15% Cap on Credit Card Interest Rates

[AlaskanAssassin]

Wow, you sure have a sense of entitlement. I said, "people will make poor long-term decisions", which is equally true regardless of their financial status. However, poor people are less able to recover from these bad decisions.

How do I have a sense of entitlement? I agree that poor people are less able to recover from bad decisions. However, in general, poorer people have a tendency to make worse long-term financial decisions. Denying this would be to deny that personal choices have an impact on an individual's prosperity. I grew up in a shoddy trailer park. Trust me, most of the reasons my parents lived there were due to their personal choices in life.

It's much more difficult to change human cognitive processing than to protect people from their own tendency to make bad decisions. Still, if you have a plan for helping people avoid hyperbolic discounting, I'm all ears.

I wish that high schools required a basic personal finance class that emphasized avoiding debt and living within your means. I think it should be required to graduate. If this class was run well I think it could have a strong impact on a lot of people's lives.

It helps them avoid debt in the first place. In reality, the people who get these credit cards make current purchases using present bias and unrealistic assumptions about their ability to pay them off.

I want them to avoid debt too. I wish we could accomplish it without restricting their free-will.

 

[One Brow]

However, in general, poorer people have a tendency to make worse long-term financial decisions. Denying this would be to deny that personal choices have an impact on an individual's prosperity. I grew up in a shoddy trailer park. Trust me, most of the reasons my parents lived there were due to their personal choices in life.

Yeah, that's what I mean about a sense of entitlement right there. Our tendency to blame poor people for their status in the world.

I wish that high schools required a basic personal finance class that emphasized avoiding debt and living within your means. I think it should be required to graduate. If this class was run well I think it could have a strong impact on a lot of people's lives.

They all do. Sometimes, if you are on the STEM track, you don't take them, but every high school curriculum I have see has included some sort of "Consumer Math" or "Personal Math". However, you can't lecture cognitive biases from people's minds.

I want them to avoid debt too. I wish we could accomplish it without restricting their free-will.

We have to craft public policy to deal with who humans are, not who we think we want them to be.

 

[fishonjazz]

Your argument about going elsewhere is highly unreasonable by the way. Most of these people won't find jobs out of state that will relocate them and there is almost no way they can relocate themselves. You make it sound so easy to flit around the country, ever tried it on 14 bucks an hour?

This.
People that use the argument "well if they don't like it they should just move" are idiots. Moving isn't easy or cheap for most people.
Hack is an idiot though so no surprises here.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[checkbookdoc]

Wow, I can't believe this is happening... I actually talked myself into agreeing with AOC and Bernie. But only because I think people are bad at sacrificing in the present in exchange for benefits long-term even if they are educated (e.g., ~16% of Americans still smoke and we all know that is dumb). I see this as a nice way of limiting the amount of credit offered to poor people, except democrats would be upset if packaged that way so they instead focus on the interest rate.

Also, I am assuming that this proposal is backed by studies which find the cost to society from entering into credit card debt is greater than the benefit (otherwise why are we even discussing this).

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

Yeah, that's what I mean about a sense of entitlement right there. Our tendency to blame poor people for their status in the world.

Do people's individual choices have zero impact on their status in the world? I'm not suggesting that anything is 100% in our control, but to suggest that choices made by individuals (such as opening a line of credit that you can't pay back) have no impact on your life is crazy. If a student fails a class because they declined to do any homework or study, they need to take some personal responsibility. Even though teachers, parents, friends might have played a role, it doesn't mean that all personal responsibility is absolved.

We have to craft public policy to deal with who humans are, not who we think we want them to be.

I don't think it's the role of government to force choices or options down my throat. This mentality assumes that government is better suited to make choices for me than I am for myself. The government can't pretend to be everyone's mom and dad, making our decisions for us because we are presumed to be too stupid to make smart choices.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

What good does it do to demand higher wages when business owners will just be forced to raises prices? Meaning, your wages still wont buy you what you think you deserve.

Why not then just pay workers whatever the market will bear, even if that's, say, $4 an hour w/ no benefits? This argument implies that there's no connection between rising wages/incomes and economic growth, complete with both supply side and demand side responses.

Think about the great post-WWII economic expansion, fueled in large part by rising middle class associated with rising wage, much of it thanks to labor unions that used countervailing power to extract much higher wages and benefits from employers than what the market would have otherwise borne.

