5 ms·

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, bn

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”).

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
Why do we have to discard the morals of a business to judge it "objectively?"
- Retr0id 1y ago
  Because morality is inherently subjective
  - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    Then the judgement will vary based upon the person. That doesn't make it inherently less credible.
    - Retr0id 1y ago
      Sure, but it absolutely stops it from being objective.
  - pc86 1y ago
    You state this as if it's a fact but I think most people would disagree. If morality is subjective, then that means there is nothing objectively wrong with murder, rape, pedophilia, chattel slavery, or any number of things that most civilized people would find abhorrent. I'm not even trying to make a religious argument about the source of some objective morality, I don't think it's necessary to solve that to answer the "objective v. subjective" question.
    - Retr0id 1y ago
      > If morality is subjective, then that means there is nothing objectively wrong with ... Yes, this is a true statement. Subjectivity and objectivity are two different things. But I will grant you, there are plenty who believe in an objective framework for morality. My earlier statement is not universally agreed upon.
    - dokyun 1y ago
      The ancient Romans had far less of a problem with all of those things than many people do now; would you consider them uncivilized?
      - pc86 1y ago
        I said nothing about how "civilized" anyone is. You can be a civilized person and be completely immoral. They're unrelated.
    - djoldman 1y ago
      This quickly devolves into semantics as you pointed out. Do you mean that reasonably all people agree that murder, rape, pedophilia, etc. are bad? Aka if close to everyone thinks something, then that's an "objective" opinion? If so, that makes sense. However, the parent comment may mean to say that wrong and right are qualities that humans place on things/events/communications... and I think that makes sense. Physics/chemistry/math has nothing to say about vice and virtue.
      - gopher_space 1y ago
        > Physics/chemistry/math has nothing to say about vice and virtue. Leaded gasoline.
        pc86 1y ago
        What does physics, chemistry, or math have to say about the vice or virtue of leaded gasoline? What's the equation where the right side says "good" or "bad?"
  - nine_k 1y ago
    Game theory has an objection, your honor! Some kinds of mores are more cooperative, and some are more destructive, and especially self-destructive. The good is usually associated with more cooperative and mutually supportive traits, and evil, with destructive. The good usually prevails in the long term because cooperation is more efficient than destruction. So yes, there are objective correlates in good and evil traits, even though they are rather statistical than unequivocally causal.
  - me_me_me 1y ago
    [dead]
  - eli_gottlieb 1y ago
    Then where does the subjectivity come from?
- calmbonsai 1y ago
  You don't and you shouldn't. GaaP even has regs for "intangible assets" which, among other things includes "branding wrt prevailing market mores".
rtpg 1y ago
Your statement is pretty subjective! Not going to defend gambling but "junk food" and "overpriced status-symbol vehicles"? Digital goods as an entire concept? You can think it's all for the stupids, but I'm not seeing how it's some objective truth. Even if you're some stoic who thinks spending money on leisure is just incorrect at a fundamental level, but I think you're going to find yourself in the minority there.
- socalgal2 1y ago
  No, rather I think I can scrape by for the few days it takes to get ahead of the curve for something as cheap as a burrito and then next month I can afford 5 burritos for every 4+interest I could only afford before. Paying for a PS5 or TV on credit I can see because it might take me months to save. But saving for a burrito is arguably something I shouldn't even have to save for in the first place.
  - rtpg 1y ago
    To be clear I think the BNPL thing laid out here is Bad(TM), I just got there through my belief system about how society should be organized. I do not believe that life is measured in how many burritos I can or cannot get access to, so the idea that not using BNPL means I'll get more burritos next month falls a bit flat on me.
    - c22 1y ago
      Huh, I am trying to maximize my burrito access, but there is a time-cost to burritos. If I am hungry today then a burrito now is worth more than 1.2 burritos a month from now. Really, it seems more reasonable to use BNPL to purchase a burrito than a PS5.
  - UncleEntity 1y ago
    > But saving for a burrito is arguably something I shouldn't even have to save for in the first place. I'm guessing you never has so little money that the calories you spent to get cheap food on Taco Tuesday was probably more than what it took to pedal your bike up to Del Taco? Yeah, that was a soul-crushing day. Honestly, this would have been a bad plan for me because it often came down to the choice between 'go get a cab' and 'starve to death' as I could get some cash calls immediately after picking up a cab in order to not starve to death. This scheme is clearly targeting the financially irresponsible, like myself, to pawn off the debt on others with their Burrito Backed Securities. Maybe we can take a moment to reflect on how the Mortgage Backed Securities debacle worked out?
bcoates 1y ago
But if you read the article, it doesn’t? bnpl makes its money off charging merchants a few points higher service fees than cards, which for a lot of merchants is worth it to close the deal. (Unstated in the article is that richer people with better credit have regular access to no-interest/negative fee consumer loans on the order of 6-18 mos., so they have no reason to use BNPL)
- me_me_me 1y ago
  [dead]
- pseudo0 1y ago
  I seriously doubt the long-term viability of BNPL for merchants. Sure, in the short-term it boosts sales because people who don't have money are able to purchase stuff, but eventually those marginal consumers will end up exhausting their BNPL credit as well. Meanwhile the merchant ends up paying 5% on a bunch of transactions for people who could easily afford to pay now, but don't because it's "free". The only way this model works long-term is if they get enough leverage to force merchants to offer BNPL at the same price as cash, the same anti-competitive model used by credit cards.
  - poincaredisk 1y ago
    Only if we assume that the existence of BNPL won't change consumer habits. I think food is easy to buy impulsively ("I'm hangover and hungry - let's order some pizza delivery"), and removing barriers like "I don't have money right now" may cause - hypothetically - some people to spend more on food delivery and (by necessity) less on other things. I'm not sure how sound this model is, but I think it can't be ruled out. Needles to say, I'm not sure if such change would be a good thing.
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    I agree about the viability, but it's the BNPL providers that are left holding the bag here, not the merchants. If it appears to boost sales sufficiently that the 5% fee is worth it, then businesses will continue to offer BNPL as long as the BNPL checks don't bounce. I suspect that at some point, the fact that BNPL usage tracks with bad credit will catch up to the BNPL providers and we will see some sort of shift to the status quo, either in terms of ease of getting a BNPL loan or the way BNPL treats their clients.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago

