It seems like a weird question, but if you look more closely it's true for some reason - even internationally. Whenever you borrow someone money they hate you for it over time. Whether it's you personally borrowing money to a friend or whether it's Germans bailing out the Greeks or whether it's the economically more stable blue states paying for the poor red states. It's weird that the help people get comes with anger, and I'd like to open up a topic and read up your opinion why people in debt are mad at the people they are indebted to. Your thoughts...
Because of human selfishness I'd wager. It puzzles me how people are always pissed off at lenders. You don't have to borrow you know, but you chose to so be glad that there's even some one to lend from! some people..
Well you started off on the wrong note you are trying to compare personal debt with national. And I'm sure if this conversation continues many more people will do the same. This forum is not the place to learn about something like the relationship between debt and lenders. First though lets go over the basics of personal debt. Now I have money and lets say a close friend would like to borrow some money. It's my responsibility to weigh the probability of getting it back as I'm not the kind of person who would force someone to pay me back and in some cases it may be impossible to even receive full payment. What's often overlooked is that a lender should lend smartly as it's stupid for a lender to be devoid of responsibility and for the burden to be solely placed upon the indebted. Second lets look at something like foreign aid where A it's not the lenders money and B its not the debtor who has to pay back. So for example lets say America gives 200 million dollars in foreign aid to Rwanda. The money being given is the American people's they have very little say in this because both parties have a history of giving foreign aid and it's likely the people of Rwanda would be in a similar situation of helplessness to determine where it goes. Now much of the money is likely to go to good causes and this is often the main rhetoric which gains popular support however the money is also spent on defense and sometimes funneled in to personal bank accounts by corrupt individuals. In the end the aid has to be payed back and it is most often the country which pays through social services and privatization. And then again lets consider that countries are made of individuals with differing views so is it hard to understand why people can be upset with lenders? If you want to know more about the history of Debt try http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867 it's a nice overview.
Good logic you could also extend it to you didn't have to lend but you choose to so be gratified they'll give you anything back at all.
I shouldn't be gratified by them paying back what they owe as if they've somehow got any right to that money. I'd be happy if they pay me extra for some reason not because they're simply upholding their part of the agreement.
Let's take this step by step: First me giving the example of personal debt was only meant as an example; the real topic is Greece being mad at Germany and red states being mad at blue states. So I gave an example within the EU and an example within the US which I thought would be open to debate. I don't think I mentioned foreign debt, since these are debts within the same currency. So your example with America and Rwanda has completely missed my intended point. If you wanna make it international think of the US's discomfort of being forced to take money from China and Americans showing that. Keep in mind that people don't take debt because they want to but because they have to. I just don't understand why the good Samaritan who is there and provides the necessary money soon becomes some sort of enemy or bad guy in the eyes of the lenders. But you can look at the examples I actually provided: The poorest state in the union is Mississippi (unless it changed this year) which is also a solid conservative state filled with people who don't want government interfering in their life. Meanwhile the rich industrialized states (usually the blue ones) pay more into the federal government and fund food-stamps, medicate/medicare and social security for the people who cannot provide for themselves. More money therefore has to go (percentage wise) from the federal government toward the aid of poor states/counties than from the poor states/counties towards the federal government. This is magnified by the fact that I think 30% of Americans don't pay federal taxes. Obviously it's the people with less income which are excluded. In Greece you have the same problem. A study showed that a city with 40,000 inhabitants makes only 100,000 Euro tax-revenue annually while a same size city in Slovenia (one of the weaker Euro-countries) makes 50 million. They don't pay taxes and wonder that they're in debt. Greece actually had a bonus for government employees for coming to work on time. I mean WTF is that?! Nobody pays in and everybody takes out. Now that they're broke they're mad at Germans for giving them the money "only under certain circumstances". You have loads and loads of examples within countries and currencies. No need to look abroad. Usually it's the poor people who pay least taxes and who get most benefits who complain the most how the government does nothing for them or how the government should keep their hands out of their live. You recommended a book and so will I: http://www.amazon.com/Marienthal-Sociography-Unemployed-Marie-Jahoda/dp/0765809443 This study, which was done in such detail that anybody doing any social science should read it, shows how a community is effected if the income disappears. It also shows how desperate the people become and what they do without income. An entire small community is suddenly without work and it shows how social life changes. Very fascinating read. If you happen to read it, you may understand my point in much greater detail than I am able to explain here now.
Or basically anything else. Well, okay, there's some great information on Benghazi, if you're the obsessive type... In terms of personal debt, if it's a loan offered without being asked, then one might, regardless of how much one needs it, or whether or not the offering party knows that, be angry simply out of basic human pride - it's seen as dishonorable to be indebted to someone, and it will suck down the road as well. I don't think you can really draw generalities from just that, though. Greece is kind of a special case, seeing as its membership in the EU forced it into an incredibly unpleasant situation (okay, more realistically made a bad situation worse), and now when it asks for help, that help is tied to austerity measures which are incredibly unpopular and will likely only make the current Greek recession worse. It's not entirely reasonable, but it's kinda understandable. The red states in the USA are also kind of a special case; special as in "special needs". They are filled to the brim with people who are convinced that their state is actually not taking money from the fed, but rather that the opposite is true, and they'd be better off without.
But these two special case were just the one's I really wanted to talk about. I really wanted t read up on what people think about the EU-Greek dynamic and the red-blue states dynamic. I think it's rather obvious in either of those cases who takes the benefits and who complains more about the situation ignoring the fact that they're being helped. Could you expand your opinion in more details?!
I am mad at people my government is indebted to for the same reason you may be mad at the pimp if your mother would be his prostitute. there is nothing more to it.
That's not what I meant with have to. A vacation isn't that important, it's luxury. and with that luxury people should take some personal responsibility. I mean, compared to food and stuff. You don't need to take any loans to survive, and all loans you make are voluntary.
Yeah...that mortgage is voluntary huh? Sign here, borrow or sleep on the sidewalk. Maybe that's the origin of the anger. Like paying a loan shark back the money you needed to stay off the streets at two or three times that you borrowed.
You seem to think that he had some kind of moral obligation to keep you off the streets, he foes not. He owes uou nothing, but you two made a deal and hes kept his part now you should too. If know you cant fulfill what you agreed to then dont make the deal. And be happy that theres even people to borrow from when you need money. Also, theres a safety net so no one should be on the streets.
Lending money to friends and family builds resentment. I give what I can and I never lend. That keeps things simple.