:50:40Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I think to the extent that any individual is personally responsible for racist history, they should make compensation to the victims. This is a pretty simplistic view. In my OP I gave a specific example of a way that people are clearly benefiting from a racist history even though they weren’t personally responsible for it. To summarize, 1. 100 years ago a bunch of well-off racists left the greater city and started their own community, barring blacks, jews, and other ethnic undesirables by statute (or rather, deed restriction) 2. When blatant systemic racism became untenable, the residents switched to a less systemic version of neighborhood associations to continue to keep minorities out of the community. 3. Without their prosperity to help bolster the greater city’s community resources, there was a predictable decline in the quality of life for those unable to leave. 4. 100 years later, the grandchildren of those racists still live in this “bubble” of a community. Many of them feel no responsibility for those outside their community because a) they weren’t personally responsible for those racist decisions, and b) those outside the community can or should take “personal responsibility” for their own well-being. My question is, isn’t “personal responsibility” if used in this scenario and in this manner just a code word for “I don’t want to deal with the problems my racist grandparents helped create and I have clearly benefited from?” ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2019, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550/181 "2019-07-29T14:08:23Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > My question is, isn’t “personal responsibility” if used in this scenario and in this manner just a code word for “I don’t want to deal with the problems my racist grandparents helped create and I have clearly benefited from?” Yes, I got it. We are many pages in, and for some reason the concept that you can only be personally responsible for the things you yourself are responsible for personally seems to be a difficult one. You live in relative comfort now because your ancestor Thag Stevens helped in the great Neanderthal genocide. You are descended from a long line of vicious selfish bad-asses who outfought, outfucked, outthought, outlucked, and rapes killed and stole from everybody else since the dawn of history. If you want to be sad about it, trace your lineage, and make all the reparations you feel. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-responsibility-or-avoiding-responsibility/837550.md?page=10)