Idk Vance the swipe fees are one thing but 30% apr which is what most cards are are predatory rates imo. I'm able to take advantage of 0% intro rates for major purchases and pay them off on time and my cash back cards I'm able
To pay off at the end of the month. I make it a point to never pay a dime in interest. But that wasn't always the case. There were months we used our cards to buy gas and groceries bc we were poor. And that's who those predatory rates affect. I'm normally all for free market capitalism but I have a difference objective than most. I believe the whole point is to lift people out of poverty and 30% to carry a balance longer than 30 days ain't the way.
Russel, I agree that paying 30% on a credit card is really painful. But it's a signal that shouldn't be suppressed. It's saying, "you shouldn't borrow!"
But if someone MUST borrow, even at those rates, better to do it at the bank than with the local pawn shop or loan shark (the bank won't break your legs, no matter how late you are).
I suspect though, for people like you, rates could be much lower if there were fewer restrictions on banking. That is, more competition to lend money.
So the best path to reducing poverty (and optimizing overall prosperity) is market interest rates in an UNFETTERED loan market. That would allow reasonable rates for diligent people and strong signals for people who need to radically change course.
"People like me"? I have 0 debt sir. And you're talking about the poorest people in society. It's not about whether or not they should borrow. It's whether or not they have to to survive. 30% is not a reasonable short term rate under any circumstances. That's not free markets. That's predatory.
Yes, I mean people who, as you described yourself, were poor at one point and working their way to prosperity (as was I years ago). People who have the person attributes to succeed but haven't gotten there yet. Those people should be able to access credit for a lot less than 30%.
For the poorest people in society, I'd divide them into two camps. Those who are unable to ever support themselves (physically or mentally) and those who are still finding their footing. The former should get charity. The latter have to struggle their way up and a free market provides their best path. If that means multiple roommates, delaying children, living without hot water, that's what you do. I've been there, and I've seen people go through much worse.
The word predatory, to me, implies a moral implication akin to pillaging (taking something unrightfully) and I think that's the wrong way to look at it.
Will an undertaker take advantage of a grieving widow in a free market? Absolutely. So you make arrangements in advance to prevent that. Will a bank take advantage of consumers? Of course. So you want lots of competition in banking.
I'm not saying that bad actors and unfortunate outcomes don't exist. I'm just saying the they are minimized in free markets. So rather than pointing at the bad actor, we should fix the system that's giving the bad actor so much leverage. In banking, the shorthand for that is End the Fed.
You can have morals and be successful in the free market. An undertaker taking advantage of a grieving widow is immoral and predatory.
And passing common sense regulation to prevent that from happening is fixing the system as far as I'm concerned. Especially in an industry with as little competition as the credit card industry.
Idk Vance the swipe fees are one thing but 30% apr which is what most cards are are predatory rates imo. I'm able to take advantage of 0% intro rates for major purchases and pay them off on time and my cash back cards I'm able
To pay off at the end of the month. I make it a point to never pay a dime in interest. But that wasn't always the case. There were months we used our cards to buy gas and groceries bc we were poor. And that's who those predatory rates affect. I'm normally all for free market capitalism but I have a difference objective than most. I believe the whole point is to lift people out of poverty and 30% to carry a balance longer than 30 days ain't the way.
Russel, I agree that paying 30% on a credit card is really painful. But it's a signal that shouldn't be suppressed. It's saying, "you shouldn't borrow!"
But if someone MUST borrow, even at those rates, better to do it at the bank than with the local pawn shop or loan shark (the bank won't break your legs, no matter how late you are).
I suspect though, for people like you, rates could be much lower if there were fewer restrictions on banking. That is, more competition to lend money.
So the best path to reducing poverty (and optimizing overall prosperity) is market interest rates in an UNFETTERED loan market. That would allow reasonable rates for diligent people and strong signals for people who need to radically change course.
And BTW, end the fed!
"People like me"? I have 0 debt sir. And you're talking about the poorest people in society. It's not about whether or not they should borrow. It's whether or not they have to to survive. 30% is not a reasonable short term rate under any circumstances. That's not free markets. That's predatory.
Yes, I mean people who, as you described yourself, were poor at one point and working their way to prosperity (as was I years ago). People who have the person attributes to succeed but haven't gotten there yet. Those people should be able to access credit for a lot less than 30%.
Totally agree.
For the poorest people in society, I'd divide them into two camps. Those who are unable to ever support themselves (physically or mentally) and those who are still finding their footing. The former should get charity. The latter have to struggle their way up and a free market provides their best path. If that means multiple roommates, delaying children, living without hot water, that's what you do. I've been there, and I've seen people go through much worse.
The word predatory, to me, implies a moral implication akin to pillaging (taking something unrightfully) and I think that's the wrong way to look at it.
Will an undertaker take advantage of a grieving widow in a free market? Absolutely. So you make arrangements in advance to prevent that. Will a bank take advantage of consumers? Of course. So you want lots of competition in banking.
I'm not saying that bad actors and unfortunate outcomes don't exist. I'm just saying the they are minimized in free markets. So rather than pointing at the bad actor, we should fix the system that's giving the bad actor so much leverage. In banking, the shorthand for that is End the Fed.
You can have morals and be successful in the free market. An undertaker taking advantage of a grieving widow is immoral and predatory.
And passing common sense regulation to prevent that from happening is fixing the system as far as I'm concerned. Especially in an industry with as little competition as the credit card industry.