Why do we have to discard the morals of a business to judge it "objectively?"

Retr0id 1y ago
Because morality is inherently subjective
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  Then the judgement will vary based upon the person. That doesn't make it inherently less credible.
  - Retr0id 1y ago
    Sure, but it absolutely stops it from being objective.
- pc86 1y ago
  You state this as if it's a fact but I think most people would disagree. If morality is subjective, then that means there is nothing objectively wrong with murder, rape, pedophilia, chattel slavery, or any number of things that most civilized people would find abhorrent. I'm not even trying to make a religious argument about the source of some objective morality, I don't think it's necessary to solve that to answer the "objective v. subjective" question.
  - Retr0id 1y ago
    > If morality is subjective, then that means there is nothing objectively wrong with ... Yes, this is a true statement. Subjectivity and objectivity are two different things. But I will grant you, there are plenty who believe in an objective framework for morality. My earlier statement is not universally agreed upon.
  - dokyun 1y ago
    The ancient Romans had far less of a problem with all of those things than many people do now; would you consider them uncivilized?
    - pc86 1y ago
      I said nothing about how "civilized" anyone is. You can be a civilized person and be completely immoral. They're unrelated.
  - djoldman 1y ago
    This quickly devolves into semantics as you pointed out. Do you mean that reasonably all people agree that murder, rape, pedophilia, etc. are bad? Aka if close to everyone thinks something, then that's an "objective" opinion? If so, that makes sense. However, the parent comment may mean to say that wrong and right are qualities that humans place on things/events/communications... and I think that makes sense. Physics/chemistry/math has nothing to say about vice and virtue.
    - gopher_space 1y ago
      > Physics/chemistry/math has nothing to say about vice and virtue. Leaded gasoline.
      - pc86 1y ago
        What does physics, chemistry, or math have to say about the vice or virtue of leaded gasoline? What's the equation where the right side says "good" or "bad?"
- nine_k 1y ago
  Game theory has an objection, your honor! Some kinds of mores are more cooperative, and some are more destructive, and especially self-destructive. The good is usually associated with more cooperative and mutually supportive traits, and evil, with destructive. The good usually prevails in the long term because cooperation is more efficient than destruction. So yes, there are objective correlates in good and evil traits, even though they are rather statistical than unequivocally causal.
- me_me_me 1y ago
  [dead]
- eli_gottlieb 1y ago
  Then where does the subjectivity come from?
calmbonsai 1y ago
You don't and you shouldn't. GaaP even has regs for "intangible assets" which, among other things includes "branding wrt prevailing market mores".

