'(N)either a borrower or a lender be'? That is the question.

I find myself in a number of conversations which refer back to the words that Shakespeare put into the words of Polonius in the play Hamlet: "neither a borrower or a lender be". Most productions of Hamlet that I've seen (and I've seen a few as it was a favourite A level text for me), play Polonius as a bit of an unwise old man dispensing words that he's heard but that have little value to offer his son, Laertes. (Of course, Polonius was referring to money, and my main interest is in borrowing & lending our possessions to each other as a way to evolve consumerism into a more responsible custodianship of limited resources, enabling us to have the opportunity to develop more global justice i.e. to all ive with dignity.)

The phrase 'neither a borrower or a lender be' is one I've been reflecting on further, as I can imagine others saying this to me. I would say that this phrase has (largely) outlived its usefulness. What the attitude behind that phrase produced (which some would call miserliness and some would call protecting one's gains) was a society in which only the most plausible ideas would get venture capital. (What was lost by not supporting requests for borrowing which didn't seem grounded is difficult to tell). Without borrowing or lending of possessions, most people felt some odd compulsion to "Keep up with the Jones" and buy a similar set of articles to those which the neighbours had and which the neighbours only used for a small part of the time eg car, lawn-mower, leisure equipment, collection of films and books etc. The compulsion to own so much led to longer hours of work, degraded family life and community life; not to mention the massive environmental cost which is finally being recognised as a threat to our survival as a species. Comments please, as there is a lot more to learn about the usefulness at times of prudence with our stuff and also about how to make calculated risks to lend for the benefit of all.