Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Personal Responsibility” Means Nothing Anymore
Today Walter Williams in his syndicated column reminded me (like I needed to be reminded) that people simply don’t care about personal responsibility anymore. He gives a number examples of how the culture has changed, and writes about companies that advertise the ways people can get out of their debt. They promote steps people can take to “quickly be debt free.” Essentially, because someone carelessly and thoughtlessly used a credit card to satisfy their materialistic needs, the companies are paying for it. Even Dave Ramsey, a financial expert and person of high moral values whom I greatly admire, encourages people to negotiate with companies to lower their debt, and for a fraction of what they owe.
Then we have the Federal Student Aid program, which provides a means for students to have their loans forgiven, canceled, or discharged. At first, when looking at the requirements, I thought that the criteria made sense; then I realized how any creative person could play with those guidelines:
- Your school falsely certified your eligibility to receive the loan based on your ability to benefit from its training, and you did not meet the ability-to-benefit student eligibility requirements (for example, you did not have a high school diploma or General Educational Development certificate).
- Your eligibility to receive a loan was falsely certified because you were a victim of identity theft.
- The school certified your eligibility, but because of a physical or mental condition, age, criminal record, or other reason, you would not meet state requirements for employment in the occupation in which you were being trained.
- The school signed your name on the application or promissory note without your authorization, or the school endorsed your loan check or signed your authorization for electronic funds transfer without your knowledge, unless the loan money was given to you or applied to charges that you owed to the school.
On second review, I realized that almost anyone who wants to qualify for this program could do so easily. For example, on bullet point three, how difficult would it be to incriminate the school? And why should a school be responsible for your poor decision in choosing a study major for a job that doesn’t exist? Or one that’s hard to find?
Then there is the Mortgage Forgiveness and Debt Relief Act, which was renewed for 2017, but as far as I can tell, is in limbo in Congress at this time. This law protected mortgage holders who were underwater when they lost their homes from having to pay unpaid income taxes on those homes, up to $2 million. I realize that some people lost their homes due to losing a job, but there are also many who insisted on buying homes which they could ill-afford. The reasons a person loses a home have no relevance to whether a person can take advantage of this program. A limit of $2 million protection for a tax bill is a pretty hefty forgiveness.
There are other ways that people have been able to cut back on or eliminate their debt. In almost every case, somebody else pays for those losses. People want to point to the “rich businesses” who can afford it, or to the government. Or they simply believe they are entitled to get help. Well, I have news for them. We are the ones paying their debts: the business customers and the American taxpayers.
But even that isn’t what bothers me the most. It’s the lack of personal responsibility. The other day as I was loading my groceries into my car, I saw a bag of green onions that had slipped out of sight and not been checked through. For a moment I thought about just throwing it in one of my grocery bags. But I didn’t. I plodded back into the store and paid the $.99. Did that make a difference to anyone—to another customer? To the store? I don’t know. But it made a difference to me.
Personal responsibility is part of my make-up. If I take on a task, I finish it. If I make a commitment, I fulfill it. If I incur a debt, I pay it. If it is hard to complete my responsibilities, I have no one to blame but myself, and I look to no one else to bail me out.
I think we have lost this precious and important value, this commitment to ourselves, our families, our communities, our country.
No one cares about personal responsibility anymore.
Published in Culture
I get why people hate Trump, but I can’t stand the ones that aren’t sensitive to what we are talking about here.
If you want to hate Trump this is the way to do it. Shaun Thompson. He’s guest hosting here, but he has his own podcast on iTunes. He invokes “Keynesianism” all the time. That’s how you do it. Personally I think so many of Moralist Rockefeller Republicans that think we need to throw our geopolitical weight around so much can’t except that criticism. The model of political economy they have in their heads depends on Keynesianism and the supposed management that goes along with it.
Here’s my idea: let Unsk and iWalton take over the flagship podcast for one time, and then invite GOP politicians to dispute any of it. They won’t be able to, but do you see anyone leading as if that is the reality?
The problem is, the West’s financial system drives our political system off the cliff. It’s like the feedback loop of doom.
I wasted part of my life as a financial regulator, so some of this come easier to me than most people. If you don’t like finance and economics so much, try listening to long interviews of Deirdre McCloskey. What is she wrong about? Nothing, that’s what.
OkieSailor too.
I’m not sure why I’m being invoked: which side of this but:
I despise Trump as a person but appreciate most of what he and/or his administration has done and I value action over form or even good manners though those are very important to me.
I think Keynesianism is bunk. You cannot fill a pool by taking a bucket out of the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end which I see as the closest thing to an accurate analogy. It stirs the water and anyone standing under the bucket will get wet but does NOT raise the water level. Those who get wet (subsidies) are the ones who push this counterproductive scheme.
That said, I think a foundational understanding of what money is and is not, how it relates to true wealth (goods and services including labor) and how is has been both regulated as to value and manipulated is a necessary basis for a beginning conversation about Fed policy.
I’m not a fan of the Fed, I think they have done damage in the past and will do so in the future whether through bad motives, incompetence or unintended consequence. But this method of regulating the relative value of money is not inherently evil and tying it to any commodity has its own drawbacks. What is done with a method is more important than what method used.
Deflation favors borrowers over lenders so the downside is that lenders become less ready to invest in enterprise and that does contract the economy. If it continues very long recession becomes depression. We don’t have a perfect way to gauge the balance between money supply and real GDP but the Fed generally gets close to their targets for inflation which tells me they are pretty good at it.
I don’t like the fact that they have as much power as they do but see no possibility that this system will be greatly modified unless someone can articulate one that actually works better. And then enough voters would have to understand it to overcome those who benefit from the current arrangement. I don’t see either as a possibility but, obviously I don’t know everything and, “Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.”
Deregulation, as wide and deep as can be accomplished, is what will truly energize the economy. Of course the regs that need to be eliminated are the ones that are arbitrary and senseless which is somewhat a matter of opinion.
Ordered Liberty has been and, I think, will always be, the greatest spur to productivity as it best rewards individual enterprise at all levels.
This discussion is really excellent.
I think one way to look at it is, you really have to have a discretionary central trial bank regime for geopolitical reasons, and it will inevitably get abused.
Isn’t a lot of the debt due to not working while going to college? I am not very familiar with college debt, but was watching an episode of international house hunters, where the couple mentioned they were using student load money. It makes sense if you go away to college, do not work, that your living expenses might equal or be greater than your school expense. Not defending colleges, but I do know a few young people that stayed close to home, and don’t have any college debt.
If you want to get educated you have to handover government graft at the point of a gun. It’s outrageous. The whole thing needs to be atomized.