I have a few “policies” that I think are uncommon.

1. I never lend money because I have found the obligation upon the person receiving the money leads to negative consequences for me as a lender (whether friend or acquaintance). Instead I decide whether or not to gift the amount (or part of it), and I tell the person to “pay it back to someone else in need when they are well off in the future” or similar reason. Saying no is hard, but saying no is easier than dealing with the consequences of a friend that can’t easily pay money back (or even worse someone needs reminding which completely sucks, or they just don’t pay it backf).

2. I try to share costs approximately based upon ratios of disposable income, where possible. Some friends have $20 disposable after a week’s work, when I might have orders of magnitude more. Socially, this is a complicated manoeuvre, but it means I can pay for things we might like to do together, even though a friend might have radically different levels of income (or spare time). When that scheme won’t work for some tit-for-tat people, missing out on some things is the only option left (either we do something cheap, or they can’t be involved).

3. I don’ t get started with rounds of drinks - the social pressures are unfair on some and I dislike the obligation to drink to excess.

4. I sometimes offer drinks or dinner or whatever if someone can accept a freebie - I never do this when I would feel unwillingly obliged. I hardly ever buy someone a drink if they ask for it, as I don’t want to encourage that dynamic.

maybe not as uncommon as you may think. I do 2) a lot; most of my friends from college are not software engineers and I don't want any of my friends to be "priced out" of hanging out. I usually try to do it in a subtle way (eg, spend $30 on pizza, not mention what it really cost, and ask everyone for one or two dollars), not sure if that makes it more or less awkward. 3) and 4) I agree with, though I never find myself in a situation where that would be relevant.

I do 1) differently. I was more generous in the past, but some people took advantage of that. I've also come to feel that simply giving money jeopardizes the peer relationship. instead, I now give any friend who asks a 0% interest loan with no due date. no questions asked, but I do keep track (roughly) of how much I've lent out to each person. I never say anything about it, but if they hit $1000 or so, I start saying no to further requests. I guess this probably violates the spirit of your policy, but I prefer this approach over having to decide yes or no for each individual request.

I've come to believe that the problem of 1) shows a basic mistake that capitalist theory makes about human behavior. Helping people is a show of dominance. It creates resentment from the people helped; "You think I need help? You think you can help me?" is about a millimeter away from "You think you're better than me?" It also often creates resentment in the helper if the helped person doesn't show proper submission (euphemistically called "gratitude" but evaluated through performance), or doesn't change their behavior "You wasted the money I gave you for food on beer?"

The idea that you accumulate wealth in order to give more away than anybody else, and through that gaining power, proving your superiority to the people you help e.g. "potlatch" culture, is completely left out of the capitalist theory of mind.

I've been reading Bataille lately, who was onto something like that with "The Accursed Share." His ideas surrounded by a lot of mystical trappings, though - he seemed to see himself as a sort of anarchist neocon - intentionally creating myths and rituals to get people to follow material goals.

edit: It's the gift that creates resentment, whether or not there's the boilerplate of a loan. Even repayment doesn't eliminate the resentment. Capitalists try to solve that with interest and an abstract time-value of money. Outside of capitalism it's solved through the person receiving the gift either 1) accumulating resources that could help the gift-giver, and watching them carefully to find the time when they could offer an equally effective reciprocal gift, or 2) helping others even weaker to show that they still have the ability to dominate.

I have personally adopted a "never loan, only give" policy since I was a teenager, which has often been a "I understand that you're definitely going to pay me back, so if you need to consider it a 0% loan with a balloon payment due at the heat death of the Universe, consider it that" or a "do a nice thing for someone else" (similar to you both.) I don't know that all of the verbiage made a difference.

edit2: I'm pretty sure we recognize the most dominant person as the person who has no possessions, but who everyone feels obligated and honored to host and to help. It's the fantasy of what people think the Dalai Lama is (rather than the title of the former heads of state of Tibet.)

I don't have anything to add other than to say that was a great explication of what I meant by "simply giving money jeopardizes the peer relationship". I didn't quite know how to explain that further myself, thanks!

