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

351–360 of 364 posts

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#351

Post by int_19h »

rienbdj wrote: post #212
ChadNauseam wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of food can be explained either by a shortage of demand or a shortage of supply. Many people assume that the demand is there and the supply is the problem - people are desperate for healthy food but no one wants to sell it to them for some reason (the reason is always left unsaid). Instead, they have no choice but to shop at 7/11. So presumably, as soon as a store selling fresh, nutritious ingredients opens…

Time is extremely scarce for poor people. Cooking healthy and cheap meals means research, planning and batch meal prep. This also requires being a forward-looking state of mind. Personally, I think the government should be investigating ways to raise income levels for the poorest. I don’t know what form this should take - UBI? negative income tax? - but fix that and the rest would follow for many people.

FWIW when you look at other countries, there are many out there where the word "poor" implies much less wealth than it does in US, yet poor people in those countries routinely cook their own meals. Indeed, historically it is the norm for basically everybody but the topmost layer of society.

Speaking as an immigrant, from what I've seen in US, it is mostly a cultural issue, not lack of time or ingredient availability.

UBI is a good idea but orthogonal to all this.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#352

Post by int_19h »

tinodb wrote: post #335
twoodfin wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't need a credit card for this, in principle. But, given that credit score is a thing in US, and that buying things with a credit card and consistently paying the balance off increases it - but no interest accrues until the end of the cycle - it creates a strong preference for credit cards in practice.

I do agree though that in practice this (pervasive use of credit cards) is one of the major contributors to indebtedness. Because you don't have to pay off that balance entirely, it becomes a psychological trap for too many.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#353

Post by int_19h »

TwoFerMaggie wrote: post #225
coolcase wrote: post #2

He brushes over ethical concerns of BNPL but draws the line at sports betting. But BNPL by design encourages you to buy things you can't afford and complicates your finances with more timed bills to pay. It makes it more likely people don't budget well and form buffers. A PNBL would be better, add 10% tithe to every purchase that goes to a checking account. Once that reaches $1k it overflows to an index fund. He says…

PNBL was a thing at some point ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layaway ) but was rendered obsolete by the advent of credit cards. Seems to me like a personal austerity measure which becomes more popular in worse economic conditions. The cynic in me believes that there's more money to be made when you encourage people to spend less responsibly and with less financial literacy.

Layaway is still very much a thing in some niche markets, e.g.: https://www.gunbroker.com/all/search?keywords=layaway

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#354

Post by int_19h »

victorp13 wrote: post #337
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).

Treating rent-seeking as a sin is common theme across many religions, including - at least historically - Judaism (within the community) and Christianity. Indeed, for several centuries in Europe, usury would get you excommunicated.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#355

Post by int_19h »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #261
bluedino wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People use debit card in the USA as well

The difference is that in the States a cash discount is only rarely offered. It’s common in some areas (gasoline often costs less when you pay with debit, contractors and other similar small businesses will usually pass that 3% on to the consumer as well) but not others. Much more common is that the business charges the same for both (basically every direct to consumer retailer charges same for both debit and credit)…

Let's start by not calling it a "cash discount", since it's a misnomer. The real term is "card processing fee" (and lack thereof).

And yes, it would sure be nice to mandate explicit card fees for all uses. That would make debit cards that much more attractive.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#356

Post by SR2Z »

int_19h wrote: post #347
SR2Z wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you get the idea that peasants owned their land? One of the defining traits of medieval Europe was that peasants were forced into serfdom and were granted the privilege to work the land. More primitive societies banned usury because the concept of interest was seen as unfair. This held them back from investing or speculating on the future and kept them very poor.

Serfdom was not universal in Europe, not even at the time when it peaked. However, OP didn't talk about owning land but rather about "permanent land rights", which usually means the right to use land. That is, it would still be owned by the feudal, who might be able to sell it to another feudal, but the peasants that lived on it and farmed it were necessarily part of the deal and couldn't be just removed from the lan…

> the peasants that lived on it and farmed it were necessarily part of the deal and couldn't be just removed from the land at a whim

Is it that they COULDN'T be, or is it that there was no reason to relocate them?

Serfdom might not have been universal, but it was extremely common and the predominant system in large parts of medieval Europe.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#357

Post by int_19h »

SR2Z wrote: post #356
int_19h wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serfdom was not universal in Europe, not even at the time when it peaked. However, OP didn't talk about owning land but rather about "permanent land rights", which usually means the right to use land. That is, it would still be owned by the feudal, who might be able to sell it to another feudal, but the peasants that lived on it and farmed it were necessarily part of the deal and couldn't be just removed from the lan…

> the peasants that lived on it and farmed it were necessarily part of the deal and couldn't be just removed from the land at a whim Is it that they COULDN'T be, or is it that there was no reason to relocate them? Serfdom might not have been universal, but it was extremely common and the predominant system in large parts of medieval Europe.