Your argument assumes a static world, which it isn't, and ignores history.

The problem with the liberal Utopian idea that people have the "right" earn a livable wage is just a fallacy. You have that "right" as much as I have the "right" to have magic powers.

While we're at it, why not declare the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship fallacies, as they have no more basis in anything tangible as the right to a livable wage? Wasn't too long ago that the consensus was that asserting such "rights" was also a fallacy.

"Free" healthcare. Nah, its not free. Someone has to work their *** off to know how to heal you. On top of that, you want a house, a "free" education. Tv's, couches, 40 years of other people taking care of you when you retire. All for what? You putting in minimal effort and producing 1/50th of what you think you deserve.

Yes, because every reasonable person knows that getting a free TV has equal personal and social worth and moral value as, say, getting life-saving surgery or treatment.

Of course the frame of reference is 'free' to the consumer, not to society, your silly straw man argument notwithstanding.
You'll note that developed countries that provide 'free' healthcare also spend a lot less on it per citizen, so fewer people are working their *** off to provide it than in the US.

God, your arguments read like you downloaded them from Conservatives R' Us talking points for children website. Lacking any historical frame of reference, knowledge of the wider world, or scintilla of empathy.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

There's nothing magical about 15%, so while I am in favor of capping rates, I can't say that 15% is the optimal place to cap it. May be more, may be less.

I do think that credit cards are based on a predatory business model, not quite as predatory as payday lenders, but not so so different either. I see it fully within the purview of government to protect consumers from predatory business practices.

 

[LogGrad98]

Why not then just pay workers whatever the market will bear, even if that's, say, $4 an hour w/ no benefits? This argument implies that there's no connection between rising wages/incomes and economic growth, complete with both supply side and demand side responses.

Think about the great post-WWII economic expansion, fueled in large part by rising middle class associated with rising wage, much of it thanks to labor unions that used countervailing power to extract much higher wages and benefits from employers than what the market would have otherwise borne.

Your argument assumes a static world, which it isn't, and ignores history.



While we're at it, why not declare the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship fallacies, as they have no more basis in anything tangible as the right to a livable wage? Wasn't too long ago that the consensus was that asserting such "rights" was also a fallacy.



Yes, because every reasonable person knows that getting a free TV has equal personal and social worth and moral value as, say, getting life-saving surgery or treatment.

Of course the frame of reference is 'free' to the consumer, not to society, your silly straw man argument notwithstanding.
You'll note that developed countries that provide 'free' healthcare also spend a lot less on it per citizen, so fewer people are working their *** off to provide it than in the US.

God, your arguments read like you downloaded them from Conservatives R' Us talking points for children website. Lacking any historical frame of reference, knowledge of the wider world, or scintilla of empathy.

Bonus points for "scintilla".

 

[One Brow]

Do people's individual choices have zero impact on their status in the world?

I'm saying those who are not poor tend to underestimate how much luck has to do with wealth.

I'm not suggesting that anything is 100% in our control, but to suggest that choices made by individuals (such as opening a line of credit that you can't pay back) have no impact on your life is crazy.

That's actually a fairly safe choice, because of bankruptcy.

If a student fails a class because they declined to do any homework or study, they need to take some personal responsibility. Even though teachers, parents, friends might have played a role, it doesn't mean that all personal responsibility is absolved.

So, your idea of a poor person is the financial equivalent of a student who "declined to do any homework or study"?

I don't think it's the role of government to force choices or options down my throat. This mentality assumes that government is better suited to make choices for me than I am for myself. The government can't pretend to be everyone's mom and dad, making our decisions for us because we are presumed to be too stupid to make smart choices.

I understand. You think the rich should be able to take advantage fo the poor, and the government should protect the rich (police, military, etc.) but otherwise stay out of their way.

 

[Hotdog]

Why not then just pay workers whatever the market will bear, even if that's, say, $4 an hour w/ no benefits? This argument implies that there's no connection between rising wages/incomes and economic growth, complete with both supply side and demand side responses.

Think about the great post-WWII economic expansion, fueled in large part by rising middle class associated with rising wage, much of it thanks to labor unions that used countervailing power to extract much higher wages and benefits from employers than what the market would have otherwise borne.

