I'm a bit disappointed in all this "bah humbug, I can manage my credit cards" attitude.
That site is specifically for people who are struggling to manage their finances. I'm not really sold that their reasons for not accepting credit cards make sense (lack of fraud protection is the biggest problem). But it makes some psychological sense. You don't see a lot of AA meetings held in bars.
Also, complaining that the average yokel can't manage their credit is like complaining that users can't deal with a command-line interface. Sure the discipline to learn it would pay off, but most people aren't wired that way. Furthermore the credit system as we have it now is designed, by very talented professionals, to prey on common flaws in the human mammal's ability to assess risk and future obligation.
Everybody has something that they're irrational about. Don't make me ask you how much time you've spent on WoW this month.
Lastly, those of us on this board are probably lucky to have relatively high-paying jobs, even if we were less-than-perfect students or tried startup life for a while. The demand is just that great. But software is a huge anomaly in the North American economy. Wages for most people have been flat, relative to inflation, for decades. And furthermore, the risk of sudden and prolonged drops in income has been much higher since 1970 or so. For hackers that means okay, okay, I'll take the stupid J2EE job. For the average North American worker, it might mean accepting some stupid low wage service job.
Anyway, the point is, most families have been making up the difference with credit cards. They're not living extravagantly and still they're falling behind. See this lecture by Elizabeth Warren, "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A) that punctures some of the myths with hard stats.
"Also, complaining that the average yokel can't manage their credit is like complaining that users can't deal with a command-line interface. Sure the discipline to learn it would pay off, but most people aren't wired that way."
That is a very, very scary statement. Basically it implies that most people are doomed to live a live in dependency and slavery, because they will always depend on the goodwill of other people to not screw them over. Maybe it even implies that in the long run communism is the only workable system. I can't imagine that the majority of people is THAT bad at maths :-/ I mean it is just basic addition and substraction. Even if you can only count to 5, you could get a rough idea of the state of your credit (number on bank account has less digits than number on credit card debt == bad).
We don't need communism. Just basic protection from loan sharks, con artists, and the worst dishonest business practices.
Libertarians may hate it, but consumer protections make the lives of most people simpler, safer, and more free. They also reward honest businesspeople, rather than rewarding the con artists who are the least detectable.
I'd like to point you to PG's recent article. Additional checks end up biting you in the back.
Also, how are consumer protections supposed to work? I think they would require a hypothetical "perfect" state employee who is 100% honest and 100% omniscient. Even if a few of such people would exist, I doubt that there would be enough of them to monitor ALL kinds of economical transactions.
Rather, I suspect the more regulation there is, the more corruption or hidden taxes will there and be a burden on society. Even today it almost feels as if one can't do anything without the protection of an army of lawyers. More regulations => this only gets worse. Lawyers will be leeching off us, with the support of the state.
Also the current crisis can not simply be blamed on crooks. Everybody was playing the game, down to the average "normal, honest" home owners. Plus, people will always act selfish, and in trades, try to get the better deal of the involved parties.
I think what he said was that additional checks have a cost that must be weighed against the benefits.
Funny, you are the one who is touting himself as able to handle complexity. And yet in this debate you can only perceive black and white. If communism is bad, that means that ALL regulation is bad! And if some people need extra help or training to deal with credit, that means that they're SHEEP who will be the wards of the state forever!
I am sad that nobody has taken up the point that I was trying to make; that we all need some help from time to time. Hackers have an easy time bouncing back from rotten luck, illness, or poor life choices; things that would cause other people to eventually amass an unsustainable debt.
I am all for helping people. I am just not sure who could be trusted - I don't necessarily trust the government to make the best choices for the people. And in this crisis, there is too much scapegoating going on for my taste. And calling for regulations seems to be an extension of that.
If you call for regulations, first tell me why the market failed to regulate itself (that is weed out the crooks, if the crooks are to blame)?
If you are calling for more transparency, maybe I can go with you. But I don't think complex rulesets about who should give credit and who should be allowed to get credit are the way to go forward.
I don't want to claim to understand what pg wrote, but my understanding would be he wrote among other things about something exactly like that: more regulations means it becomes more costly to give somebody credit. Therefore there will be less firms giving credit, and "smaller people" will have more problems getting credit because they are not worth the bother. In the end there will be a monopoly of a few big firms who handle credit.
Also, what if housing prices really would have risen forever, and regulations would have prevented people from gaining from it? Who is to say in advance what course of action is right? Or would you say everybody who took out a mortgage was a crook?
I thought PG's article was pretty spot on. He wanted regulatory actions to be viewed in the broader context with an understanding of the net drag of all the regulations. If we could convince elected officials to do this sort of analysis, we might be able to weed out a lot of the unnecessary inefficiencies.
That said, the solution to an overabundance of regulations is not necessarily to utterly eliminate them, and the lack of perfection should never be an excuse for not performing an action when the consequences of inaction are worse.
I won't pretend to know what should or shouldn't have happened in the current financial crisis. My post was really directed more toward basic consumer protections -- things like truth in advertising, not selling rotten meat, being upfront about the terms of payday loans, etc.
Well... I agree that some people will always be more independent than others. I think you are overstating things when you take it all the way to communism, but in my experience, a more communitarian society simply works better.
Don't think of it like we're taking people's freedom away, think of it like someone pointing out the dangerous ice on the sidewalk, or better yet, cleaning it up before someone slips on it. It's just neighbourly. (Can you tell I'm Canadian?)
I'm not saying all of society has to be nerfed -- that would be totalitarian -- but a world where "caveat emptor" is the last word makes for a crappy and unsustainable society. It's about balance.
Want evidence? Just open any newspaper. In fact, because they refused even modest regulation, the USA is now going to have to get 1970s-style-socialist and probably nationalize a lot of the economy. Which I think is a terrible outcome.
