If you give someone a gift, do you expect one back?
There’s no right answer here.
Some even consider it rude to expect one back. They might say by expecting something back, this means it’s no longer a gift.
On the other hand, it could be argued that expecting one back creates a relationship of trust.
Un cadeau empoisonné
The French version of ‘a poisoned chalice’ is ‘un cadeau empoisonné’ (a poisoned gift).
The analogy of it being a present rather than a chalice makes it a little more interesting.
A chalice implies that you’re taking it yourself, through your own action, whereas a present is handed to you, and to refuse it seems rude.
It’s also given under the impression that it’s entirely for your benefit and nothing else.
You can see the contents of a chalice, whereas a present is concealed.
You also have to accept a present before you know what’s in it.
The psychology of a gift
David Graeber in Debt: The First 5,000 years goes into great depth about the moral depth of gift giving and how different societies perceive gifts in different ways.
He demonstrates how easily the line between gifts and debts can be blurred.
One example he provides comes from Peter Freuchen’s 1961 Book of the Eskimos:
Freuchen tells how one day, after coming home hungry from an unsuccessful walrus-hunting expedition, he found one of the successful hunters dropping off several hundred pounds of meat. He thanked him.
The man objected indignantly:
“Up in our country we are human! said the hunter. “And since we are human we help each other. We don’t like to hear anybody say thanks for that. What I get today you may get tomorrow. Up here we say that by gifts one makes slaves and by whips one makes dogs.”
Graeber gives a different example of gift-giving with Celtic tribes:
One ancient Greek source describes Celtic festivals where rival nobles would alternate between jousts and contests of generosity, presenting their enemies with magnificent gold and silver treasures.
Occasionally, this could lead to a kind of checkmate; someone would be faced with a present so magnificent that he could not possibly match it. In this case, the only honourable response was for him to cut his own throat, this allowing his wealth to be distributed to his followers.
This case he refers to as an “affair of honour”.
A gift becoming an affair of honour is exactly what makes a gift become a debt.
It’s often seen as a divine obligation to pay back your debts, even if we think the creditor doesn’t deserve it.
Not paying back a debt is seen as incredibly dishonourable.
Graeber adds:
If a gift demands a return, and no tangible return is possible, the repayment will be through support or esteem.
Thus does mutual aid slip into inequality.
The Marshall Plan
You can probably see where I’m going with this.
With the world in economic ruin after the Second World War, the USA took it upon themselves to lead the ‘cleanup’, and generously handed $13.3bn (adjusted for inflation would be $173bn in 2023) to mainly Western countries.
These countries included:
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
France
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
The United Kingdom
America’s narrative was the rebuilding of the economic system, and also to prevent the spread of communism.
But many economic theorists today see it as a form of economic imperialism, and a huge ‘gift’ which ensured they stayed on top.
Furthermore, there is modern evidence which suggests there was no correlation between the amount of aid received and the speed of recovery.
The $173bn given out by the USA was a purchase rather than a gift; a purchase of debt, a purchase of support.
No country could have opposed such a gift in the desperate post-war times.
And referring to the example of the Celtic tribe, how can a gift like that possibly be matched?
The gift-giving hasn’t ended
The World Bank and IMF (both American and headquartered in Washington DC) continue to lend billions every year to developing economies.
According to the World Bank’s report, the organisation lent $72.8bn in 2023.
It’s clear that this lending does benefit developing countries in some ways, but the lending is still a debt, and an acquisition of a country’s favour.
These countries may benefit from the loan, but are potentially in the USA’s pocket for hundreds of years.
And all the while the USA is boosted from being a creditor, how can the world hope to reach economic equality?
We will cover The World Bank and IMF in greater depth in later newsletters.
Please like and leave a comment if you enjoyed reading Unfair Finance 💸