Your argument assumes a static world, which it isn't, and ignores history.



While we're at it, why not declare the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship fallacies, as they have no more basis in anything tangible as the right to a livable wage? Wasn't too long ago that the consensus was that asserting such "rights" was also a fallacy.



Yes, because every reasonable person knows that getting a free TV has equal personal and social worth and moral value as, say, getting life-saving surgery or treatment.

Of course the frame of reference is 'free' to the consumer, not to society, your silly straw man argument notwithstanding.
You'll note that developed countries that provide 'free' healthcare also spend a lot less on it per citizen, so fewer people are working their *** off to provide it than in the US.

God, your arguments read like you downloaded them from Conservatives R' Us talking points for children website. Lacking any historical frame of reference, knowledge of the wider world, or scintilla of empathy.

"While we're at it, why not declare the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship fallacies, as they have no more basis in anything tangible as the right to a livable wage? Wasn't too long ago that the consensus was that asserting such "rights" was also a fallacy."

Because the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship, etc....are you know, actual rights.

Those "rights" do not guarantee that someone give you a podem and a crowd to speak to. You dont have the right to force people to assemble with you. You dont have the right to make someone give you a gun to protect yourself. You dont have the right to your own church you didnt build.

You see the difference between these "rights" and the right to a livable wage? You dont have the right to make someone work for you, and give you the life you want. You do have the right to try and earn that through voluntary agreements between you and other people.

@fishonjazz @One Brow @LogGrad98

Like this post, ya bishes.

Jesus Christ. What is so hard to understand about you not having the right other people's labor unless they agree to it? ****ing slave masters. You all must be reborn southern slave owners.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I'm saying those who are not poor tend to underestimate how much luck has to do with wealth.

I agree. I also believe that those who are poor tend to underestimate how much hard work and talent has to do with wealth. It's somewhere in the middle.

So, your idea of a poor person is the financial equivalent of a student who "declined to do any homework or study"?

Many students that receive poor grades due to a lack of completing homework and studying. Likewise, many (not all) individuals that are poor got there due to some bad decision making or lack of hard work. I'm only pointing out that our choices (or skills, work ethic, etc.) are a big factor in our life outcomes. I think we both agree that it's a mix of both. It sounds like I think a greater percentage of the outcome is within our control, while you believe a greater percentage is luck.

I understand. You think the rich should be able to take advantage fo the poor, and the government should protect the rich (police, military, etc.) but otherwise stay out of their way.

So the police and military only protect the rich now? Ask a cop where they spend most of their time in the field. It's not in rich neighborhoods.

Also, how is high interest rates taking advantage of the poor if (as you pointed out) those in debt can resolve their issues through bankruptcy? You even said opening a line of credit that you can't pay back is "a fairly safe choice". Who exactly is being taken advantage of in this situation?

 

[One Brow]

"While we're at it, why not declare the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship fallacies, as they have no more basis in anything tangible as the right to a livable wage? Wasn't too long ago that the consensus was that asserting such "rights" was also a fallacy."

Because the right to free speech, assembly, bearing arms, religious worship, etc....are you know, actual rights.

Many of these rights were not recognized at the state level until the 1940s/50s/60s. People were jailed for speaking out against a war, students were suspended for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.

Those "rights" do not guarantee that someone give you a podem and a crowd to speak to. You dont have the right to force people to assemble with you. You dont have the right to make someone give you a gun to protect yourself. You dont have the right to your own church you didnt build.

If that last statement meant, "attend a church you did not build", I would agree with it. I agree with the rest.

You see the difference between these "rights" and the right to a livable wage? You dont have the right to make someone work for you, and give you the life you want. You do have the right to try and earn that through voluntary agreements between you and other people.

Ultimately, you have the rights that the government recognizes you to have.

However, I agree that the stronger arguments for a living wage proposal include notions such as requiring companies to cover all the true costs of their businesses. If a company is working a person for 40 hours/week, and that person is still getting food stamps and Medicaid, the company is using government assistance for employees to lower the company's cost of doing business. It's a form of corporate welfare.

Like this post, ya bishes.

I would have, except for the next bit.

Jesus Christ. What is so hard to understand about you not having the right other people's labor unless they agree to it? ****ing slave masters. You all must be reborn southern slave owners.

Companies, not being actual human persons, can't be slaves.