The outer judge, the inner judge: debt – guilt – shame.
Conversation between the lawyer Dr. Urs Egli and the psychotherapist Dr. med. Marc Melchert.
For the lawyer, debt is a major cultural innovation. Labour is given a tradable value. The external judge (the law of obligations) regulates the relationships arising from debts.
For the psychotherapist, feelings of guilt are not feelings, but the cognitive abstraction of feelings of shame. The inner judge wants to dissolve dependencies in order to achieve autonomy.
Lawyers deal mainly with debt.
Psychotherapists deal mainly with shame.
HOST: Welcome to today’s talk on 3 March 2014 with our two speakers: Urs Egli is the ‚LAWYER‘ and Marc Melchert is the ‚THERAPIST‘. The topic is debt – guilt – blame – shame. Obviously these words are put into a different context by the lawyer and the therapist, and thus each takes on a different meaning. The contextual meaning of words is shown in this advert for the language school Berlitz:
Commercial for the language school BERLITZ.
Year unknown, source YouTube
JURIST: Why are we showing this? We are trying to bring our disciplines closer together. We are both talking about guilt. But maybe we don’t mean the same thing. It’s clear that a psychiatrist is sitting at the microphone….
THERAPEUT:…. and while the psychiatrist tries to clarify the problems, the lawyer flips through the laws:
HOST: The two speakers have been exploring the idea that there are many similarities and overlaps between legal doctrine and psychology for some time. They held a dialogue in our salon in 2009 entitled ‚Psychodynamics of Legal Cases‘. At that time you showed that legal cases often have a psychodynamic component.
THERAPIST: The conclusion was that if the clients had come to me earlier, the outcome might have been different.
LAWYER: The aggressive ones end up with me. The passive ones go to you.
But today we are talking about debt and guilt. These are concepts that unite our disciplines. The law that governs our private actions is called the Swiss Code of Obligations. Obligation = debt. Karl Lorenz called it the law of obligations. Lawyers are mainly concerned with debts.
THERAPIST: In forensic psychiatry, the term criminal culpability is often used in connection with guilt. What does it mean?
LAWYER: That’s another dimension! It’s about punishing someone for a crime they’ve committed: a rule has been broken and there has to be a response. Debts are in the code of obligations, crimes are in criminal law.
THERAPIST: What does criminal liability mean? The crime was committed or not!
LAWYER: Today, it is no longer enough to have broken a rule in order to be punished. It used to be different: the old Germanic criminal law was a success-based criminal law. It did not matter whether someone was injured or killed in an accident while cutting wood or in a brawl; the reaction was always the same. Today we have a blame-based criminal law: punishment is only meted out if the offence can be attributed to the individual (if blame can be apportioned). This requires the ability to recognise guilt, which is present if someone is capable of doing so:
- to recognise the injustice of the act and
- to act on this knowledge.
THERAPEUT: And what, then, is the aforementioned law of obligations about?
LAWYER: Ferdinand von Schirach once said that he was tired of dealing with who owed how much to whom throughout his entire professional life. That’s why he turned to criminal law, where everything is much more obvious, painted in bolder colours. Here today, we are doing the opposite, we are looking at the subtle in this conversation: We ask ourselves why one should owe anything to other people at all and how it comes about?
THERAPEUT: So go ahead. What is the law of obligations? What are we talking about today?
JURIST: The law of obligations deals with how people can incur debts among themselves. It is interesting that the Anglo-Saxons programmatically leave out the concept of guilt. In German, ‘Schulden’ (debt) and ‘Schuld’ (guilt) have the same etymological roots. It’s obvious: if you incur debt, you incur guilt. That’s pietistic Protestantism. Quite different in English: ‘debt’ is debt, ‘guilt’ is guilt. Perhaps this explains why the City of London has such a relaxed relationship with debt.
In German, ‘Schulden’ (debt) and ‘Schuld’ (guilt) have the same etymological roots,
in English: ‘debt’ is debt, ‘guilt’ is guilt.
THERAPIST: But why do we have to owe each other something in the legal sense?
LAWYER: The legal concept of debt goes back to Roman law. At that time, a highly developed form of social exchange emerged for the first time. This presupposes the existence of organisation. There were two types of lawsuits:
- „Actio in rem“ (action on a matter): From this, ownership developed. What belongs to whom?
- “Actio in personam“ (action concerning a person): From this, the contract and thus the debt has developed. Who owes what to whom?