How do you make 2) happen practically? I’ve done as the sibling poster suggested and just not tell people how much something cost and ask them for a smaller % for their share. But it feels a bit icky sometimes.

It is difficult: for many people paying for things is a strong status signal, so your friend has to trust you are not being a dick. For a restaurant bill, I might suggest we each pay half an hours wages each (not really fair, but closer). If it is something they couldn’t otherwise afford it makes it easier since then I can pay. For those with spare time, I might suggest I pay for something, and they later do something that takes some small amount of time for me like have a meal at theirs and be sociable (again, avoiding status signalling work, it has to be something with respect on both sides).

Sometimes when I know someone has spent say their weeks disposable income when doing something together, I spend a weeks disposable income on something they need: the price discrepancy means they can’t repay it equally so they have to come up with another mental model. That can only be done nicely to some people (no one wants to feel in debt or obligated).

It is very dependant on each person and each situation, and there is no generic tidy way to deal with the discrepancy.

The way I have done it with both groups of friends and past partners is we rotate who chooses the activity, and that person pays that time. So if you can only be cheap and do picnic in the park that's fine, but if you want to spend more that's also ok. This works best if your friends (both poorer and richer) are not materialistic and don't keep count, and it needs to be a fairly steady group, 5 or less works best.

My friends and I more or less trade off on paying for food at restaurants. It's not calculated, but over the long term of switching off paying for various meals of various costs, it should mostly shake out to be about even, and mostly just reduces hassle when we get the check.

I think there's a lot of value in even just taking turns in giving and taking, even if you aren't tracking the exact dollars and cents.

>If you are keeping track I think it’s worth reevaluating the relationship entirely.

This is a tough one, I've met many different cultures (although, in particular Slavic ones, sometimes Dutchies too) who really cannot stand not having the balances settled. Few of my friends who I'm very close with will still just want common things to be evened out as soon as possible. I don't think you can make a rule out of it.

As a slavic person, it depends.

Money? Yes must be settled.

Drinks? Preferably settled the same night (more rounds). If not settled the same night, it goes into the infinite pool of “drinks on you next time we meet” where nobody keeps track.

Favors? "Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me."

> If not settled the same night, it goes into the infinite pool of “drinks on you next time we meet” where nobody keeps track.

This IMO is the ideal situation. :)

Fair point. I will clarify I am an American who was raised in a Christian household.

My comment was based purely on my own worldview and is in no way meant to imply other people should emulate me. I edited that line to say I re-evaluate the relationship instead of you, which sounded prescriptive.

Fair callout that I could be excluding others but I never refuse being “paid back” and I never expect others to forgive a favor or debt.

I thjnk my philosophy would still be compatible with making Slavic friends :)

Yes, that was an interesting culture shock when I moved to the Netherlands. It didn't help that where I'm from it was much more common in a bar to pay as you go, or in a restaurant for everyone to pay a share (either listing off what they had, or just dividing, whatever makes the most sense) at the counter on the way out.

In the Netherlands, your table will run a tab and someone pays, and then later sends a tikkie (it's an app that makes paying the person back very easy) to the group. They get kinda weirded out if you violate this model, e.g. recently I was going to the shop, and a friend asked for something - €6 or so, small enough that I don't mind not being paid back for a one-off thing, and then a few weeks later sent me a message "I remembered you never sent me a tikkie for that, please do!"

There's a standard joke screenshot that goes around here of a whatsapp message after a date, translated, "Please pay €0.25 for mayo on your fries." It's probably not a joke.

> This reminds me of a personal policy I have with friends and acquaintances. Nobody ever “owes” me a beer. If I buy them one that’s the end of it. We are always “even”.

I am the same, with the addition that if someone says something like "your shout I think?" they might be having trouble so I will usually go along with it. Better to potentially help a friend in need than be petty.

It goes along with a mindset that I have always had, which is that it shows more strength to give than it does to take. I think most decent people have that internalized in various ways.

"A friend in need is a friend indeed"

Sustained relationships have to be two-way to flourish. So, while one should not keep track of what favors to call, one should consider taking favors from the folks we have given favors to.

It boosts their self-esteem as well, that they have the ability to give, and have exercised it.

