northeastag said:

---

Well I can certainly see now why Trump got along so well with Mamdani. They're both socialists at heart. One wants to cap rents. The other wants to cap interest rates. Two soul mates.

Price controls always end up in shortages.

---

A shortage in credit to grant to high-risk individuals. The horror.

74OA said:

---

Credit cards are essentially loan instruments with the borrower providing zero collateral to the lender who assumes all the risk.

Of course such unsecured loans carry a much higher interest rate, but simply paying off the balance each month avoids paying any interest at all.

This is more about too many people not living within their means than it is rapacious banking.

---

Yes. It is their fault.

But 50 years ago, we didn't have almost half of our population carrying credit card debt. That's not because they were fiscally smarter than our population today (although our population today IS dumber). It's because predatory interest credit wasn't available to them.

No one would count on the free market to replace basic regulations regarding food safety. This is similar.

The free market is good. But we need bumpers to keep us in the lane.

74OA said:

---

Credit cards are essentially loan instruments with the borrower providing zero collateral to the lender who assumes all the risk.

Of course such unsecured loans carry a much higher interest rate, but simply paying off the balance each month avoids paying any interest at all.

This is more about too many people not living within their means than it is rapacious banking.

---

Yet the bleeding hearts want to call these people victims and blame it on greedy bank CEOs.

Just like so many other instances where we make excuses for people's behavior and look for someone else to blame.

Freedom is a beautiful thing, and with it comes the consequences of your choices. We have got to stop socializing the consequence of individual decisions.

Good Bull Jones 17 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Credit cards are essentially loan instruments with the borrower providing zero collateral to the lender who assumes all the risk.

Of course such unsecured loans carry a much higher interest rate, but simply paying off the balance each month avoids paying any interest at all.

This is more about too many people not living within their means than it is rapacious banking.

---

Yes. It is their fault.

But 50 years ago, we didn't have almost half of our population carrying credit card debt. That's not because they were fiscally smarter than our population today (although our population today IS dumber). It's because predatory interest credit wasn't available to them.

No one would count on the free market to replace basic regulations regarding food safety. This is similar.

The free market is good. But we need bumpers to keep us in the lane.

---

Having access to instant short-term credit is a huge financial benefit for average people and the vast majority are responsible enough to carefully manage their card balance.

Why should their access be handicapped by nanny state protections for the irresponsible?

Good Bull Jones 17 said:

---

Credit cards are fundamentally based off predatory interest rates. It's wrong to give an 85 IQ 20-year-old a credit card, then blame him when he runs up a balance. Yes it's his fault. But why set him up for failure?

Who cares if you don't get as many points and free flights?

Capitalism is great. It also needs guidelines. For example, it's illegal to make false claims in advertising. The free market doesn't solve for that on its own.

Predatory interest should be illegal.

---

If taking advantage (lol at your terminology) of low IQ youth at the beginning of their credit history is your issue, then adding IQ stipulations for people without a credit history would make more sense then taking a hammer to the whole system and putting caps in place across the board.


Also, there is no such thing as "predatory interest" just like there is no such thing as a livable wage. Those are socialist "feel good" terms not grounded in facts.

74OA said:

---

Good Bull Jones 17 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Credit cards are essentially loan instruments with the borrower providing zero collateral to the lender who assumes all the risk.

Of course such unsecured loans carry a much higher interest rate, but simply paying off the balance each month avoids paying any interest at all.

This is more about too many people not living within their means than it is rapacious banking.

---

Yes. It is their fault.

But 50 years ago, we didn't have almost half of our population carrying credit card debt. That's not because they were fiscally smarter than our population today (although our population today IS dumber). It's because predatory interest credit wasn't available to them.

No one would count on the free market to replace basic regulations regarding food safety. This is similar.

The free market is good. But we need bumpers to keep us in the lane.

---

Having access to instant short-term credit is a huge financial benefit for average people and the vast majority are responsible enough to carefully manage their card balance.

Why should their access be handicapped by nanny state protections for the irresponsible?

---

You sure about that?!?

First search results show nearly half of the adult population and around 2/3 of card holders carry a balance month over month.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

74OA said:

---

Good Bull Jones 17 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Credit cards are essentially loan instruments with the borrower providing zero collateral to the lender who assumes all the risk.

