16 ms·
> Yes you can, just borrow more Did you purposely leave out my parenthetical to use it as a dunk? Borrowers are not dumb (and the amount of debt is also a usef
by sangnoir 2y ago
> Yes you can, just borrow more
Did you purposely leave out my parenthetical to use it as a dunk? Borrowers are not dumb (and the amount of debt is also a useful signal on economic health by the way, and right now it's not terrible; definitely not in recession territory)
> Yes, there is, it is just different for lower income earners
Well, don't leave me hanging - what's the one way to calculate inflation then? Which specific mix of goods and services (and locations) should be used as a national benchmark in THE inflation equation?
- kelnos 2y ago> Borrowers are not dumb I don't disagree with your overall point, but I do think pre-2008-crash mortgage lending could be a counterexample. Certainly there were a lot of shenanigans going on, but ultimately borrowers made the -- IMO dumb -- choice to stretch themselves far too thin, and buy bigger and more expensive houses than they truly could afford. Perhaps everyone today has learned from history, though. (But I wouldn't bet on it.)
- sangnoir 2y agoTouche. I meant to say "lenders" - but they too were pretty dumb with sub-prime mortgages in 2008
- lazide 2y agoAny given borrower, on their own, is unlikely to be dumb. The market can be irrational far longer than they can be solvent, however, and not being ‘dumb’ can make that worse. Pre’08, you had to be dumb as a borrower in 90% of markets, or you’d be flat out unable to buy anything. As to if continuing to buy in those conditions was dumb or not, is mostly something that can only be judged retroactively.