51–60 of 364 posts
How is everyone so sure this is not satire? Consider the subscription prompt: >To receive new posts and support my grift, please become a subscriber. The article reads straight, but this line and the highly generic and corporate name of the blog ("Enterprise Value") make me question that.
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.
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…
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 field.
And I think the government should provide very basic, minimal, Soviet-grade housing free to everyone.
If you'd like your kids to have their own bedrooms, you pay. If you're happy with a 2-bedroom for a family of four (kids room, adults room), or dorm-style housing for adults, you can live there for free.
Having a free option would, in fact, drive costs down for everyone.
More broadly, we should rationalize what's nationalized. For example, a lot of parts of education make sense with a lot more open competition.
This treatise, from someone obviously in the industry, is merely another payday loan shark attempting to justify the existence of their clearly predatory products. How many of the consumers of this product are even remotely able to comprehend the piece as-is described? The article describes a "complete market". Yes, a market that is completely able to extract as much money from an exploited, uneducated populace as po…
It's unhinged. > Is financing your lunch a sign of societal decay? Maybe, maybe not. Financing your lunch means you can't pay for your lunch. And then somebody comes to search profit in that. Yep, it's societal decay. Ah, but he draws the line at sports bets, he doesn't like that.
> Financing your lunch means you can't pay for your lunch. And then somebody comes to search profit in that. Yep, it's societal decay.
Counterargument: almost always when I buy something, lunch or otherwise, I put it on a credit card, which I pay off always before the due date but essentially never on the same day I had the lunch. Viewed through the lens of a society that only paid up front in cash, what I do would be viewed as risky and irresponsible; but it is not.
BNPL as it currently exists, in the form described in this article, is exploitative. But the American credit card system, which is the same sort of thing mildly rearranged, is far less exploitative.
But this has been the norm for a while, no? I can't remember the last time I didn't utilize credit at a restaurant or retail store. If you use credit cards, it doesn't make sense to reflexively admonish people for using BNPL for everyday purchases.
To be sure, BNPL is in many ways a predatory innovation. But it isn't totally novel. It seems like a natural consequence of what came before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unhinged. > Is financing your lunch a sign of societal decay? Maybe, maybe not. Financing your lunch means you can't pay for your lunch. And then somebody comes to search profit in that. Yep, it's societal decay. Ah, but he draws the line at sports bets, he doesn't like that.
> > Is financing your lunch a sign of societal decay? Maybe, maybe not. > Financing your lunch means you can't pay for your lunch. And then somebody comes to search profit in that. Yep, it's societal decay. Counterargument: almost always when I buy something, lunch or otherwise, I put it on a credit card, which I pay off always before the due date but essentially never on the same day I had the lunch. Viewed through…
BNPL is worse, they take 5% and all you get is a small loan for a few weeks. Their whole business model relies on it being "free" for middle-class people who will pay back their loans, because the fee is hidden in the purchase price. This is an area where government regulation is actually required, all transaction fees should be disclosed and charged as a surcharge on the base purchase price, whether it's a credit card or BNPL, to provide a fair and competitive market for consumers and merchants.
I think this would be more informative if it dropped all moral pretense and just talked about the economics objectively. If we’re gonna call a spade a spade, bnpl is one of a dozen services that extracts money from those whose judgment we doubt (like gambling, lottery, junk food?, drugs, overpriced status-symbol vehicles, or even “digital goods”).
I think this would be more informative if it dropped all moral pretense and just talked about the economics objectively. If we’re gonna call a spade a spade, bnpl is one of a dozen services that extracts money from those whose judgment we doubt (like gambling, lottery, junk food?, drugs, overpriced status-symbol vehicles, or even “digital goods”).
Why do we have to discard the morals of a business to judge it "objectively?"
This treatise, from someone obviously in the industry, is merely another payday loan shark attempting to justify the existence of their clearly predatory products. How many of the consumers of this product are even remotely able to comprehend the piece as-is described? The article describes a "complete market". Yes, a market that is completely able to extract as much money from an exploited, uneducated populace as po…
An industry of parasites, extracting money from people already down on their luck. Rats.
We are right back to feudalism.
If it results in higher prices, the people who actually use “buy now pay later” aren’t going to be the only ones paying more, since they pay the same price as everyone else. The costs are spread across all customers.
Depending on demographics, this could work as either a progressive or regressive “tax.”