Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later[^][v]#1,329,949
This will be a real setback to subprime borrowers who have emergency needs that will be costlier to ignore than taking out high-interest loans. Both the borrower and lender consent, but not the government so the loan just won't happen.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,329,995
@previous (D)
They aren't forced to do it, they could refuse to use a high-interest card. If they still want to take the loan, knowing the cost, it must be because they looked at their own situation and decided that was better than not paying important bills.
Telling someone they can't make their own hard choices, and picking an option for them, is patronizing. You're deciding that you know what's better for them than they do, and that hubris means they pay an even higher cost when they can't pay their necessary bills.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 46 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,330,011
@1,330,005 (D) @previous (A)
Heirarchy of needs - food, water and shelter are non-negotiable. At some point humans pick up the letter openers and turn them on the lenders instead of opening their bills to pay them. 29.99% is a pretty bold statement, we can make bold statements too if we're hungry.
They don't think it's better to pay 10X the worth of the food, they are simply desperate because greedy price gougers are all charging 10X the worth of the food.
> They don't think it's better to pay 10X the worth of the food, they are simply desperate because greedy price gougers are all charging 10X the worth of the food.
You just completely changed the subject. We aren't talking about whether the retailer is charging a fair price, we're talking about whether the consumer has a right to choose between eating on credit, or starving.
I believe they should be able to make that choice themselves, and you want to make it for them.
> > Seriously, have you ever actually been in debt?
I've used high interest cards before, and I did it because it was better than missing a bill and getting a bigger fee overnight. If a "compassionate" legislature had taken that option away from me it would have been more expensive in the long run.
> we're talking about whether the consumer has a right to choose between eating on credit, or starving
No, we're talking about if it's a legitimate "choice" when the options are to pay 10X the worth of a food, or to starve to death. I claim that it's obviously no choice at all, it's forced upon the consumer. You want to allow price gougers to charge 10X the worth of a sandwich, I want there to be a mechanism that food cannot be price gouged.
> If a "compassionate" legislature had taken that option away from me it would have been more expensive in the long run.
That's not what they're doing though, is it? They're talking about limiting the maximum APR, not banning credit cards.
> No, we're talking about if it's a legitimate "choice" when the options are to pay 10X the worth of a food, or to starve to death. > I claim that it's obviously no choice at all, it's forced upon the consumer.
In this situation, banning the credit card would mean their death then? If someone has to choose between death and debt, and you force them to chose death, you are a psychopath.
If I simply say they should be able to make that choice themselves, I've done nothing but affirmed their autonomy.
> You want to allow price gougers to charge 10X the worth of a sandwich
A strawman, a complete lie.
> I want there to be a mechanism that food cannot be price gouged.
We were never talking about price gouging. Quote me where I ever replied to or mentioned it. > > >If a "compassionate" legislature had taken that option away from me it would have been more expensive in the long run. > > That's not what they're doing though, is it? They're talking about limiting the maximum APR, not banning credit cards.
Banning 30% interest cards doesn't mean they offer prime rates to subprime borrowers. Those people just don't get a credit card at all.
The long and short of it is, you're attempting to justify corporate greed by suggesting that since people choose to engage in business with the greedy corporations, then it's perfectly okay for them to have the greed. Except that many people simply don't have a choice, it's the greedy corporations or nothing. With government intervention, people will still have access to credit, only without ridiculous APRs.
> The long and short of it is, you're attempting to justify corporate greed by suggesting that since people choose to engage in business with the greedy corporations, then it's perfectly okay for them to have the greed. Except that many people simply don't have a choice, it's the greedy corporations or nothing.
No, I'm only saying one thing: taking choices away from people never helps them. If it doesn't help, why do it?
If they didn't have a choice, you wouldn't be advocating for removing a choice, there would be nothing to discuss because they would already have one option.
> With government intervention, people will still have access to credit, only without ridiculous APRs.
No, they would be denied credit because of their risk. Businesses will not give away money they know probably won't be paid back. To convince them to take that risk there needs to be a bigger potential return.
> taking choices away from people never helps them.
The only choice you're taking away is the choice the banks make to rip off poor people.
The second claim makes no sense either. If they think the money isn't going to be paid back, it makes no difference whether the repayment is for 40% or 0%. It's a grift.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,330,073
@previous (D)
Taking away options from people isn't representing their interests, because they can choose to avoid the credit card if that's truly the better option. The government will only affect their lives if they would have chosen to take that option, and now cannot. If that's the case, the government has overruled their agency. If they are rational, they've been harmed. You must believe poor people are irrational if you find this to be a good idea.
> Taking away options from people isn't representing their interests, because they can choose to avoid the credit card if that's truly the better option.
"I MIGHT CHARGE $20 FOR A CABBAGE, BUT PEOPLE MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE TO WALK INTO THIS STORE, THE ONLY ONE FOR A THOUSAND MILES AROUND: THEY COULD ALWAYS SIMPLY NOT EAT!"
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 23 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,330,301
I deposit $100 into a bank account, $10 stays "at the bank", $90 is loaned to another bank customer. If the bank fucks up and loses the $90 they repackage the debt and sell it. If I try to get my $100 out of the bank and they don't have it anymore, the central bank will loan my bank the $90 they lost at just 5% interest. So, tell me again, why should anyone be paying 30%? The bank never risked anything to justify a 30% per annum interest rate. Bank loan or credit card loan, shouldn't matter, you can't do usury.
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,330,559
@previous (F)
OP is describing fractional-reserve banking. > Are you in Europe?
There is no country on Earth that doesn't use fractional-reserve banking.