Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Burrito Now, Pay Later

enterprisevalue.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 364 posts

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#171

Post by cryptonector »

nkrisc wrote: post #149
ChadNauseam wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food is a basic human need, paying someone to make a burrito for you and then hand deliver it to your house is not. There is no shortage of food in america. In brazil, many people don’t eat meat because it’s too expensive, and get the vast majority of their calories from beans and rice. you can also do this in america, but almost no one does outside of college students because food is cheap enough relative to wages t…

There are many, many stupid people who would benefit from being protected from themselves. How far down that path we want to walk as a society is an eternal debate.

There is "protecting them from themselves" and then there is "protecting them from loan sharks who predate on their stupidity".

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#172

Post by cryptonector »

blagie wrote: post #52
msm_ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, with exception of housing. Most people can't buy home with cash, and for many this is a necessity. But homes are an appreciating asset, which cannot be said about cars or food - this is an investment, actually. But for everything else - cars, phones, electronics, food, subscriptions, jewelry - I 100% agree. Consider two people: * One person has $10k saved, invested into something safe and liquid. Then buys s…

Personally, I think we should have all rent-extracting industries nationalized. Land, like in China, should be available only under a 99-year lease (perhaps with a modest homestead exemption). The government should own radio airwaves, natural resources, and banking. This doesn't mean that it couldn't hire private contractors to do the work (e.g. bidding on oil extraction), but Chevron and Exxon shouldn't own the oil…

The U.S. has done something like this, which in the 80s was called "the projects".

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#173

Post by platevoltage »

monero-xmr wrote: post #66
blagie wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think we should have all rent-extracting industries nationalized. Land, like in China, should be available only under a 99-year lease (perhaps with a modest homestead exemption). The government should own radio airwaves, natural resources, and banking. This doesn't mean that it couldn't hire private contractors to do the work (e.g. bidding on oil extraction), but Chevron and Exxon shouldn't own the oil…

I am so so happy we live in a democracy. Because if your ilk managed to take power, it would only have been possible through violent authoritarian revolution

Just think. If the capitalist soul sucking robber barons weren't hoarding every morsel of wealth they possibly could, policies like this wouldn't cross anyone's mind in the first place.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#174

Post by poincaredisk »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #123
spicyusername wrote: post #100

One reason is that someone’s or a company’s income doesn’t always align perfectly with when they want to buy things. When we're talking about financing the construction of a new downtown office tower, a new apartment complex, or the unexpected maintenance of your business's whole auto fleet, I can absolutely see the argument that credit is a mechanism of greasing the wheels of the economy and allowing things to happe…

Food is a basic human need, paying someone to make a burrito for you and then hand deliver it to your house is not. There is no shortage of food in america. In brazil, many people don’t eat meat because it’s too expensive, and get the vast majority of their calories from beans and rice. you can also do this in america, but almost no one does outside of college students because food is cheap enough relative to wages t…

Why only poor though? There's plenty of middle class people living above their means by abusing credit too. They can deal with the consequences better, but it's equally financially harmful for them

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#175

Post by theamk »

wyager wrote: post #109
hnthrow90348765 wrote: post #96

>Is financing your lunch a sign of societal decay? Maybe, maybe not. I'd have no problems with BNPL if wages kept up with necessities like housing, tuition, and healthcare, or if those services were provided to citizens for free in exchange for higher taxes. Or even if minimum wage would move, like, at all. What I think this is a better sign of is this: a very lopsided finance industry against workers and borrowers d…

> end up losing money to hackers. How do you imagine this would work for a company using normal fiat payment rails?

Imagine a validation logic error that allows an evil actor to pass credit checks with arbitrary personal details.

