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

331–340 of 364 posts

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#331

Post by RainyDayTmrw »

cousin_it wrote: post #318
RainyDayTmrw wrote: post #153

A lot of financial schemes sound like they could be above-board on paper, but in practice degenerate out of control. Securitization is a classic here. It's not that securitization is inherently bad or wrong, but it creates a lot more surface area for incentive misalignment and outright abuse. Consider the United States subprime mortgage crisis of 2008. I'm actually willing to accept that broadening the borrower base…

> In particular, throughout the 1990s and 2000s, home equity was a very real way for middle-class Americans to accumulate family wealth, and expanding access to that at least had potential for positive impact. This sounds suspicious to me. "Let's give people loans to buy houses and see their equity rise because we're giving more people loans to buy houses which raises the price." I think even with the best financial…

Yeah, the system was suspect. All else being equal, I still think greater access was an improvement.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#332

Post by [deleted] »

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #270
helge9210 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction: slavery in Russia/Soviet Union ended in 1974 when all the rural residents got passports and with it the right to leave the collective farm and change the profession.

Correction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861 Serfdom ended in 1861.

[deleted]

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#333

Post by gopher_space »

x-complexity wrote: post #325
gopher_space wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Physics/chemistry/math has nothing to say about vice and virtue. Leaded gasoline.

> > Physics/chemistry/math has nothing to say about vice and virtue. > Leaded gasoline. Again, as GP mentioned, there's a failure in linking how (Physics/chemistry/math) imposes morality on (leaded gasoline): Any moral opinions on this subject are within the broader context of how it affects humans (negatively). Physics/chemistry/math, in isolation, do not impose morality.

The other way around. What does leaded gasoline have to say about the connection of physics/chemistry/math to the concepts of vice and virtue.

What do we know, today, that might connect these in people's minds?

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#334

Post by ElevenLathe »

SirMaster wrote: post #302
thanksgiving wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is really no such thing as a middle class though. We are all n missed paychecks away from being unhoused.

>We are all n missed paychecks away from being unhoused. So If I am years of missed paychecks away from being unhoused and unfed, what does that make me?

Someone for whom n is relatively large?

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#335

Post by tinodb »

twoodfin wrote: post #202
yreg wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Convincing people to finance their groceries is absurd. Ideally, everyone should have a few months’ worth of income saved. And if they do, there's zero reason to finance a burrito. In the Western world, if you have a job but no savings buffer, it’s usually not due to extreme poverty—it’s often a lack of basic financial literacy. Klarna, et al. market in direct opposition to that education.

I finance all my burritos: It’s fantastically more convenient than cash, incrementally builds my credit rating, & I capture some of the efficiency surplus via rewards points. The article makes the point that BNPL packages up almost the same product into a bite-sized, low-risk (for both the borrower and the lender) package, making it available to everyone. Indeed, that does sound like a good thing.

Not cash != credit. I haven’t paid in cash (except for a flee market) in years. Actually I rarely use anything but my phone to pay here in The Netherlands. But the notion that you’d need credit or a creditcard for that is absurd. And I think personal credit generally puts more people into financial trouble than that it helps.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#336

Post by janosch_123 »

dustincoates wrote: post #30
janosch_123 wrote: post #28

I didn't understand this section, why would they pay $73 for $75 and where do the $25 come from? "Investor Economics: Assume a $100 BNPL loan. $25 is paid upfront by the Consumer, so an Investor pays $73 for a $75 loan, discounted for risk, fees, and return expectations. The Investor receives $75 from customer repayments over 6 weeks minus servicing fees of $0.25. A $1.75 profit on $73 investment over 6 weeks is a 2.…

For why the investor pays $73, it's right there in your quote: > an Investor pays $73 for a $75 loan, discounted for risk, fees, and return expectations The investor doesn't expect to get 100% of that $75 back on average. The $25 is the first payment, which is made immediately.

Oh of course the investor buys $75 of debt for $73, I get it now.

I somehow had it in my head the other way around that he can borrow $75 for $73 which wouldn't make sense.

Thank you.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#337

Post by victorp13 »

cousin_it wrote: post #31

I'm beginning to think that consumer debt simply shouldn't exist. If you don't have money to buy something, don't buy it. If you don't have money for necessities (food/housing/healthcare), putting you into debt isn't the right answer anyway. A safety net is the right answer.

Also Google the "Sin of riba". Islam was really on to something if you ask me (disclaimer: not a religious person).

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#338

Post by SirMaster »

dani__german wrote: post #287
thanksgiving wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is really no such thing as a middle class though. We are all n missed paychecks away from being unhoused.

middle class has shrunk only because the upper class has expanded. Every American citizen living with property taxes is n missed payments from homelessness. unhoused is a misnomer, especially in this context of losing your home.

What if you have passive income though?

Like my passive income from the rental properties that I party own/invest in more than cover my own rent (or mortgage) and food costs.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#339

Post by yesfitz »

idontwantthis wrote: post #64

Why do people use these instead of a credit card?

They use BNPL and credit cards. BNPL is a way to get more credit when your credit score is low and/or your utilization is high.

According to the Boston Fed[1] BNPL users "tend to have low credit scores, minimal liquid assets, high incidences of past bankruptcy filing, and revolving debt on their credit cards."

1: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/current-policy-perspe...

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#340

Post by blagie »

cryptonector wrote: post #172
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…

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

It's a little bit different. "The projects" were only available to the very poor, and often by lottery. They often turned into a ghetto.

I'd like a baseline option open to everyone.

If you just finished Stanford, and want to bootstrap a startup, teach kids, or do a non-profit, you should be able to move into a "project" too while getting things off the ground. If you're a student and want to save a bit of money, you can move in too.

If you want to upgrade at some point, great.

If not, you've got a safe bed to sleep, and a roof overhead.

Part of the difference, too, is if open to everyone, voters can push for improvements. A lot of what went wrong with the projects wasn't due to a lack of resources, but due to mismanagement of resources. For nationalized goods to be well-managed, voters need a stake. A more extreme example of this is prisons.

But the critical thing is at that point, for-profit housing has competition. I might gladly spend $500/month to have better housing, but I might not be willing to spend $5000/month (insert your own numbers for single/family/income/etc.). That prevents some of the most exploitative practices.

Post reply on HN