Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
I (mis)tweeted this the other night, partly in reaction to a
disturbing article from 2005 by Jon Ronson about a man who killed himself
because of his burden of computer-induced borrowing.* Z
responded “No point in coming to you for a cup of sugar, then”, so let’s get
that out of the way first – I would be mortally offended if you were to turn up
next day with a repayment. I would weigh
the sugar on the scales to make the point, and would check that the cup (if it
was mine) wasn’t chipped. (As you know
full well!)
However, to get
back to Shakespearean financial analysis.
Polonius was a sanctimonious old meddler who probably deserved all he
got in his arras, and as father-to-son stuff his advice to Laertes might have
been well-placed (and I’m aware that the whole speech is a comic piss-take):
but Will requires us, whether he meant so or not, to generalise his wisdom, so we
have to wonder whether it’s possible for everyone
to be neither.
Of course, it
is. All we need to do is shut down the
entire structure of human commerce. And abolish
money as a side-effect. The notion of a
world in which no borrowing or lending of money ever takes place is worth
thinking about. I was going to expand on
this thought, until I realised I’d be missing my own point.
So. My ninety-year-old friend K. insisted on
paying her share of every taxi fare for every single Jersey journey, on the
spot, because “I’ve never been in debt in my life and I’m not starting now.” I tried to convey that she could just accept
it as a gift, but she wasn’t having any.
I said ‘human
commerce’, which is ambiguous. Can we
measure out our human commerce solely in spoons of money, or should we be
thinking in un-repaid cups of sugar and their real worth too?
* I highly recommend ‘Lost at Sea – The Jon
Ronson Mysteries’ to anyone who wants to be simultaneously enraged and tickled
pink by some of the absurdities of modern life.