THERAPEUT: What actually is a contract?
JURIST: A legally protected bond between people. Legally protected means that some authority ensures its enforcement.
The possibility of creating a legally protected bond between people is a major cultural innovation.
THERAPEUT: Why innovation?
JURIST: Originally, everything was self-produced. There was a division of labour. For example, a farmer and a potter: 1 chicken for 1 clay pot, it’s very simple. But how does a carpenter buy 6 eggs with a chair? It’s easy if you have money, but we’ll talk about that later. For now, let’s stick to bartering. Bartering is only possible if it is done at the same time.
A barter is the mother of all contracts.
THERAPIST: What if that’s not possible?
LAWYER: For example, I give you seeds and get a part of the future harvest. Barter no longer works because it’s not simultaneous. Exchange is simultaneous and only possible with goods.
THERAPIST: What about services?
LAWYER: As psychiatrists and lawyers, we are paid in debt. We provide a service and in return the client is indebted to us. Only the concept of a legally guaranteed debt makes it possible to have an economy based on the division of labour. Debt allows a relationship to be detached from the here and now and made tradable.
A regulated debt system allows the division of labour to be fixed over time. The work done is given a constant and tradable value.
The debt specialists are the bankers. Banking originated in Florence during the Renaissance. You could give gold to a banker in Florence and get it back in London. This is the abstraction of a relationship!
THERAPIST: How does it work?
LAWYER: By a higher authority saying: if you promise each other things, we’ll make sure you keep them. And that promise is called a debt. The law lays down the rules for how legally guaranteed debts are created and what happens if they are not fulfilled.
THERAPIST: How is a debt created?
JURIST: There are really only two ways in which a debt is created:
- Meeting of the Minds: close to law of obligation.
- Unauthorised action: close to criminal law.
THERAPIST: And what happens if the debt is not repaid?
LAWYER: In the past, you were thrown into debtor’s prison or even enslaved. Today, everything is converted into money: if there are assets, they are confiscated. If not, the debt is entered in the big book of debts: the debt register.
Bankruptcy is an advantage. Banca rotta‘ is the declaration of insolvency and has the following etymological origin: in the Middle Ages, when moneychangers became insolvent, their moneychanging table (banca) was smashed (rotta). The Italians invented it! It’s a relief. Debts disappear, exit.
THERAPIST: The Erb case was in the news recently. How is it possible that he was put on trial and is still sitting in his castle?
JURIST: Exactly. I don’t understand that either. It makes me wonder why debts are paid at all. Obviously our legal system is not very effective if he is still sitting in his castle. So it is not (or not only) the legal system that enforces the repayment of debts. There must be something else. Do you pay because you have a moral obligation, or perhaps because you expect something in return?
I need a psychoanalyst to understand this:
What do you have to say about guilt? Why do you pay debts?
„Help we are sinking!“
„Let me think for you!“
THERAPIST: If I don’t give you an answer, I still owe you because I didn’t fulfil your wish. I feel ashamed because I haven’t fulfilled my own expectations. We say: I AM ASHAMED.
LAWYER: I don’t understand the connection between guilt and shame, you have to explain it to me.
THERAPIST: I would like to make a distinction between shame, guilt, feeling guilty and sin. You started with the Romans, I have to go back a little further: to the expulsion from paradise. I use the examples from the creation story of the Bible because they are very beautiful metaphorical images.
JURIST: So go on.
THERAPIST: The corpus delicti was an apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Good and evil means polarity and evaluation of difference. Knowledge means knowing and therefore responsibility and therefore the ability to be held accountable. After biting into the apple, Adam and Eve became aware of their difference. Quote: Then their eyes were opened, and they saw that they were naked. They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths‘.
LAWYER: What does this have to do with guilt?
THERAPIST: It is about shame, not guilt yet. You have an awareness of difference and from this «being different» a conscious process of individuation begins. The development of a personality and with it clear boundaries:
- between Adam and Eve: the «I» is different from the «you».
- between them and God: The «I» is different from the perfect.
It is at these boundaries that shame arises.
ATTORNEY: So I am ashamed because I am not ‚perfect‘ in my own perception?
THERAPIST: More than that, I am:
- I am unique: not the same as the others
- Not perfect (not the same as God)
It is about diversity and taking responsibility for it. We are unique or peculiar and imperfect. Shame reminds us of this for as long as we can and want to bear it.
