The Democrats want to return to the days of bad loans and too-easy credit:
Am I missing something here, or have our elites already erased from their consciousness the fact that easy credit and the lack of responsible budgeting by consumers contributed mightily to our current economic mess? In the fourth quarter of 2008, 13.9% of consumers’ disposable income went to servicing credit-card debt, reports the Wall Street Journal. No shortage of credit there.
Apparently the self-righteous glow that comes from forcing capitalists to make bad bets on preferred victim groups is too strong a legislative addiction to be reined in by the prospect of further economic collapse.
The problem was that it was never in their consciousness to begin with. They find it politically convenient to lie to us and themselves (as they did throughout the campaign) that the problem was caused by “deregulation” and “tax cuts.”
the problem was caused by “deregulation” and “tax cuts.”
Er…it was, Rand. You and they just differ on the nature of “the problem.” To you “the problem” may have been financial collapse, economic and national decline, the impoverishment of millions.
To them “the problem” was their not being in power, or a population too complacent, to focussed on such frivolities as personal wealth and success, too independent-minded to die willingly in their various jihads. Always keep in mind that the Stalinists loved the Depression and the Second World War. For them, these were the best of times.
This isn’t what the Wall Street Journal is saying
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/05/12/lawmakers-line-up-to-amend-credit-card-bill/
“The amendments “could seriously exacerbate” problems that would force lenders to restrict credit and raise prices, ”
Now I don’t doubt that much of the credit card bill will cut back consumer credit, but, easy credit hasn’t been good for consumers. The 1950’s and 60’s were tighter on consumer credit and that was also an era of very high family income. There is nothing wrong with people saving to buy luxuries rather then getting them on credit.
There is nothing wrong with people saving to buy luxuries rather then getting them on credit.
Maybe yes, maybe no, jack. I could easily think up several scenarios in which it would be inhuman to deny people access to credit, and so could you, if you put your mind to it.
The point is to not make these decisions centrally, for all 300 million of us, but to allow each of us to make that decision for ourselves. Or don’t you believe in choice and freedom? Should you be thinking of emigrating to North Korea, where Dear Leader will indeed tell you whether you should save up or use credit for your desires?
“would be inhuman to deny people access to credit”
I’m looking at Consumer Credit. If it was tighter we’d see a lot less X Box sales, Plasma TV Sales and Kitchen Appliance sales.
Prior to 1977, States could set Usury statutes for Interest, merely restoring the Status Quo Ante would be useful.
When I was in College, I couldn’t get a credit card, and that meant my life sucked when I wanted to go to Florida at spring break because I couldn’t rent a car. However, now I see college kids with 20K of credit card debt before they leave college.
If the states could set Usury caps on Interest, it would dry up credit to high risk consumers, but, those are the people who demonstrated they can’t handle credit.
Credit is a privelige.
Yeah, well, good for you, jack. Now on the other hand when I was in the middle of my divorce, I had to use my credit card to pay the electric bill, so the children wouldn’t have to eat by candelight. I’ve also been in the position of paying for medical care when I didn’t have the cash in the bank, because, you know, I didn’t plan on being hit by a car that drove through the red light, and inasmuch as I was still in school, hadn’t had a chance to save up for the possibility.
So, you know, f*** you and your “privilege” nonsense. Credit is (or should be) a morally-neutral bargain between borrower and lender. If they reach a meeting of minds, the rest of us, in the form of government, should just butt the hell out. It’s not our business.
I know that Mr. Lee has been at the receiving end of Rand’s wrath, but Mr. Lee is talking about the issue at hand and refraining from partisan sniping, and I find myself agreeing with him.
Admitted running up bills on a credit card may be a life saver for someone with unforseen medical bills or other financial circumstances. But geez Louise, nearly 1/7th of every consumer dollar going to credit card interest, something is out of kilter.
If the average person is paying out that much of their plasma TV and Disney Vacation money in interest, that is money going to credit card companies and not going to the TV manufacturer or Disney Resorts.
We are a consumerist culture and perhaps overindulge in buying stuff, but if a person could get their debt under control, they would have a lot more money available to buy more stuff. If you are in hock that deep, that is way suboptimal in terms of stuff acquisition because you are servicing debt instead of getting yet more stuff with the money.
At the risk of offending the Libertarian sensibility in these quarters, I was much against the last bankruptcy reform. By making bankruptcy harder, I did not see this in terms of personal accountability for deadbeats. Were bankruptcy to be made easier, I see this as accountability for the credit card companies not handing out cards like confetti. If bankruptcy is “easier” (bad choice of words, really), the credit card companies would exercise more “due dilligence” in giving those things out, and we will all be better off.