Hackers use this to make many orders using fake personal information. In BNPL, all losses are covered by the BNPL provider - so merchants get their money, criminals get random stuff for resale, and BNPL have to foot the bill.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#176

Post by walrus01 »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #123
spicyusername wrote: post #100

One reason is that someone’s or a company’s income doesn’t always align perfectly with when they want to buy things. When we're talking about financing the construction of a new downtown office tower, a new apartment complex, or the unexpected maintenance of your business's whole auto fleet, I can absolutely see the argument that credit is a mechanism of greasing the wheels of the economy and allowing things to happe…

Food is a basic human need, paying someone to make a burrito for you and then hand deliver it to your house is not. There is no shortage of food in america. In brazil, many people don’t eat meat because it’s too expensive, and get the vast majority of their calories from beans and rice. you can also do this in america, but almost no one does outside of college students because food is cheap enough relative to wages t…

> Food is a basic human need, paying someone to make a burrito for you and then hand deliver it to your house is not. There is no shortage of food in america.

Do some googling about what is a "food desert", plenty of lower income people in the USA live somewhere that the grocery store options and fresh, nutritious ingredient shopping options are VERY poor. Or a costly distance away to drive on a regular basis.

I am not saying this excuses ordering $25 burritos on doordash or uber eats but it is an influencing factor.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#177

Post by jhanschoo »

cryptonector wrote: post #171
nkrisc wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many, many stupid people who would benefit from being protected from themselves. How far down that path we want to walk as a society is an eternal debate.

There is "protecting them from themselves" and then there is "protecting them from loan sharks who predate on their stupidity".

I don't quite understand the full argument that you are trying to make. You seem to assume that it is more justified to "protect someone from themselves" than to "protect stupid people from loan sharks", and that the situation at hand resembles the latter more than the former.

To me the justifiability of these two imperatives seem to be reversed. But to the extent that "protecting stupid people from loan sharks" is unjustified, we also think that we should "protect weak people from robbers and bandits", and protect people from frauds.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#178

Post by poincaredisk »

pseudo0 wrote: post #159
bcoates wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you read the article, it doesn’t? bnpl makes its money off charging merchants a few points higher service fees than cards, which for a lot of merchants is worth it to close the deal. (Unstated in the article is that richer people with better credit have regular access to no-interest/negative fee consumer loans on the order of 6-18 mos., so they have no reason to use BNPL)

I seriously doubt the long-term viability of BNPL for merchants. Sure, in the short-term it boosts sales because people who don't have money are able to purchase stuff, but eventually those marginal consumers will end up exhausting their BNPL credit as well. Meanwhile the merchant ends up paying 5% on a bunch of transactions for people who could easily afford to pay now, but don't because it's "free". The only way th…

Only if we assume that the existence of BNPL won't change consumer habits.

I think food is easy to buy impulsively ("I'm hangover and hungry - let's order some pizza delivery"), and removing barriers like "I don't have money right now" may cause - hypothetically - some people to spend more on food delivery and (by necessity) less on other things. I'm not sure how sound this model is, but I think it can't be ruled out.

Needles to say, I'm not sure if such change would be a good thing.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#179

Post by poincaredisk »

platevoltage wrote: post #173
monero-xmr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am so so happy we live in a democracy. Because if your ilk managed to take power, it would only have been possible through violent authoritarian revolution

Just think. If the capitalist soul sucking robber barons weren't hoarding every morsel of wealth they possibly could, policies like this wouldn't cross anyone's mind in the first place.

[flagged]

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#180

Post by cryptonector »

jhanschoo wrote: post #177
cryptonector wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is "protecting them from themselves" and then there is "protecting them from loan sharks who predate on their stupidity".

I don't quite understand the full argument that you are trying to make. You seem to assume that it is more justified to "protect someone from themselves" than to "protect stupid people from loan sharks", and that the situation at hand resembles the latter more than the former. To me the justifiability of these two imperatives seem to be reversed. But to the extent that "protecting stupid people from loan sharks" is u…

> You seem to assume that it is more justified to "protect someone from themselves" than to "protect stupid people from loan sharks", and that the situation at hand resembles the latter more than the former.

I meant the opposite.

Post reply on HN