this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
1137 points (98.1% liked)

memes

17857 readers
1657 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 21 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Me, off in the corner believing debt is immoral

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Society legitimately cannot function without debt. I agree giving people predatory "micro loans" for groceries is dystopian but every society that has discovered agriculture has also discovered the concept of debt because it's a natural consequence of an economic order so tied to seasonal cycles. Interest is also not bad, and every society that has developed debt has also quickly developed interest. Societies that have religious prohibitions or taboos against interest find workarounds because it's proven to be a critical part of how economics works. Personally I am glad that I was able to buy a house for hundreds of thousands of dollars I don't have yet because I will be able to pay off that in time and I appreciate that the bank is willing to lend me that money for such a long time at a relatively low rate of return for them. The Soviet Union even had banks that offered loans with interest but they were run by the State. It's kind of unavoidable.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Many societies also develop a system of redistribution or debt forgiveness. It's known that too much debt accumulation in too few hands cause increasingly bigger issues or that circumstances change. But there are always those that need to learn the lesson again.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Not many societies developed a system of redistribution. We live in one of the extremely few that have, and it took a lot of smart people a lot of time (and infighting) to get into something that works.

We just need to apply it.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why was your house worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? Because we use debt. How do you think people lived for thousands of years? Home mortgages weren't a normal thing until like 100 years ago

Societies without it found workarounds, because it's easy. It's tempting. It's a money dupe glitch combined with gambling. If anyone uses it, they get an insurmountable advantage over all players who don't. It's moloch, it's the demon of racing to the bottom

You should not be able to spend your future

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

People didn't own their houses for the most part. Have you ever taken even a freshman level economics class, by the way?

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 0 points 3 months ago

Yes. And FYI, micro and macro economics are bullshit. They're easily digestible lies that don't hold up to the real world. There's real studies of economics going on at higher levels, but what gets boosted is essentially propaganda to justify political positions

Have you ever had a good history class, where instead of myths written by the winners they told the stories of people and how they interact? Where they break down the system into players, and go over the same event from many points of view? All the very human drives and politics, the infinite compromises that get grandfathered in, the true analysis of "how did we get here"?

The world is made up of systems. I build, analyze, and fix systems, it's what I do. The only way to analyze a system or a change is to run it through, turning it over in your mind from one perspective after another, until you start to understand how it fits together

Know what every society in the past has done? Collapse. The ones with debt collapse after about 250 years, every time. It's an inevitability... Some societies fail into the next iteration instead of going through a dark age, but they all collapse.

Debt creates a boom bust cycle that grows exponentially. It's inherently unstable.

But some failed from external factors. From disease and colonization. There's one empire that I find very interesting in that regard...the incas

Maybe they would've collapsed too, but their system seems a lot more stable to me. And I don't think it had any idea of debt, of selling the future

[–] tequinhu@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Are you thinking about usury? Debt in general is actually one of the moat important threads of our societal fabric

[–] Emi@ani.social 10 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Most important? I'll never go into debt, just won't spend money I don't have. It's a no brainer for me.

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Do you own a home? Do you think that's a worthwhile thing to do? Without debt, home ownership is basically completely out of reach for most people despite the fact that many people will earn enough money to buy a house in their lifetime. It allows you to pay for money now with money later. Debt is legitimately an extremely important part of an economy- there's a reason it's been invented by pretty much every agricultural society in history. As with most financial instruments, it started with farmers - it costs money to plant and grow a crop of grain, but that crop doesn't produce money until you sell it at harvest time so you have an issue where if last year's crop didn't go so well due to weather and you are low on cash in the spring, you can't afford to plant next year's crop and get out of the hole. So borrowing money is the easiest way.

This also works with businesses and governments. Say you want to buy a machine that prints designs on T shirts because you want to sell T shirts. You can't afford the machine now, but you believe that you'd be able to with the money you could make from your T shirt business, so you go to the bank and convince them of the plan, and they give you money up front. Without debt, that T shirt business couldn't happen unless you got a bunch of investors to help you out.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I wonder what the housing market would look like if individuals couldn’t get mortgages, but investors couldn’t either?

Availability of credit has a huge impact on prices, and landlordism is mostly founded on cheap credit.

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (3 children)

There are many examples of this being essentially the status quo in many places and historical eras and essentially it just makes housing availability worse since only the ultra wealthy can afford to build expensive structures and they just accumulate more wealth and power. Think about in the middle ages when a local lord would have to foot the bill to build townhouses completely up front but he and his descendants would retain ownership of them and demand payment to live in them for hundreds of years to come. There are places where access to credit is poor today where people basically live in makeshift shacks if they don't rent because they can't afford to buy houses otherwise. There are a lot of ways to fix land ownership and exploitation by landlords, but historically speaking, this was not it. I know nobody likes living in debt and debt can be used for exploitation, but completely abolishing credit simply will not have good outcomes as a whole.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 11 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Most important, because that's how most people start and grow their business, they don't have multimillion inheritance.

Also buying house.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] tequinhu@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (8 children)

You (and the other guy that replied) are indeed thinking of usury (which is a very evil thing, even frowned upon by most religions), which is the situation of lending assets to for the sake of profit

Debt on the other hand is a more general concept, did you ever borrow a pen from another person? While you were writing you were in debt for that pen (but this is a silly example that can be disregarded)

Did your parents take care of you as a child? In most cultures, thar means you're in debt and owe them care when they get old (though I understand that this varies from culture to culture, but the idea is there anyway) If you are friendly to your neighbors and they invite you home to dinner several times, you are also expected to pay back the favor sometime down the road, this is another form of debt

To sum it up, debt is much more intrinsic to our behavior as humans than we usually think, even though "formal debt" might not be

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's not important, it's the cornerstone of modern society. It's a really bad cornerstone though, like great filter level bad

What problem does it solve that couldn't be better solved in another way?

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well, it solves the problem of "I'm 25 years old with a decent paying job but no saved up capital, and need to buy <house/car/etc.>". Without taking on debt, I would need to save up for years to buy this stuff, but by taking on debt I can buy it now and "save up" (i.e. pay back) over the next years.

By all means, loans should be regulated in order to prevent people from taking on debt they can't afford, and to prevent/punish predatory practices. Debt in and of itself however can be a very good thing.

I have an apartment and a car now, with down-payments that I can afford without huge problems. Without taking a loan it probably would have taken me 25 years to be able to afford this. Except I wouldn't have, because the money I'm now using for down-payments would instead have gone to paying rent.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not a problem, that's a short cut.

In exchange for you being able to buy things before you can afford them, they're priced so it would take decades to save up.

Because if anyone sells their future, everyone has to if they want to compete

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (9 children)

In exchange for you being able to buy things before you can afford them, they’re priced so it would take decades to save up.

To some degree, you're probably right. However, no matter how you look at it, building an apartment complex or even a single house, costs much more resources than what most people have saved up at any given time. So no. It's not just a matter of "competing" or that things are over-priced. Large infrastructure is just expensive to build, because it costs a bunch of man hours and materials to build it.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (10 children)

What kind of debt? Is it immoral to owe someone a favour? Or is it immoral for someone to owe you a favour?

Is it only immoral if there's interest? If someone lends someone $500 to cover rent, that's immoral? Is it more or less immoral to watch someone lose their housing when you could have helped?

load more comments (10 replies)