The Debt Game

Published by

Clarissa

May 7, 2013

One of the most curious games identified by Berne is called “Debtor.” Berne said back in 1969 that the need to take on debt purely for its own sake was the defining characteristic of the American identity.

The reason why people take on all these mortgages, car loans, credit card debt, personal credit lines, etc. is not about what they purchase with the borrowed money. Just like alcoholics, they don’t look for gain as much as they crave the pain. The debt organizes their entire existence and charts their life path for them. Everything they do, the way they structure their career and their personal life, even the way they manage their time is circumscribed by the debt. If the debt weren’t there, they would have to write the script of their own lives, and that is too onerous.

The debt also provides motivation in lieu of a broken mechanism of motivation (again, just like the hangover does for alcoholics) and fosters a pleasant feeling of endless guilt.

I know this sounds counter-intuitive at first, but look at any person who can’t stop spending and taking out credit cards. How often does s/he buy completely useless junk that s/he doesn’t even remember buying two days later? Isn’t this an indication that the purchase is unimportant here?

Rate this:

22 responses to “The Debt Game”

Andrea Harris

May 7, 2013

I’m pretty sure I’d remember if I bought a house.

I’ll tell you, though, I don’t agree that people do this for “the pain of being in debt” though obviously I can’t speak for everyone, only me. I got rid of all my credit cards, but when I had them, I used them to buy things that gave me pleasure. (Mostly restaurant meals. Why am I overweight now? Hmmm.) I was unhappy, and a new Thing gave me a moment of contentment that I needed. The bills, on the other hand, were an annoyance that I mostly ignored. I mean, they actually wanted me to pay money for stuff! Why? I had a card! 😉

Anyway, I paid off my credit cards finally and cut them up. I still by Things to make me happy, but I pay cash.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Andrea Harris
  
  May 7, 2013
  
  Okay, self-reply because I thought of something in support of this guy’s theory: lots of people use their heavy debts, or even not-so-heavy debts, as an excuse to get out of things. “I’d love to stay at the beach house with you guys, but I’ve gotta work to pay this mortgage!” and so on. The “working to pay off debt” excuse is an acceptable way to get out of social activities you don’t really engage is without letting on that you prefer to be alone, which is a no-no in the USA.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. bloggerclarissa
  
  May 7, 2013
  
  “Anyway, I paid off my credit cards finally and cut them up. I still by Things to make me happy, but I pay cash.”
  
  – Good for you! This is a really big achievement, seriously. This book I’m discussing talks about people who have a problem, not healthy people like you.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
David Gendron

May 7, 2013

That’s in part why the keynesian ideology of “consumption is good for the economy” is unhealthy and irresponsible.

Jeez, liberals will not like me…

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  May 7, 2013
  
  I don’t think anybody is a huge fan of Keynes here. I’m not an economist but I believe that a debt-driven economy is deeply problematic. Yes, people consume a lot, but they are anxious and depressed. As a result, they produce less and are a lot less creative in what they produce.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. David Gendron
    
    May 7, 2013
    
    “I don’t think anybody is a huge fan of Keynes here. ”
    
    Here, maybe not, but in liberal circles, they’re very keynesian. That’s one of the main reasons why I’m not a liberal.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
2. Lear
  
  May 7, 2013
  
  Keynes speaks of government debt not individuals debt. Austerity measures are counterproductive too. I’m not sure there are too many other good ideas…
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    May 7, 2013
    
    Yes, economics seems tragically in need of new ideas. It is ridiculous that we are still sitting here debating whether what was said in a completely different world 80 years ago will work today. And that is only half the problem. Most economists are still completely fixated on proving that Adam Smith was wrong. Yeah, duh! Look at the guy’s date of birth. He probably had nothing of value to offer for today’s economy.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  2. David Gendron
    
    May 7, 2013
    
    That’s why I (and many mutualists) propose “free-market anti-capitalism” as a basis of a new economy. Although Smith was not totally wrong and he was not as a rightist as the ideologists think he was.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      May 7, 2013
      
      It isn’t a new set of terms we need, it’s new ideas. 🙂
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  3. David Gendron
    