“Now on the other hand when I was in the middle of my divorce, ”
I guess you aren’t a social conservative.
As for being behind on utilities, most utilities will arrange payment plans.
“I didn’t plan on being hit by a car ”
Didn’t his insurance cover your bills?
I guess you aren’t a social conservative
Actually, these days I probably am, jack, especially if there’s the prospect of putting people like you in work camps. But back then I was not, more straight libertarian. Either way, it’s moot, because you’ve forgotten that either party can file for divorce, and in my particular case, it wasn’t me. So the fact that I endured Court-ordered penury for a time was not at all my fault
Didn’t his insurance cover your bills?
It might well have, had I carefully taken all his registration information at the time of the accident and then sued him two days later when I discovered my wrist had been fractured. What can I say? I was 22, such paranoia didn’t occur to me.
Now, having proven twice in rapid succession your inability to foresee individual circumstances — having twice jumped to the wrong conclusion about someone unknown to you — perhaps you’ll reconsider whether 500 lawyers in D.C. can competently decide under what conditions 300 million strangers should and should not borrow money?
Paul, speak for yourself. If you have been borrowing and spending like a drunken sailor, then shape up. If your family has, or your friends, give them a word of advice. But, you know, when the rest of us want your moral advice, we’ll ask for it. You can write a book and put it on Amazon Stop Spending So Much You Dumfuks and see how it sells.
Sheesh, it amazes me sometimes how the same people who would be incensed if their neighbors judged their sexual morality feel free to dispense other moral judgments — about spending, borrowing, childrearing, what have you — with carefree abandon. Maybe what the modern world really needs is a little bit of old fashioned Christian humility. You know, let he is without sin cast the first stone, that kind of quaint old stuff?
I rather suspect it’s gratuitous ad hominems like this that get you nominated for banning, Jack.
I rather suspect it’s gratuitous ad hominems like this that get you nominated for banning, Jack.
Not just gratuitous, but stupid, since Carl (AFAIK) has never claimed to be a social conservative. So once again, he demonstrates himself to be both a troll and a moron.
At the risk of offending the Libertarian sensibility in these quarters, I was much against the last bankruptcy reform. By making bankruptcy harder, I did not see this in terms of personal accountability for deadbeats. Were bankruptcy to be made easier, I see this as accountability for the credit card companies not handing out cards like confetti. If bankruptcy is “easier” (bad choice of words, really), the credit card companies would exercise more “due dilligence” in giving those things out, and we will all be better off.
When the subject of making bankrupsy harder or easier comes up, I’m reminded of a former coworker of mine (about 14 years ago). She was a mess – an alcoholic with 3 children from different fathers – and pretty lousy at her work. She announced one day that she was going to apply for a bunch of credit cards, max them out, then file for bankrupsy. To me, that’s either theft or fraud. Fortunately for us, we were able to get rid of her when the military revoked her security clearance. The clearance was a requirement for the job so we could get rid of her without having to worry about a wrongful termination lawsuit.
Anyway, I don’t know how common her planned fraud was but people shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. That’s where making bankrupsy harder comes in. On the other hand, I can see making the financial companies more liable for things like identity theft because their lax policies make it easy to get credit cards in other people’s names.
> Credit is a privelige.
No one said otherwise. The question is whether it’s govt’s biz whether it should be granted by other parties.
> The 1950’s and 60’s were tighter on consumer credit and that was also an era of very high family income.
The 50 and 60s had other characteristics that are today roundly hated by “progressives”. Who’s to say that those characteristics, and not “easy credit”, were actually responsible for “high family income”?
I note that “high family income” didn’t buy much compared to today, so it’s unclear how high it actually was.
“> The 1950’s and 60’s were tighter on consumer credit and that was also an era of very high family income.
The 50 and 60s had other characteristics that are today roundly hated by “progressives”.”
High marginal tax rates, High taxes on unearned income, high estate taxes.
“I note that “high family income” didn’t buy much compared to today”
I don’t know, back then Tuition at Michigan or City College was less then a few hundred a year.
as for a few hundred lawyers in DC setting credit, it’s about 12 people
at the Federal Reserve who set interest rates, which have the biggest impact on credit availability, and most forms of credit are regulated through the Fed. So I hate to break it to you but Greenspan and Bernanke are the guys who set most credit policy now.
“the Democrats want to go back to offering easy credit to poor income families in the name of support…”
Nothing in the credit card bill seems to do this.