Of course such unsecured loans carry a much higher interest rate, but simply paying off the balance each month avoids paying any interest at all.

This is more about too many people not living within their means than it is rapacious banking.

---

Yes. It is their fault.

But 50 years ago, we didn't have almost half of our population carrying credit card debt. That's not because they were fiscally smarter than our population today (although our population today IS dumber). It's because predatory interest credit wasn't available to them.

No one would count on the free market to replace basic regulations regarding food safety. This is similar.

The free market is good. But we need bumpers to keep us in the lane.

---

Having access to instant short-term credit is a huge financial benefit for average people and the vast majority are responsible enough to carefully manage their card balance.

Why should their access be handicapped by nanny state protections for the irresponsible?

---

You sure about that?!?

First search results show nearly half of the adult population and around 2/3 of card holders carry a balance month over month.

---

Carrying a balance isn't irresponsible if managed to stay within the borrower's ability to service it.

That "if" is doing some Brian Shaw-style heavy lifting.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

That "if" is doing some Brian Shaw-style heavy lifting.

---

Adult privileges come with adult responsibilities. <shrug>

Would any of you provide an irresponsible stranger an UNSECURED loan at 10%?

If the answer is yes, then you have financial literacy problems. If you say no, then why do you expect others to do so?

FIDO*98* said:

---

How about we set the maximum income tax rate at 10% and worry about credit cards later.

---

This topic does remind me of my first credit card. Back in the early '90s, banks gave out CC's like candy regardless of your ability to pay. I received my first CC in college (with no job at the time I received it) and it had a $30k limit. Didn't even ask for it. Just given to me. I had zero means to pay it back.

I've actually forgotten the original issuer, but it was ultimately taken over by Bank of America along the way.

Just last year they closed the account on me because I hadn't used it in years. End of an era.

They'd setup a table in front of the Commons during move in week handing out MBNA credit cards to any freshman who could sign their name on paper. I would not be surprised if they still do. Then again, they did the same thing with student loans.

Just saw a story about how Trump reached out to Elizabeth Warren to discuss the 10% cap.

Any word on what will happen next if these two work together on this issue? Could it be the start of something more permanent like limiting how much credit cards can charge in interest?

Just wanting to see what you guys think about this new info.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

They'd setup a table in front of the Commons during move in week handing out MBNA credit cards to any freshman who could sign their name on paper. I would not be surprised if they still do. Then again, they did the same thing with student loans.

---

Actually, I think the original issuer was MBNA! However, I got mine unsolicited in the mail. Just a brand new CC shows up in the mail with a $30K limit.

My roommate and I thought we had found gold. Covered a lot of beer and margs for us. I built up a couple thousand balance during college that I promptly paid off with my first job.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Just saw a story about how Trump reached out to Elizabeth Warren to discuss the 10% cap.

Any word on what will happen next if these two work together on this issue? Could it be the start of something more permanent like limiting how much credit cards can charge in interest?

Just wanting to see what you guys think about this new info.

---

Treaty with the Delawares 2.0.

The reason that there are so many credit cards is that there are a gazillion companies offering it. It is one of the most competitive industries in the country. Which means that they can't be "gouging" or "ripping off" borrowers. Otherwise, somebody else would offer a more "fair" lower rate and steal all of their business. Therefore, those interest rates are THE equilibrium rate for the given risk level. If they charged less they would lose money.

So capping interest rates at 10%, basically eliminates the ability for high risk borrowers to borrow. If they have a car mechanical failure or something, then they better have enough money in the bank to cover it or have benevolent friends or family. Otherwise, they are screwed.

But hey.. at least we stuck it to the CEOs, right?

Quote:

---

Just saw a story about how Trump reached out to Elizabeth Warren to discuss the 10% cap.

Any word on what will happen next if these two work together on this issue? Could it be the start of something more permanent like limiting how much credit cards can charge in interest?

Just wanting to see what you guys think about this new info.

---

He didn't reach out to her until she publicly called him out on the affordability issue.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5685100-trump-calls-warren-affordability/

Quote:

---

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Monday that President Trump called her after she criticized his policies on affordability in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington.

"This morning, I gave a speech noting how Donald Trump is driving up costs for families, sowing terror and chaos in our communities, and abusing his power to prosecute anyone who criticizes him," Warren said in a statement.