Recognising limits and boundaries and taking responsibility for them: That is what shame is.
LAWYER: OK, so shame is clear, but what is sin?
THERAPIST: Sin occurs in relation to a divine universal authority. The bite into the apple: you have violated the order established by God. There is only one way to get rid of sin: the grace of God.
JURIST: Now I understand what shame is and what sin is. But I still don’t understand what it means to be guilty, especially in this context.
THERAPIST: You wanted to get rid of the burden of shame, you couldn’t stand the shame and you tried to avoid it. First they covered up the differences with fig leaves, they hid parts of their nature. Then they went one step further; they started to blame. Adam said it: Eve did it. Eve said: «The snake made me do it.
Guilt is created in the other person, in order to relieve one’s own sense of shame.
HOST: I’m going to show you a short clip on the subject of guilt. It’s from the TV show Everybody Loves Raymond. In this episode, Raymond gives his second Super Bowl ticket to his friend instead of his brother or father. These two, along with his mother, all make him feel guilty in their own way.
Everybody loves Raymond, S5 E13, Superbowl,
©2000, Worldwide-Pants-Incorporated and HBO-Independent-Productions
LAWYER: These are feelings of guilt, not guilt itself.
THERAPIST: Yes, that’s right, we’re talking about feelings of guilt that are generated in you. In the film clip, Raymond refers to this in relation to his mother as a ‚guilt machine‘. (… don’t try to influence me, I can see you starting your guilt machine…) This can be very subtle, sometimes a look is enough! Then the mother says: (… I don’t have a guilt machine, I just hope that our family will be happy…). Her ‚hope‘ is really an expectation. Expectations are threatening feelings of guilt: you want to fulfil expectations to avoid being blamed.
Expectations are the waiting room for feelings of guilt.
LAWYER: Shame and guilt, please explain the connection again.
THERAPIST: Blaming causes the person to feel shame. Your own feelings of shame are being exported! Feelings of guilt are very similar to feelings of shame: both are subjective and not necessarily objective. Neither arises from an action, but from an evaluation of a situation. The differences are:
-
Shame is an intimate feeling that is difficult to describe. Guilt, on the other hand, is a thought that is easier to put into words and communicate
-
The sense of guilt has a frame of reference and presupposes a network of relationships (you, family, society).
Feelings of guilt are a cognitive abstraction of feelings of shame.
LAWYER: And can shame lead to real guilt?
HOST: Yes, it is also possible to avoid shame by turning it into guilt: shame becomes guilt through an action. There is a beautiful example of this in the Bible: ‚Cain and Abel‘. Cain kills his brother out of envy and bitterness because his brother receives more attention for his sacrifices. His sense of inadequacy, of not pleasing his God, leads to shame. He blames his brother for this shame and feels only bitterness himself. But by killing his brother, Cain becomes guilty. The repressed shame becomes real guilt.
LAWYER: Please summarise the difference between shame and guilt, or should I say between Adam and Cain?
God asks Adam: ‘Where are you?’ Adam replies: ‘I hid because I was naked.’
God asks Cain: ’Where is your brother Abel?……what have you done?’
THERAPIST: We are looking at a metaphorical representation of the difference between shame and guilt. The dialogue of shame is: ‚Where are you?‘ and ‚I am naked‘ – it is about being (being as I am). Guilt leads to questions: ‚Where is your brother?‘ and ‚What have you done?‘ – it is about an action and an interaction between the I and the YOU. I feel shame. I am guilty. The feeling of guilt is in between, it has something of both. Sin is when I violate a divine order.
If I kill someone in my dream, I feel ashamed in the morning –
If I tell someone about the dream, I feel guilty –
If I kill someone in real life, I am really guilty.
LAWYER: So guilt is about violating an external reference system. It is an accusation, not a self-perception, as is the case with shame. You have explained that well, but shame on you, you still owe me an explanation. What you’ve explained is about guilt, let’s get back to debts.
I still don’t understand why people pay back debts!
THERAPIST: Be patient! The link between shame and guilt is important in answering your question. Now there is a new dimension to consider: autonomy and attachment. Let me continue and change the setting: a new arena and new characters.
From birth (analogous to the expulsion from paradise!) the child begins to develop as an individual and to free itself from its mother. Driven by the need for autonomy and curiosity.