I will use this as a chance to recommend the book "Debt: The First 5000 Years" by the late anthropologist David Graeber. The book is full of interesting stories about how various societies do and don't choose to keep track of the debts people owe to one another.

The not owing a drink thing reminds me of the concept of rounds. I guess Americans don’t practice it so much, but in Oz it’s kind of expected that people cycle through buying rounds. And there’s always a sense amongst a group of who’s up next, even across multiple days/nights.

As an American who only has occasionally bought or received a “round,” your comment reminds me of the strange issues around tipping.

When rounds are not expected, it feels really nice when someone unexpectedly buys everyone a round. Similarly, it feels delightfully magnanimous to buy a round; makes you feel like a King.

I can see how it quickly loses its charm once it’s an expected transaction to honor.

When I visited Taiwan a few years ago I really came to appreciate the tradition of refilling the glass(es) of your companions before your own. Want more tea? Top someone else off first. Same with beer in their comically small glasses.

It’s a much more intimate experience and we formed relationships with people without even being able to speak at a conversational level.

I like your point. However one thing I severely dislike about East Asian meal & drink culture is the implication that drinking alone - simply sipping your drink while enjoying the meal & conversation - means you are not enjoying yourself, and possibly also insulting the host.

This means that every time you want to sip your drink you have to entertain this needless protocol: identify someone around the table - preferably someone you have yet to drink with - say cheers (translation required), and sometimes drink all of the 60 mL cup at once. You should also keep a checklist of who you have and haven't drunk with. The more political, the greater the need to move around the table at random intervals, shake hands, and drink. This is a demonstration often devoid of meaning.

If it's a real party it can be fun to bottoms-up all the drinks. For a more relaxed meal & conversation setting (my preference), as an outsider this is uncomfortable. It ruins the slow enjoyment of expensive alcohol. Why can't I sip my own damn drink with my meal?!

Also as someone who drinks a lot less as I get older, I lately find myself not drinking at all at these events, because there is no middle ground.

Your comment made me think of this essay “How to Survive as a Woman at a Chinese Banquet” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/opinion/sunday/women-chin...

Yeah, I was definitely hanging out with a different crowd.

I think you overthink the whole thing. I’ve eaten a lot of meals in some of those countries (I live in East-Asia) and I’ve never felt I had to follow such protocol, to the extent they exists at all. The situation may be different in formal setting in China if the internet is to be trusted but besides it really seems like thinking too much after reading a few blogposts. Especially as foreigners we are not bound to every little protocolar details and it would even be strange to be a try-harder.

It sounds like you have more experience with these things but what you are describing is not consistent with my experience.

It was totally acceptable to sip a drink. If I was empty and needed a refill I would simply take the shared container (650ml beer bottle, tea pot, etc.) and first refill someone or everyone’s drink, empty or not. Essentially the personal containers were bottomless.

I never felt an obligation to refill a specific person’s drink. But that situation never really came up because everyone eventually is the person initiating the refills.

It’s possible I was offending a lot of people. In fact it is likely. They were certainly generous enough to not say so however.

One thing I've noticed is that it can take just a few 'reserved' people, to make everyone start second guessing themselves. So I think there is some value in having some spaces and gatherings where it's mandatory to be open.

Also here in Aus there is 'shouting' too. I don't know where the term originated from but generally if you've had some sort of stroke of good luck or unexpected fortune then it's your shout, which is basically a free round of drinks on you.

When I used to go to the pub with my cricket team the person who scored the highest that day would shout the group. Or if you'd won big on the poker machines etc then it would be your shout.

That’s definitely a thing here. I just extend that philosophy a bit. If we go out after work and I buy two rounds but you buy one we are still even. I’m not going to keep track and insist you buy first next time. Also “buy a beer” is kind of shorthand for “do a favor”. If I help you set the idle on your motorcycle I never expect compensation.

It is healthier and I prefer it highly, until you notice there is this one friend that goes out with 10 euros and often takes it back home as well. Led tom some arguments in the past.

I upvoted this upon reading the first paragraph. Because that’s good stuff. Reading the rest now...

... yep 100% glad I upvoted! This is exactly my mindset on this.