"In my remarks, I made it clear that despite promising to lower costs On Day One, Trump has done nothing but raise costs for families. I said that if he really wants to get something done, including capping credit card interest rates or lowering housing costs, he would use his leverage and pick up the phone," she continued.

Warren said Trump called her after and that she delivered the "same message on affordability to him directly."

"I told him that Congress can pass legislation to cap credit card rates if he will actually fight for it. I also urged him to get House Republicans to pass the bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act, which passed the Senate with unanimous support and would build more housing and lower costs," she said.

---

And he went out and did the Truth Social thing right afterwards. For whatever reason, he seems pretty spooked by his economic approval ratings and voters being upset with him over prices.

I can't imagine his voting base liking him embrace the Warren Sanders approach to economic management, but they have surprised me with their intellectual flexibility in other instances.

To me, price caps are discredited economic approach and we will just learn our lesson on that fact one more time if he keeps going down this road.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Just saw a story about how Trump reached out to Elizabeth Warren to discuss the 10% cap.

Any word on what will happen next if these two work together on this issue? Could it be the start of something more permanent like limiting how much credit cards can charge in interest?

Just wanting to see what you guys think about this new info.

---

He didn't reach out to her until she publicly called him out on the affordability issue.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5685100-trump-calls-warren-affordability/

Quote:

---

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Monday that President Trump called her after she criticized his policies on affordability in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington.

"This morning, I gave a speech noting how Donald Trump is driving up costs for families, sowing terror and chaos in our communities, and abusing his power to prosecute anyone who criticizes him," Warren said in a statement.

"In my remarks, I made it clear that despite promising to lower costs On Day One, Trump has done nothing but raise costs for families. I said that if he really wants to get something done, including capping credit card interest rates or lowering housing costs, he would use his leverage and pick up the phone," she continued.

Warren said Trump called her after and that she delivered the "same message on affordability to him directly."

"I told him that Congress can pass legislation to cap credit card rates if he will actually fight for it. I also urged him to get House Republicans to pass the bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act, which passed the Senate with unanimous support and would build more housing and lower costs," she said.

---

And he went out and did the Truth Social thing right afterwards. For whatever reason, he seems pretty spooked by his economic approval ratings and voters being upset with him over prices.

I can't imagine his voting base liking him embrace the Warren Sanders approach to economic management, but they have surprised me with their intellectual flexibility in other instances.

To me, price caps are discredited economic approach and we will just learn our lesson on that fact one more time if he keeps going down this road.

---

Probably because he's pursuing too many left-wing policies.

It's not about sticking it to CEOs. It's about creating laws that are a net benefit to society. Credit cards are a clear net negative to society. A huge portion of our society has buried themselves in credit card debt. So why would we allow them? Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

You would not rely on the free market to create and regulate building code by itself. A free market works when you create minimal guidelines, and then allow companies to operate within those guidelines. Guidelines like building code.

Good Bull Jones 17 said:

---

It's not about sticking it to CEOs. It's about creating laws that are a net benefit to society. Credit cards are a clear net negative to society. A huge portion of our society has buried themselves in credit card debt. So why would we allow them? Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

---

You used the word "society" three times in that brief statement. I am tired of people forcing laws down my throat because they're "good for society." That is socialism and I reject it.

Here's an idea… I'll take care of me, you take care of you, and others can take care of themselves. No more socialism.

Quote:

---

It's not about sticking it to CEOs. It's about creating laws that are a net benefit to society. Credit cards are a clear net negative to society. A huge portion of our society has buried themselves in credit card debt. So why would we allow them? Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

You would not rely on the free market to create and regulate building code by itself. A free market works when you create minimal guidelines, and then allow companies to operate within those guidelines. Guidelines like building code.

---

You can't just boil the issue down to a single factor though. The US has the most lenient, walk away scott-free personal bankruptcy laws in the world by a large margin. That has influenced the credit card market pricing greatly. Credit cards are also a commodity . . .competition has always been the better route to provide affordable access to credit.

Asking the government to step in and start turning dials here and adjusting economic knobs there in the name of a qualitative concept like "fairness" has always had a bad track record. Yes, there have to be guardrails in place but those need to be built over time using congress and the courts. You can't just have a dude wake up in the White House and decide prices will be x or production goals will be y. That has literally never worked.

