In an interesting article published on the “Sette magazine” (Corriere della Sera) dated 4 September and entitled “La guerra di religione del debito” Danilo Taino talks about the ancient origins of the different opinions concerning the debt, and stresses that they may be an obstacle when the Countries must make common decisions.
Two opposite poles emerge: on the one hand those who believe that indulgence towards the debtor is possible (or even necessary), on the other hand those who ask for the compliance with the commitments and the payment of every single cent.
Regardless of the sympathies and affinities, these two assumptions are the extremes of all the possible creditor/debtor approaches. Black and white, with all the shades of grey between them.
The greatest mistake of our dual brain is the decision to line up with one of the two parties, regardless of the shade, and to support one specific opinion, thus relying on it for each solution or strategy.
We will end up thinking that the alternative solution is somehow wrong and we will try to deny it. After all, we all like to be right, don’t we?
The overcoming of the conflict and polarity means going beyond, by embracing the two possibilities, and formulating a third one which features the benefits and is deprived of the drawbacks of both of them. Therefore, in practical terms, the correct creditor/debtor approach considers all the possible variables: from the writing-off to avoid further expenses up to the collection of every single cent.
Boasting about well-established strategies and processes or fixating on rooted opinions is just a way of losing opportunities and profits.
Welcome back from your holidays and happy return to work!