LAWYER: Yes, I know that as a father. Children distance themselves from their parents from the moment they are born. You can measure it in metres…
HOST: I’d like to show you a short film clip about this. It’s a commercial that illustrates the theme of detachment.
Commercial for Condoms „Jonny’s“.
Year unknown, source YouTube
THERAPIST: The desire for autonomy and the desire for connection and belonging. A rollercoaster of emotions.
LAWYER: What is the problem with this roller coaster?
THERAPIST: Both exist at the same time! The desire for autonomy and the need for attachment both exist with equal intensity and must be allowed to exist at the same time. This is very difficult for children and adults to reconcile, which sometimes makes separation difficult. The commercial illustrates this very well: the mother cannot let go of her son, she forces attachment and prevents her son from having his own experiences. It’s about the ability to give value to yourself and to others, just as they are. I am me, you are you. This requires difference and individuality and a sense of imperfection. You see, we’re back to shame again: individuality and imperfection trigger feelings of shame.
LAWYER: What if this conflict cannot be resolved?
THERAPIST: Shame is not experienced or felt as such. Envy, jealousy, revenge and greed arise. These feelings can then lead to so-called criminal acts.
In this way the shamed person becomes the guilty one. He wants to eliminate diversity from the world. Those who are not like me are not allowed to be.
LAWYER: How does he do it?
THERAPIST: There are two ways:
- Merge the I and the YOU into a WE: the YOU is conquered and controlled, preventing it from developing its own personality.
- Splitting off or destroying the YOU (e.g. Cain): the YOU is removed and with it the difference.
- In combination this means: control if possible, destroy if not.
LAWYER: Nice try! But you still owe me an answer to my question: Why are debts paid?
THERAPIST: Debt is a forced bond with loss of autonomy. To make you guilty is to make you dependent on me, I control you. When I make myself guilty, I force myself into a commitment. When I make myself guilty, I expose myself to prosecution and thus place myself in a position of dependence. Through this commitment and dependence, I lose autonomy and thus avoid shame.
LAWYER: That’s a high price to pay! Now I’m beginning to understand.
THERAPIST: Guilt and feelings of guilt mean giving up control and power. This can be useful, but it can also be dangerous if the dependency becomes unbreakable. Then you can’t get rid of it and you lose more and more of your autonomy and individuality.
LAWYER: I see, so I create a bond with guilt. I had defined guilt as an abstraction of the relationship. Take the example of the service provider. That’s a good way of describing commitment as an exchange with a time dimension, for example: service in exchange for money, everything’s fine. But if I accept something without paying, I am in debt and the other person has control and power over me.
THERAPIST: That’s how it works in the Mafia, in cult-like structures, and sometimes in politics. A favour, a gift, privileges – these create obligations and dependency. A forced relationship: I gain belonging and protection, but I lose a piece of my autonomy and authenticity.
HOST: Here’s a little drawing to illustrate this:
LAWYER: In the NZZ (Newspaper) style guide, I read the following question to the style adviser: A stranger buys me a drink in a bar. Do I leave it or toast the gentleman and simply ignore him? If I accept the drink, am I obliged to strike up a conversation with the stranger? The lovely Henriette Kuhn answered: In the case of the drink, I would argue that it should be seen as a nice, non-committal gesture of male flirtation. Next time you can accept the drink and toast him. Sending the drink back is uncharming. There is no need to be defensive because you are under no obligation to engage in conversation.
Do you agree, therapist?
THERAPIST: This is a borderline situation. Is it flirting = playing games, or is it the beginning of possessiveness? Clarification can be achieved by treating the situation with humour or by addressing the real conflict openly. Bad intentions do not tolerate humour or truth.
LAWYER: That’s where the problem of bribery lies. OK, but again: why should I pay back debts?
THERAPIST: The guilty party wants his autonomy back. We want both: commitment and autonomy; that is the basic conflict. Debt and blame force commitment…
LAWYER: …but then there is no autonomy…
THERAPIST: …and that is why the debtor wants to repay his debt or make amends. They want to regain their autonomy.
It is the inner judge that drives to end dependency and regain autonomy.
LAWYER: By paying a debt, I want to buy my freedom from slavery.
THERAPIST: Yes, that is emancipation in the truest sense of the word.
LAWYER: The word comes from Latin: ‘e manum capere’ … the release of slaves.