They literally couldn't be removed at a whim, yes. That's actually what makes traditional serfdom a distinctive arrangement: serfs are tied to land and must be transferred along with it when it changes hands. This would even be codified in the legal system as a right. In some cases it would be "right to subsistence" or something like it instead, meaning that the feudal could remove the serfs from some particular plot of land, but only by providing a replacement plot for them to subsist on. Courts did, in principle, enforce those rights, although of course the feudals would have a lot more opportunities to subvert them in practice (but there are still many recorded cases of serfs granted relief by medieval courts).

In Eastern Europe - and especially in Russia - serfdom began as a similar arrangement, but eventually evolved into full-fledged slavery where people could be bought and sold in and of themselves at a whim, while the original label remained for propriety reasons - basically people wanted to own slaves but didn't want to be called "slaveholders". So, a bit like "democratic people's republics" of whatever today. However, even if you take the label at face value, that arrangement still does not describe most places with serfdom.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#358

Post by cryptonector »

blagie wrote: post #346
cryptonector wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your lecture is not even remotely responsive. Please explain how there is no competition in the private market for housing. Because right now someone I care about is moving because their landlord jacked up the rent in the middle of a down market for rents, so they are moving somewhere better and cheaper, and that looks for all the world to me like competition. I know that you mean competition from not-private provide…

> You argue that housing has a finite supply, but that's true of cars and steel and everything: there is always a finite supply Land is a finite supply. With zoning (and with exponentially rising costs for skyscrapers over one-story homes), so is housing on land. At least in places where housing is expensive (e.g. major cities like SFO, NYC, Tokyo, Shanghai, etc.), this is a limited, rent-extracting resource. The Ear…

> Land is a finite supply.

The human population of this planet is set to have big drops in the next 100 years, yet there will still be complaints like yours because the stock of housing will never far outstrip the stock of humans, as unoccupied housing will simply be demolished. We could have only 100 million humans and you'd still have this complaint. I just don't see how you can be made happy on this. Governments building housing doesn't change anything you said about the cost of building it. The market is building enough housing.

> No, that's not what I mean. I would recommend taking a basic econ course to understand jargon like "free good," "scarce good," and "rent." I won't fix that in a web post.

Terms you did not even use. Where is the misunderstanding? Or are you simply trying to be superior?

> I gave one link, which you clearly didn't bother to even click through.

To the Wealth of Nations. The paragraph you quoted applies to ownership via mortgages just as well as to rent (since having a mortgage is renting capital), but also it does not address supply at all. Nor do you address the assertion that we need a non-private provider.

But did Smith say anything like:

> And I think the government should provide very basic, minimal, Soviet-grade housing free to everyone.

or

> Personally, I think we should have all rent-extracting industries nationalized.

which you did?

Does basic economics -Adam Smith's no less!- say anything like this? What basic economics treatises other than socialist or communist ones say anything like this?

> https://xkcd.com/386/

Certainly you should not respond, nor should I, any further since it bothers you so much. But I do wonder if telling people they're wrong and then taking your ball home works well for you.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#359

Post by x-complexity »

gopher_space wrote: post #333
x-complexity wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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?

> 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.

Again, there are no connections between (physics/chemistry/maths) and (vice and virtue), even with the inclusion of (leaded gasoline).

Graph-wise, it looks like:

(physics/chemistry/maths) --(chemically describes)--> (leaded gasoline)

while (vice and virtue) sits in an isolated corner.

-----

I'm not going to provide the whole solution that connects the two together, since you have yet to do so yourself.

Even so, the two cannot be connected without adding the human-centric context node to the graph.

This is nothing but a roundabout way to define morality as a human-imposed construct onto concepts, which further reinforces the point that the injection of human-centric morality is the linchpin to connecting (physics/chemistry/maths) with (vice and virtue).

Morality is not something that exists in isolation: It's heavily personal-POV-centric & color-imposing.

This stands in contrast to (physics/chemistry/maths), which can be derived outside of the human experience.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#360

Post by hgomersall »

blagie wrote: post #342
hgomersall wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the trick is to foist on us the economic priests that tell us of the fire and brimstone that will fall on us if governments ever use their currency issuing power for social improvements.

I'm not so sure. I can describe some of the paradoxes in our social systems in-depth, but it's often the poorest people saying we can't afford social improvements.

In this case, many low information Turkeys have been convinced of the benefit of Christmas.
Post reply on HN