Good Bull Jones 17 said:

---

It's not about sticking it to CEOs. It's about creating laws that are a net benefit to society. Credit cards are a clear net negative to society. A huge portion of our society has buried themselves in credit card debt. So why would we allow them? Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

---

Wrong. What is a net negative to society is the environment that requires so many people to depend on credit cards in the first place. Not the credit cards themselves. And who is to blame for that? Government. By being too big and too intrusive.

Credit Cards allow people to get by temporarily where they would be SCREWED otherwise. Like in my car maintenance example. Paying 20% on a car repair bill over a few months is way better than having no car at all.

Quote:

---

You would not rely on the free market to create and regulate building code by itself. A free market works when you create minimal guidelines, and then allow companies to operate within those guidelines. Guidelines like building code.

---

I absolutely WOULD rely on the free market to regulate building codes. Just like I would prefer the free market to regulate stock trading. The original Ponzi scheme lasted only 8 months (without the SEC) because the free market sniffed him out so quickly. Yet Bernie Madoff defrauded people for DECADES because the SEC gave him clean bill of health. Lot a good the regulators did there.

Similarly, we've had several major fatal building collapses in the last several years, despite strict building codes. One of the most famous engineering ethics cases is a flawed building design that could have been the most deadly building collapse in US history (more fatalities than WTC). You know who discovered that? It wasn't government inspectors. It was the engineers who built it. Nobody has more interest in a building's safety than the people who own it or build it. Far more than government regulators ever will.

I thought we did the

- introduce a bill
- negotiate and discuss it
- edit it
- send it to the other branch of Congress
- negotiate and discuss it
- edit it
- get full Congress to agree
- send to President
-------> LAW

Now we are getting pretty damn close to:

- tweet
- LAW

aTmAg said:

---

Credit Cards allow people to get by temporarily where they would be SCREWED otherwise. Like in my car maintenance example. Paying 20% on a car repair bill over a few months is way better than having no car at all.

---

This is a really generous take on the benefit of credit cards. Probably describes <1% of purchases. The cost/benefit is still terrible.

Quote:

---

Nobody has more interest in a building's safety than the people who own it or build it. Far more than government regulators ever will.

---

To actually underscore this point, I was told a story by a contractor who worked on Six Flags Fiesta Texas, that the engineers who designed the roller coasters were the first ones to ride them. And I'm not aware of any government regulations on roller coasters.

The free market can self-regulate certain things, but not 100% of the time. The Cuyahoga River in Ohio used to catch fire regularly because of all the pollution. Free market didn't step in to fix that one. So some regulation makes sense, sometimes.

Good Bull Jones 17 said:

---

It's not about sticking it to CEOs. It's about creating laws that are a net benefit to society. Credit cards are a clear net negative to society. A huge portion of our society has buried themselves in credit card debt. So why would we allow them? Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

You would not rely on the free market to create and regulate building code by itself. A free market works when you create minimal guidelines, and then allow companies to operate within those guidelines. Guidelines like building code.

---

The government should not be protecting individuals from themselves. If someone wants to rack up tens of thousands in credit card debt, that's between them and the bank. A building not being up to code is a completely different situation since that impacts others.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Asking the government to step in and start turning dials here and adjusting economic knobs there in the name of a qualitative concept like "fairness" has always had a bad track record. Yes, there have to be guardrails in place but those need to be built over time using congress and the courts. You can't just have a dude wake up in the White House and decide prices will be x or production goals will be y. That has literally never worked.

---

---

I agree here, and I don't like the way Trump is going about it, per say. I just believe credit cards are a menace to society and would support Congress doing something to limit/eliminate them.

Dumb trump. bad trump.

The interest rate is a way for the cc company to analyze risk and make those with more risk pay for the right to be supported in credit. By doing this he is making those with low risk pay for those with high risk.

Good Bull Jones 17 said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Asking the government to step in and start turning dials here and adjusting economic knobs there in the name of a qualitative concept like "fairness" has always had a bad track record. Yes, there have to be guardrails in place but those need to be built over time using congress and the courts. You can't just have a dude wake up in the White House and decide prices will be x or production goals will be y. That has literally never worked.

---

---

I agree here, and I don't like the way Trump is going about it, per say. I just believe credit cards are a menace to society and would support Congress doing something to limit/eliminate them.