    May 7, 2013
    
    Free-market anti-capitalism is the best framework for new ideas, like non-market economy.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      May 7, 2013
      
      “Free-market anti-capitalism” probably means something to you but I can absolutely guarantee to you that to the majority of people on this planet it’s a meaningless collection of words.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  4. David Gendron
    
    May 7, 2013
    
    You could ask n8chz about it. She don’t like the idea of “free-market anti-capitalism” but I have no problem with the non-market n8chz’s ideas.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  5. David Gendron
    
    May 7, 2013
    
    The problem of austerity measures is that they are authority measures factually.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  6. David Gendron
    
    May 7, 2013
    
    “Free-market anti-capitalism” probably means something to you but I can absolutely guarantee to you that to the majority of people on this planet it’s a meaningless collection of words.
    
    Of course, even “free market” and “capitalism” have not the same meaning for all.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  7. David Gendron
    
    May 7, 2013
    
    http://www.mutualist.org/
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
cliff arroyo

May 7, 2013

Unlike many sophisticated post-national intellectuals one of the things that learning foreign languages and travelling and living in a foreign culture reinforced to me was that culturally I’m basically American with most of the good and bad qualities that entails.

One of the things I’ve never understood about my own culture though is the compulsion to overspend. That is if you decide you can reasonably afford X amount of money for a major purchase then my inclination would be to spend 75% of that but most of my fellow Americans would decide to spend 300% of X.

I’m not sure how I escaped that particular monkey on my back, I’m just glad I did.

LikeLike

Reply
1. David Gendron
  
  May 7, 2013
  
  So, congratulations! 🙂
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Shakti

May 7, 2013

So is Games People Play sociopolitical commentary disguised as transactional analysis?

If “the need to take on debt purely for its own sake was the defining characteristic of the American identity”, what does it say about me, psychologically that I have no loans in my name and every purchase I make is either in cash or a debit card? (There are other mundane, non psychological reasons why this is true.)

So what does Berne’s theory say about Congress? Or this screeching about the debt that comes in cycles?

However, I have a real hard time believing that educational debt (which is practically non-dischargeable through bankruptcy, but was not in 1969 — in addition, education was far less expensive then in real dollars as well) or medical debt (the #1 cause of bankruptcy now, but I don’t know about 1969) is really masking some transactional analytical game writ large.

This is both brilliant and pat at the same time.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  May 7, 2013
  
  “If “the need to take on debt purely for its own sake was the defining characteristic of the American identity”, what does it say about me, psychologically that I have no loans in my name and every purchase I make is either in cash or a debit card?’
  
  – You are a very healthy person, I guess. 🙂
  
  “Or this screeching about the debt that comes in cycles?”
  
  – Oh, that’s very obviously a game. We don’t need Berne to tell us this.
  
  “However, I have a real hard time believing that educational debt (which is practically non-dischargeable through bankruptcy, but was not in 1969 — in addition, education was far less expensive then in real dollars as well) or medical debt (the #1 cause of bankruptcy now, but I don’t know about 1969) is really masking some transactional analytical game writ large.”
  
  – Enrollments at real universities – especially the really affordable, public ones – is plummeting. In the meanwhile, enrollments at shady online diploma mills that are much much MUCH more expensive than what real universities charge is soaring. I insist that you can get a very high quality education in this country without getting into any debt at all. So people who get into these mountains of debt are making a choice motivated by something very different than love of education.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. musteryou
    
    May 7, 2013
    
    “- Enrollments at real universities – especially the really affordable, public ones – is plummeting. In the meanwhile, enrollments at shady online diploma mills that are much much MUCH more expensive than what real universities charge is soaring. I insist that you can get a very high quality education in this country without getting into any debt at all. So people who get into these mountains of debt are making a choice motivated by something very different than love of education.”
    
    Australians also have this disease. They think if they pay a lot of money to someone with a very strong, authoritative aura, the magic will rub off and they won’t need to work hard for what they want.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
FD

May 9, 2013

I must remember to put this on my library list.

LikeLike

Reply