It's ok, it's not *so* spooky. Nothing about it ever occurred to me when I *first* saw it. I mostly followed a typical viewer paradigm of accepting from the program subtle moral clues [eg. that in one show a bat to the head is comic violence, in another it's a fatal wound] and so laughed along, knowing the joke, without considering the economics. If I'd been younger (when I was inclined to question *everything* and make sure I understood it) or older (when I can spot interesting things to question, yet glaze over things I know why they appear wrong) I might have been insulted.
But I was watching the DVD this afternoon, and this just occurred to me, and this seemed a perfect example (as shown my you having noticed it yourself ages ago).
Robhu said it, credit isn't real money. But *why*? Is it simply that because you're paying it off later, you don't make the connection to the deprival you're trading when you spend it? (But that sounds like "people are stupid"[1][2]) Or does it make sense from a financial situation if you're in such a situation for reasons I don't happen to grok?
But it seems to apply to everyone, affluent rich, poor, middle class.
[1] I mean, if you're completely broke, maybe as credit as you can get makes sense, if you can't pay any of it off, you're not any *more* broke. Or if you live hand-to-mouth, day to day, then trading an uncertain future for a certain gain might totally make sense. But see above, it's not just poor or rich.
[2] Of course, my finances aren't superlatively organised, I have my own emotional idiosyncrasies I have to ignore when making rational decisions about money. But I don't know if it's just that, or if it makes sense in some way. For instance, maybe everyone needs occasional luxuries they feel they can't justify purchasing (like holidays, you generally decide you need them, but they're an order of magnitude more expensive than many other things so they don't *look* worth it at first), and "being able to buy on credit" is a natural bottleneck to keep this to a steady but reasonable supply, instead of my making a decision to spend on such things every so often?
no subject
Date: 2008-01-21 04:56 pm (UTC)But I was watching the DVD this afternoon, and this just occurred to me, and this seemed a perfect example (as shown my you having noticed it yourself ages ago).
Robhu said it, credit isn't real money. But *why*? Is it simply that because you're paying it off later, you don't make the connection to the deprival you're trading when you spend it? (But that sounds like "people are stupid"[1][2]) Or does it make sense from a financial situation if you're in such a situation for reasons I don't happen to grok?
But it seems to apply to everyone, affluent rich, poor, middle class.
[1] I mean, if you're completely broke, maybe as credit as you can get makes sense, if you can't pay any of it off, you're not any *more* broke. Or if you live hand-to-mouth, day to day, then trading an uncertain future for a certain gain might totally make sense. But see above, it's not just poor or rich.
[2] Of course, my finances aren't superlatively organised, I have my own emotional idiosyncrasies I have to ignore when making rational decisions about money. But I don't know if it's just that, or if it makes sense in some way. For instance, maybe everyone needs occasional luxuries they feel they can't justify purchasing (like holidays, you generally decide you need them, but they're an order of magnitude more expensive than many other things so they don't *look* worth it at first), and "being able to buy on credit" is a natural bottleneck to keep this to a steady but reasonable supply, instead of my making a decision to spend on such things every so often?