rtpg 1y ago

Your statement is pretty subjective! Not going to defend gambling but "junk food" and "overpriced status-symbol vehicles"? Digital goods as an entire concept? You can think it's all for the stupids, but I'm not seeing how it's some objective truth. Even if you're some stoic who thinks spending money on leisure is just incorrect at a fundamental level, but I think you're going to find yourself in the minority there.

socalgal2 1y ago
No, rather I think I can scrape by for the few days it takes to get ahead of the curve for something as cheap as a burrito and then next month I can afford 5 burritos for every 4+interest I could only afford before. Paying for a PS5 or TV on credit I can see because it might take me months to save. But saving for a burrito is arguably something I shouldn't even have to save for in the first place.
- rtpg 1y ago
  To be clear I think the BNPL thing laid out here is Bad(TM), I just got there through my belief system about how society should be organized. I do not believe that life is measured in how many burritos I can or cannot get access to, so the idea that not using BNPL means I'll get more burritos next month falls a bit flat on me.
  - c22 1y ago
    Huh, I am trying to maximize my burrito access, but there is a time-cost to burritos. If I am hungry today then a burrito now is worth more than 1.2 burritos a month from now. Really, it seems more reasonable to use BNPL to purchase a burrito than a PS5.
- UncleEntity 1y ago
  > But saving for a burrito is arguably something I shouldn't even have to save for in the first place. I'm guessing you never has so little money that the calories you spent to get cheap food on Taco Tuesday was probably more than what it took to pedal your bike up to Del Taco? Yeah, that was a soul-crushing day. Honestly, this would have been a bad plan for me because it often came down to the choice between 'go get a cab' and 'starve to death' as I could get some cash calls immediately after picking up a cab in order to not starve to death. This scheme is clearly targeting the financially irresponsible, like myself, to pawn off the debt on others with their Burrito Backed Securities. Maybe we can take a moment to reflect on how the Mortgage Backed Securities debacle worked out?

bcoates 1y ago

But if you read the article, it doesn’t? bnpl makes its money off charging merchants a few points higher service fees than cards, which for a lot of merchants is worth it to close the deal. (Unstated in the article is that richer people with better credit have regular access to no-interest/negative fee consumer loans on the order of 6-18 mos., so they have no reason to use BNPL)

me_me_me 1y ago
[dead]
pseudo0 1y ago
I seriously doubt the long-term viability of BNPL for merchants. Sure, in the short-term it boosts sales because people who don't have money are able to purchase stuff, but eventually those marginal consumers will end up exhausting their BNPL credit as well. Meanwhile the merchant ends up paying 5% on a bunch of transactions for people who could easily afford to pay now, but don't because it's "free". The only way this model works long-term is if they get enough leverage to force merchants to offer BNPL at the same price as cash, the same anti-competitive model used by credit cards.
- poincaredisk 1y ago
  Only if we assume that the existence of BNPL won't change consumer habits. I think food is easy to buy impulsively ("I'm hangover and hungry - let's order some pizza delivery"), and removing barriers like "I don't have money right now" may cause - hypothetically - some people to spend more on food delivery and (by necessity) less on other things. I'm not sure how sound this model is, but I think it can't be ruled out. Needles to say, I'm not sure if such change would be a good thing.
- margalabargala 1y ago
  I agree about the viability, but it's the BNPL providers that are left holding the bag here, not the merchants. If it appears to boost sales sufficiently that the 5% fee is worth it, then businesses will continue to offer BNPL as long as the BNPL checks don't bounce. I suspect that at some point, the fact that BNPL usage tracks with bad credit will catch up to the BNPL providers and we will see some sort of shift to the status quo, either in terms of ease of getting a BNPL loan or the way BNPL treats their clients.