THERAPIST: Shame, getting into debt, becoming guilty, repaying debts are expressions of how we deal with the fundamental conflict between attachment and autonomy. How efficiently we can deal with this has to do with our early experiences of attachment. We have seen that debts can be part of good business or good relationships and can be unproblematic, but debts can also lead to ‘enslavement.’
LAWYER: And just to clarify: how does shame arise?
THERAPIST: Shame arises from the fundamental conflict between attachment and autonomy: this fundamental conflict creates connection and dependence on the one hand, and boundaries and limitations on the other. Both are a blessing or a curse, depending on how well we can deal with them. Most of what psychotherapists, educators, social workers and parents do has to do with this fundamental conflict. And perhaps this also applies to lawyers.
Bond vs. Autonomy: the mother of all conflicts.
LAWYER: There are people who repeatedly get into debt. What is wrong with them?
THERAPIST: A pathological form of attachment and liberation. A perverse form of attachment and autonomy issues. A secularised form of the attachment–autonomy conflict.
A balance between commitment and autonomy
THERAPIST: I’m glad you understand me, my guilt is gone.
… guilt frees you from shame…
… guilt is like superglue…
LAWYER: We need to talk again about ‘guilt’. What do you think about criminal responsibility, especially in connection with psychiatric reports in criminal proceedings?
THERAPIST: Punishment is like paying back a debt. It gives back a piece of autonomy. No punishment means no boundaries/limits, which means no autonomy, which means avoiding shame. Punishment can create balance and enable a fresh start.
LAWYER: The youth lawyer who does not punish the thug is like the mother who waves at the condom.
THERAPIST: Not setting boundaries for a child means not taking their individuality seriously. People need an environment where autonomy can develop, and that requires boundaries. That means allowing shame! If you give young people a feeling of superiority or omnipotence, that they can do anything without consequences, you prevent them from developing an identity that integrates them into society. They will not be able to emancipate themselves and will become guilty again, in an endless cycle. The fundamental conflict between relationship and autonomy is not always easy to resolve; it has to be learned.
LAWYER: Incapable of guilt = incapable of shame?
THERAPIST: Yes, exactly. The shamelessness must be corrected. Socialisation means learning to deal with shame. Being able to deal with feelings of shame in a resilient way so that they do not have to be acted out and become guilt.
LAWYER: Just like Cain did! So the guilty person must learn to feel shame so that they do not become guilty in the first place.
THERAPIST: He must learn to recognise and accept his own nature. Learning to deal with boundaries means developing individuality. No boundaries — no autonomy — no individuality.
LAWYER: Punishment means restitutio of individuality. Interesting, Councillor Wolff, who describes the black bloc as an enrichment of May Day.
THERAPIST: He takes away their very identity and turns them into entertainment for May Day. I would want to distance myself from this ‘mother figure.’ They don’t want to be an enrichment (addition); they want to assert their autonomy. But if they commit a crime in doing so, they remain stuck in the system, which is a difficult dilemma.
LAWYER: Lenient justice is identity dilution.
THERAPIST: Both victims and perpetrators must regain their integrity and individuality. This cannot be achieved without respect for boundaries. A boundless community does not respect individuality. Reparation is healing for the victim’s damaged self-image. The same applies to the perpetrator: settling guilt can mean healing the damaged individuality.
HOST: We have now discussed debt from a legal and psychoanalytical perspective. One dimension is still missing: economics.
We are now also interested in how the debt professionals, the economists, view the topic of debt.
LAWYER: First of all, economists assess debt from a financial and mathematical perspective. For economists, debt is a liability on the balance sheet. It’s something entirely rational.
THERAPIST: Is it economically rational to take on debt?
LAWYER: Yes, if it is for investment purposes. Companies have to invest. They have to buy machinery. If they had to wait until they had the money, they would never achieve their goals. Some companies even have to raise a lot of capital. Banks in particular. If a bank wants to lend money, it has to obtain it.
THERAPIST: How does this work with debt in the private sector?
LAWYER: Mortgage debt is the main example. Education loans can also make economic sense for private individuals, especially in the Anglo-Saxon education system. In the long term, however, income and expenditure must be in balance. Otherwise, there is a risk of excessive debt.
THERAPIST: And does that work?
LAWYER: Individual households are very good at this. They are even very conservative at first. Only one other group is even more conservative: private associations. In Switzerland, households have little to no debt apart from mortgages. Italian households are more deeply in debt than Swiss households. Companies are also relatively good at this. And if they are not, the company is dissolved through bankruptcy.
