3 ms·

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What is your argument, exactly?

• shmerl 12y ago
  You said that profiting from debt is alright since parties have agreed to it. I'm saying that it's not, and such agreement comes from limiting circumstances, not because it's a good practice.
  • zo1 12y ago
    So could you boil down your argument for "limiting circumstances" for me, then? i.e. X is bad because Y, etc. Credit exists because different people/entities have different time preferences for money, which is a value differential. Sure, this can be influenced and skewed based on life-circumstance. e.g. one of the posters in this thread noted how "10,000" in debt helped them get through a very troubling time in their life and how they're very grateful they had access to it at the time. Are you going to say that it was "not okay" that the creditor helped him with that? Are you saying that they should have given him/her the money for absolutely no reason, no profit, nothing? Are you implying that lending is okay if it's for charity? What, really, I can't even fathom how you can hold your opinion as logically consistent.
    • shmerl 12y ago
      Limiting circumstances is any case when people can't pay off the debt right away. For instance when buying living property which requires them to pay it off in 30 years because of insane pricing or simply when they have consumer debt like described in this article.