The problem is, it's not addition and subtraction. It's exponents and amortization and, sorry, most folks only think linearly. Beyond that they get frustrated and reach for the next beer.
You don't need exponents if you never go further in debt than your bank account balance. Just pay off your credit card every month. I do, have done so for years, and it is not a rule that is very hard to remember.
So you just need the "count the digits" rule of thumb to decide if you can afford to buy something or not. If you can count to 10, you could even compare the first digit of each number (credit card debt vs bank account balance).
Sure, people know that they shouldn't spend more than they make and --Oh look! There's a sale today at the mall; I have a credit card and it's a good deal, brb.
It's about discipline more than it is being good with numbers. Sometimes I would imagine it would be hard for people to look at their bank account and see enough money in it to purchase X, so they use their credit card to purchase X only to spend the money in their bank account on something like groceries later.
"Basically it implies that most people are doomed to live a live in dependency and slavery, because they will always depend on the goodwill of other people to not screw them over. Maybe it even implies that in the long run communism is the only workable system." - except that communism only makes it harder to survive without "other people", AKA "The Party", screwing you over. With capitalism, you can get out with programs like this and discipline. With communism, you have no such option.
(One of the things I never understand about communists spouting off about capitalistic exploitation... by the same standards you're accusing capitalism of exploiting me, communism only exploits me harder and with no hope of escape. Not progress. The answer to this paradox is that the communists always assume The Party is a magical fairyland group of people which, unlike every other group of people every formed, only has your best interests at heart, whereas they grant no such fairyland powers to anybody else.)
I am definitely NOT a fan of communism. Just saying that the statement "people can't handle credit cards" seems to imply that people are unable to act for their own good. That in turn would imply that the majority of people needs a dictatorship or equivalent to get by.
Just a note, this idea that wages have been flat relative to inflation is true. But that doesn't mean quite what you think it means. Inflation (at least CPI inflation) measures the cost of a basket of goods in dollars. But that basket of goods has grown over time! So the same wage now buys more stuff.
Incidentally, Elizabeth Warren is a propaganda artist. She has "hard stats", but they often don't mean what you think they mean. Read Todd Zywicki's debunking of her to get a flavor for how she works:
I'm not claiming the video you cite is right or wrong (it's 57 minutes long, I'd rather just skim the paper), just suggesting that she deserves Michael Moore levels of skepticism.
But I do recommend watching the whole presentation if you have the time -- especially before you start calling people "propaganda artists". That implies deliberate deception and razzle-dazzle to con the unwary.
If she's really trying to foment unrest among the working classes she's kind of doing it wrong, with a rather unfashionable pantsuit and a series of dull charts and graphs. I get the sense she honestly believes in her data, but perhaps she is simply honestly mistaken? Anyway, something to think about.
I'm asserting that she does something along those lines.
I'll take one example from her medical bankruptcy study. This is the study, widely described by the media as asserting that 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills or serious medical problems.
You need to actually read the study rather than listen to her talks to discover that "medical problems" includes "alcohol or drug addiction" and "uncontrolled gambling."
This is far from the only example where she plays games of this nature. Read Todd Zywicki's debunkings of her, she seems to make mistakes like this all the time.
I suspect that congress and the media, rather than the working classes, is her target.
The study you and Warren cite does group alcoholism, drugs, and gambling under medical problems. But, even combined, they form just 3.7% of bankruptcies observed. Even if you threw these out, that wouldn't affect the main conclusions.
Now, I'm not saying that this study was flawless or Warren's use of it beyond criticism. But the criticism you made was indisputably worthless. It seems to be designed to inflame passions and exploit stereotypes in a few words, and to be difficult to refute without long explanation. You should go on FOX News.
Or perhaps you did not read the study, as you advised me to do, but merely quoted someone else's critique? If so, I suggest that you re-evaluate your sources.
Like I said, "I'll take one example". The study is utterly flawed even conceptually (1), but that flaw might just be a result of some law prof not understanding basic statistics.
The example I provided is merely the simplest and most egregious misrepresentation she makes.
(1) To estimate the number of bankruptcies caused by "medical reasons", you need to compare Pm = P(bankrupt | medical cause) to Pnm = P(bankrupt | no medical cause). The number of medically caused bankruptcies is then (Pm-Pnm) x (number of people with medical cause). She only measures Pm x (number of bankruptcies with medical cause).
That site is specifically for people who are struggling to manage their finances. I'm not really sold that their reasons for not accepting credit cards make sense (lack of fraud protection is the biggest problem). But it makes some psychological sense. You don't see a lot of AA meetings held in bars.
Also, complaining that the average yokel can't manage their credit is like complaining that users can't deal with a command-line interface. Sure the discipline to learn it would pay off, but most people aren't wired that way. Furthermore the credit system as we have it now is designed, by very talented professionals, to prey on common flaws in the human mammal's ability to assess risk and future obligation.
Everybody has something that they're irrational about. Don't make me ask you how much time you've spent on WoW this month.
Lastly, those of us on this board are probably lucky to have relatively high-paying jobs, even if we were less-than-perfect students or tried startup life for a while. The demand is just that great. But software is a huge anomaly in the North American economy. Wages for most people have been flat, relative to inflation, for decades. And furthermore, the risk of sudden and prolonged drops in income has been much higher since 1970 or so. For hackers that means okay, okay, I'll take the stupid J2EE job. For the average North American worker, it might mean accepting some stupid low wage service job.
Anyway, the point is, most families have been making up the difference with credit cards. They're not living extravagantly and still they're falling behind. See this lecture by Elizabeth Warren, "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A) that punctures some of the myths with hard stats.