When a company goes bankrupt, the resources it has tied up become available again and can be used by other, better companies.
THERAPIST: What’s the problem?
LAWYER: Government debt.
HOST: I’ll show you a short clip from the film ‘The International’, a political thriller and action film directed by Tom Tykwer. This clip shows what an arms dealer has to say about banks and debt.
Excerpt from the political thriller: «The International“.
Director Tom Tykwer, 2009.
Information about the film on Wikipedia
THERAPIST: Here it is said out loud: debt makes you dependent and gives power to the lender. They then have control!
LAWYER: It is not only private households and companies that take on debt, but also countries. And on a massive scale. On the one hand, this is to finance investments. Unfortunately, however, this is the exception. The vast majority is used to finance structural deficits.
THERAPIST: What is a structural deficit?
LAWYER: It’s quite simple. The state’s expenditure is always greater than its income, i.e. its taxes.
THERAPIST: And what happens to the deficits?
LAWYER: They accumulate. They are carried over to the new account from year to year. Deficits should actually be balanced out in subsequent years. But that doesn’t happen. France, for example, hasn’t had a positive account once in the last 50 years.
THERAPIST: How high is Switzerland’s debt?
LAWYER: Relatively low. Government debt is measured in relation to gross domestic product (GDP). This is the value of all services provided within the country. It is actually the same as for private households. There, too, creditworthiness is assessed by comparing debt to income. Switzerland has a GDP of CHF 600 billion. Switzerland’s national debt ratio is 50%, which is CHF 300 billion. That is CHF 37,500 per capita. Germany is at 100%, as is the USA, Italy at 133% and Greece at 156%. At the lower end of the scale we have Norway with 26%, Sweden with 41%, Denmark with 44% and Switzerland with 50%.
THERAPIST: How can this happen?
LAWYER: Unfortunately, it is one of the biggest disadvantages of democracies.
Public finances are the political common goods.
This is something we know from the Middle Ages. Villages had communal land where everyone could graze their livestock. Naturally, people preferred to send their animals to the common land rather than their own fields. Politicians therefore help themselves to public funds in order to give gifts to their voters and get re-elected. Everyone gets something to keep their electorate happy. Farmers, tenants, tax breaks for the economy…
The costs are nationalised. Health and transport are good examples. Costs are borne by the general public and end up in deficits. For political reasons, the true costs are not passed on to users or collected via tax increases.
THERAPIST: So we don’t send our cows to the common land, we send them on the public transport. Who is supposed to pay for that?
LAWYER: Certainly not those responsible. They’ll probably be dead by then. Most likely the next generation. David Ricardo already said: Today’s deficits are tomorrow’s taxes. But we shouldn’t be under any illusions. No politician is going to raise taxes to pay off the debts of his predecessors. So the red ink will continue to flow and be carried over to the next bill. The printing presses are running!
And at some point, inflation will set in and eat away at the debt, and unfortunately also at the value of the savings.
Another possibility is national bankruptcy. This happens more often than you might think. Greece has gone bankrupt six times since it was founded 150 years ago. A hybrid would be currency devaluation. Argentina recently experienced this. It’s basically inflation overnight.
THERAPIST: When will inflation and bankruptcy happen?
LAWYER: Of course, the private creditors of the states, the financial sector, do not want bankruptcy. So they want inflation. And in large states (the US), bankruptcy is almost unthinkable. The economic interests in maintaining the status quo are simply too great. But let’s not forget that individual cities in the US have already gone bankrupt (Detroit). And California was once insolvent. In Switzerland, the town of Leukerbad was once placed under receivership.
THERAPIST: After what we said earlier about autonomy, this scares me a little. So the state is not free? Isn’t that a little too rational for economists?
LAWYER: Yes, unfortunately, for the most part. Economics is a very mathematical science. Economists believe that the correct distribution of goods (i.e. justice) can be calculated using the formula of supply and demand. But it’s not that simple. Back to the debtor countries. Why do you think the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland are so frugal?
THERAPIST: Perhaps because they have better inner judge?
HOST: This seems like a good time to end this conversation; our time is up! I would like to ask you to give a brief summary.
LAWYER: So, to summarise from my point of view: debts release relationships from the here and now, making them abstract and thus tradable. Only in this way is it possible to share the workload of economic activity.
PSYCHOTHERAPIST: But be careful when using ‘superglue’. Sometimes you can’t get it off your fingers.