---

You seem to put a high amount of trust in your feelings.

In China people dont have credit cards (private). They just get a government score based on their good deads, their proper speech and behavior the govt likes.

In Europe credit cards are hard to get and after 40 years the EU is a fraction of the economic engine that the US was (it started out higher).

MemphisAg1 said:

---

You used the word "society" three times in that brief statement. I am tired of people forcing laws down my throat because they're "good for society." That is socialism and I reject it.

Here's an idea… I'll take care of me, you take care of you, and others can take care of themselves. No more socialism.

---

You're used socialism the way the left uses the word racism. It's not applicable here.

Sounds like you're a libertarian. Ok then. I'm a conservative. So I'm ok with government stepping in to conserve the social order, if free market or the population fails to do so. Half of our country having credit card debt is not good for the social order.

I don't want their debt forgiven though, as they borrowed that money and need to pay it back now. I'm talking about how to improve that situation moving forward.

WestAustinAg said:

---

Dumb trump. bad trump.

The interest rate is a way for the cc company to analyze risk and make those with more risk pay for the right to be supported in credit. By doing this he is making those with low risk pay for those with high risk.

---

Or, companies can stop issuing cards to high risk borrowers

WestAustinAg said:

---

Good Bull Jones 17 said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Asking the government to step in and start turning dials here and adjusting economic knobs there in the name of a qualitative concept like "fairness" has always had a bad track record. Yes, there have to be guardrails in place but those need to be built over time using congress and the courts. You can't just have a dude wake up in the White House and decide prices will be x or production goals will be y. That has literally never worked.

---

---

I agree here, and I don't like the way Trump is going about it, per say. I just believe credit cards are a menace to society and would support Congress doing something to limit/eliminate them.

---

You seem to put a high amount of trust in your feelings.

In China people dont have credit cards (private). They just get a government score based on their good deads, their proper speech and behavior the govt likes.

In Europe credit cards are hard to get and after 40 years the EU is a fraction of the economic engine that the US was (it started out higher).

---

Has nothing to do with feelings, it's data.

How is a Chinese social credit score relevant to this? I obviously don't want that.

Credit cards are not the sole reason our economy kicks the EU's ass. The EU is acting like they want to self destruct in many different ways. I obviously don't want to be them either.

Haven't read through the thread, but will his rate cuts include mortgages?

Good Bull Jones 17 said:

---

It's not about sticking it to CEOs. It's about creating laws that are a net benefit to society. Credit cards are a clear net negative to society. A huge portion of our society has buried themselves in credit card debt. So why would we allow them? Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

You would not rely on the free market to create and regulate building code by itself. A free market works when you create minimal guidelines, and then allow companies to operate within those guidelines. Guidelines like building code.

---

If you think we need laws then to cover issues that are a net negative to society, sounds like after this we need to
1) ban smoking
2) ban vaping
3) ban all fried foods
4) ban alcohol, again
5) ban all social media including Texags
6) ban social welfare payments because they remove the incentive to work (ok, most of us can get behind that policy because it reverses a net negative created by government)
etc…

where does it stop? We already have created a massive nanny state to detriment of society. Let's not add to it.

Good Bull Jones 17 said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

Good Bull Jones 17 said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Asking the government to step in and start turning dials here and adjusting economic knobs there in the name of a qualitative concept like "fairness" has always had a bad track record. Yes, there have to be guardrails in place but those need to be built over time using congress and the courts. You can't just have a dude wake up in the White House and decide prices will be x or production goals will be y. That has literally never worked.

---

---

I agree here, and I don't like the way Trump is going about it, per say. I just believe credit cards are a menace to society and would support Congress doing something to limit/eliminate them.

---

You seem to put a high amount of trust in your feelings.

In China people dont have credit cards (private). They just get a government score based on their good deads, their proper speech and behavior the govt likes.

In Europe credit cards are hard to get and after 40 years the EU is a fraction of the economic engine that the US was (it started out higher).

---

Has nothing to do with feelings, it's data.

How is a Chinese social credit score relevant to this? I obviously don't want that.

Credit cards are not the sole reason our economy kicks the EU's ass. The EU is acting like they want to self destruct in many different ways. I obviously don't want to be them either.

---

This is not data, this is a feeling/your opinion:

Quote:

---

Half of our country having credit card debt is not good for the social order.

---