Sorry for being pedantic, but the correct term is "could not care less". Otherwise you are suggesting that they do care.
To be even more pedantic the correct term is "apathetic".
Credit-Card Debt Nears $1 Trillion as Banks Push Plastic
221–230 of 231 posts
Re: Credit-Card Debt Nears $1 Trillion as Banks Push Plastic
#222One trillion doesn't sound much compared to the rest.
Re: Credit-Card Debt Nears $1 Trillion as Banks Push Plastic
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
The land lord I use allows paying with plastic. There is a ~2% fee. It's better than a wash financially, but just barely. But it's net win for me even when it's a wash because I don't have to worry about mailing a check every month. FWIW in months when I buy expensive plane tickets or make reimbursed purchases I skip paying rent with the CC.
If you just don't want to mail a check every month, you don't need to go as far as a credit card and paying a 2% fee. Your bank should have a bill-pay feature, and they will cut a check and mail it on your behalf. Usually this is a completely free service and can be done on an automatic schedule.
These services are routinely awful and incompetent, however. Also, you're relying on the postal service actually delivering the mail, which is often a dicey proposition.
Bank transfers really ought to be easier to do than they are.
Re: Credit-Card Debt Nears $1 Trillion as Banks Push Plastic
#224Honest question. There aren't debit cards in the united states? They are simple plastic cards like credit carda but the bank is withdrawing your money directly from your account. There is not debt involved.
Debit cards are awful. Many purchases that you make with a debit card (gasoline at the pump, for instance) will end up double charging you, with the actual amount, then some sort of hold in addition. Sometimes the bank gets their shit together and clears it out correctly, and sometimes they don't.
Combined with the general volatility in how long it takes funds to clear when deposited (way longer than it should...), and unpredictability on how and when charges will be computed on your debit account, it's just smarter to use the float that credit cards offer, even if there were no rewards.
Re: Credit-Card Debt Nears $1 Trillion as Banks Push Plastic
#225I know some may criticize this, but I cut up my credit card soon after moving into my first apartment. My wife and I use debit cards exclusively, but I know it's only a matter of time before our card numbers get skimmed online or through a hacked terminal. Does anyone know of any measures we could take to minimize the effects when that does happen?
Don't use debit cards? Let the hackers hoover up somebody else's money, rather than pulling straight from your bank accounts and have your rent checks bounce and over-draft fees kick in.
It's easier to disavow spurious credit card purchases than somehow get your funds back from bad debit transactions, let alone the fees when your fixed expenses don't clear because some asshole stole your money.
Re: Credit-Card Debt Nears $1 Trillion as Banks Push Plastic
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? In both cases a deficit imposes a burden on our future selves or our descendants.
Because presumed GDP growth eclipses the debt over time. They ran cool BILLIONS in terrifying debt in the US in WWII. Now? A billion is what a mid sized company costs. And if you don't run any debt, it's like having zero body fat in cold climates. No insulation, and any caloric deficit causes much more severe problems. Nobody said it had to be simple.
But why does that make analogies to household finance invalid? It may also make sense for a household to take on debt if there is projected income growth.
Also, isn't the accumulation of body fat the definition of a surplus, rather than a deficit? In both cases, having run a surplus in the past provides protection for when you must run a deficit in the future.
Furthermore, are you suggesting that, a metabolic analogy is more correct than a household-finance analogy?
Re: Credit-Card Debt Nears $1 Trillion as Banks Push Plastic
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how general this is, but I'd say it's common for banks to cover also fraud costs for the customers in Europe. Be it fraudulent debit card payments or Internet banking transactions, I've seen news of banks covering the customer's ass on both. Not sure how often they can reclaim the money, and how often they just take the loss for better publicity.
US banks make the same promises too. But which would you trust more when something goes wrong and your "card number" racks up thousands of stolen purchases: 1) credit card dispute/chargeback process that is mandated by law 2) the promise from your bank that, on their good will, they will fix things Not only that, but thousands of dollars on your credit card is "loaned" to you by the bank, the money's not out of pocke…
which would you trust more
1) [..] mandated by law
2) the promise [..] on their good will
Well duh. But what you're arguing is that lack of regulation makes debit cards in the US a liability, not that debit cards are a bad idea in general.
Re: Credit-Card Debt Nears $1 Trillion as Banks Push Plastic
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because presumed GDP growth eclipses the debt over time. They ran cool BILLIONS in terrifying debt in the US in WWII. Now? A billion is what a mid sized company costs. And if you don't run any debt, it's like having zero body fat in cold climates. No insulation, and any caloric deficit causes much more severe problems. Nobody said it had to be simple.
But why does that make analogies to household finance invalid? It may also make sense for a household to take on debt if there is projected income growth. Also, isn't the accumulation of body fat the definition of a surplus, rather than a deficit? In both cases, having run a surplus in the past provides protection for when you must run a deficit in the future. Furthermore, are you suggesting that, a metabolic analogy…
The Household Debt Fallacy is a specialization of the Fallacy of Composition.
1) The debt is eclipsed by GDP rise over time. 2) A government ( at least used to ) be able to very slightly weaken its currency to equalize for GDP and population growth. 3) Mild inflation acts to equalize the effects of private debt as well.
I use the metabolic analogy because the risks of no body fat and low body fat are quite different, much as the risks of mild inflation and no inflation - or more accurately, deflation - are quite different.
Re: Credit-Card Debt Nears $1 Trillion as Banks Push Plastic
#229Sorry for being pedantic, but the correct term is "could not care less". Otherwise you are suggesting that they do care.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11738750 and marked it off-topic.
Re: Credit-Card Debt Nears $1 Trillion as Banks Push Plastic
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've had this conversation a good few times and I quite like "could care less" - to me it implies more choice on the part of the speaker. I COULD care less. I have that capacity. I actively choose not to. Although this is definitely not how people usually use it.
"I've had this conversation a good few times and I quite like "could care less" - to me it implies more choice on the part of the speaker. I COULD care less. I have that capacity. I actively choose not to." That is the dumbest thing I have ever read.
> That is the dumbest thing I have ever read
Please don't post things like this to HN. (Broken windows aren't allowed, even on the bikeshed.)