Credit isn't real money

[jack]

Again, life questions from Drop the Dead Donkey. I maybe view credit differently to many people, being fortunate to normally have enough money, and being weaned on traditional views of fiscal responsibility, and think of a credit card as the least inefficient way of acquiring certain legal protections for quirks of historical reasons.

Using DTDD as an example. At one point Sally's purse goes missing with a large amount of money in. She suspects Dave, which he and everyone is extremely shocked by. At another, in revenge on Damien for something, George lets his daughter smash his car. Which is seen as harsh or vicious, but not unscrupulous or evil.

However, when Damien leaves and Dave spends a similar amount of money from his credit cards at Ladbrooks [gambling], everyone sees this more like the second than the first. I've seen it elsewhere too, that charging something to someone's credit card is seen as a bit cheeky (both whether or not you might expect them to mind buying it), when taking money from them to buy it is seen as wrong.

Why is that? (Is the implication that they might be able to recover the money with hassle? And it end up being stealing from a big bank, which isn't seen as so bad? But surely that involves reporting it as theft, which would get the friend arrested, wouldn't it?)

Comments

[shreena.livejournal.com]

That's really spooky. I had exactly the same reaction to that bit of Drop the Dead Donkey. I think it's beyond weird that Dave is so offended to be accused of stealing but then steals from Damien.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

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?

[robhu.livejournal.com]

The way it works is I see something shiny and give the sales person a bit of plastic. Then they give me the shiny thing and the bit of plastic back.

One of the bits of plastic I have does the same thing, but it stops working more quickly.