5 ms·

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 necessitie

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.

victorp13 1y ago
Also Google the "Sin of riba". Islam was really on to something if you ask me (disclaimer: not a religious person).
- int_19h 1y ago
  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.
b59831 1y ago
[dead]
msm_ 1y ago
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 something for $10k, earns and invests that $10k back, and because of investing is a bit up (let's say now they own $10.3k) * The other person borrows $10k, and repays $11k over time. This buy-and-earn cycle will repeat, and each time the person that fronted $10k is $1.3k up (and due to interest, this is only growing with time). The difference quickly becomes staggering. Tragic, and a classic rich-get-richer situation. And the only difference is the starting $10k and some discipline.
- api 1y ago
  Housing being an appreciating asset is a social ill. It means that housing can never be affordable, and that as it appreciates it locks out progressively more people. This is true unless wages are also always going up, which is not the case unless it’s all just inflation in which case nothing is really appreciating.
- cousin_it 1y ago
  I think without mortgages most people would rent or rent-to-own, rents wouldn't be dragged up by housing appreciation, and affordable/social housing would be cheaper to provide because of lower opportunity cost.
- blagie 1y ago
  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 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.
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    I am so so happy we live in a democracy. Because if your ilk managed to take power, it would only have been possible through violent authoritarian revolution
    - const_cast 1y ago
      No you can definitely vote this stuff in, especially if you let capitalists extract money from vulnerable populations for long enough. People have a misunderstand of protections or government spending. The New Deal isn't socialism, it's the perfect capitalist policy. If we never had the New Deal, there's a good chance we would be a socialist democracy today. We got really, really close. When things get bad you have to throw people a bone in order to maintain the current systems. Our newest generations of the ultra-rich and ultra-powerful don't seem to understand that. Ultimately we, the working class, hold everything together. We're the majority and it's not even close. If we wanted to change things for our own selfish benefit, we could.
s1artibartfast 1y ago
I beginning to think we should have separate legal systems for different people. One where people have more agency and responsibility for the consequences, and one where they are treated like children, but taken care of. There is actually a fantastic sci-fi novel I highly recommend written by a professor of enlightenment philosophy that uses the as part of the premise. too like the lightning by Ada palmer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Palmer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Palmer
- cousin_it 1y ago
  Or you could have one system where people are treated like adults and taken care of. The risk of getting into unmanageable debt isn't any better than the risk of a car crash, it should be minimized, not celebrated. "I drive without a seatbelt because I'm an adult and can drive responsibly!" Except it's even worse. A car crash is terrible, but at least nobody profits from it. With debt you create a market for manipulating as many people into debt as possible.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    I dont fallow your car crash analogy. Are you still proposing banning all debt?

victorp13 1y ago

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

int_19h 1y ago
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.

b59831 1y ago

[dead]

msm_ 1y ago

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 something for $10k, earns and invests that $10k back, and because of investing is a bit up (let's say now they own $10.3k) * The other person borrows $10k, and repays $11k over time. This buy-and-earn cycle will repeat, and each time the person that fronted $10k is $1.3k up (and due to interest, this is only growing with time). The difference quickly becomes staggering. Tragic, and a classic rich-get-richer situation. And the only difference is the starting $10k and some discipline.

api 1y ago
Housing being an appreciating asset is a social ill. It means that housing can never be affordable, and that as it appreciates it locks out progressively more people. This is true unless wages are also always going up, which is not the case unless it’s all just inflation in which case nothing is really appreciating.
cousin_it 1y ago
I think without mortgages most people would rent or rent-to-own, rents wouldn't be dragged up by housing appreciation, and affordable/social housing would be cheaper to provide because of lower opportunity cost.
blagie 1y ago
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 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.
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  I am so so happy we live in a democracy. Because if your ilk managed to take power, it would only have been possible through violent authoritarian revolution
  - const_cast 1y ago
    No you can definitely vote this stuff in, especially if you let capitalists extract money from vulnerable populations for long enough. People have a misunderstand of protections or government spending. The New Deal isn't socialism, it's the perfect capitalist policy. If we never had the New Deal, there's a good chance we would be a socialist democracy today. We got really, really close. When things get bad you have to throw people a bone in order to maintain the current systems. Our newest generations of the ultra-rich and ultra-powerful don't seem to understand that. Ultimately we, the working class, hold everything together. We're the majority and it's not even close. If we wanted to change things for our own selfish benefit, we could.

s1artibartfast 1y ago

I beginning to think we should have separate legal systems for different people. One where people have more agency and responsibility for the consequences, and one where they are treated like children, but taken care of. There is actually a fantastic sci-fi novel I highly recommend written by a professor of enlightenment philosophy that uses the as part of the premise. too like the lightning by Ada palmer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Palmer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Palmer

cousin_it 1y ago
Or you could have one system where people are treated like adults and taken care of. The risk of getting into unmanageable debt isn't any better than the risk of a car crash, it should be minimized, not celebrated. "I drive without a seatbelt because I'm an adult and can drive responsibly!" Except it's even worse. A car crash is terrible, but at least nobody profits from it. With debt you create a market for manipulating as many people into debt as possible.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  I dont fallow your car crash analogy. Are you still proposing banning all debt?