Flamingo kid
Everybody's hands go UP!
I had a discussion with someone last night about credit card companies and how they basically are ruining the country and here's my point.
Lets say there there was a US law that said no one (companies) is allowed to lend money to anyone else. In other words, if you can't afford to purchase something outright, in cash, in full, you can't buy it.
If i go into 7/11 and want a pack of gum, its 99 cents. Either i can afford the 99 cents or i cannot. I'm not going to take out a loan and sign a gazillion forms to 'finance' part of that gum. I either can afford it today, or i don't buy it.
Now, with subprime mortgages, those little puppies inflated house prices SO high that anyone who actually had cash in the bank (to buy a house outright, by writing a check) got the shaft. Those people saw houses go up so high in value, that it was worth it to just keep their money in the bank and not spend a penny.
My theory was that if there was no 'credit' and everyone had to either purchase with cash (on the spot, paid in full without the help of a company lending you money) prices wouldn't be as high as they are. There wouldn't be as much 'inflation'.
Would the country be worse off if there was just no credit card companies and you could only buy stuff with money you currently have?
I know we are too far gone at this point, but if CC companies (and companies who loan money at a fixed rate) were never invented in the first place, this country might be better off.
Would we be better off or worse off? Inflation and lending seems to actually only hurt people who have money and not the people who do not.
What incentive does Joe Schmoe have to go out and make something of himself if a company is just going to come along and lend him a million bucks to buy a house?
Lets say there there was a US law that said no one (companies) is allowed to lend money to anyone else. In other words, if you can't afford to purchase something outright, in cash, in full, you can't buy it.
If i go into 7/11 and want a pack of gum, its 99 cents. Either i can afford the 99 cents or i cannot. I'm not going to take out a loan and sign a gazillion forms to 'finance' part of that gum. I either can afford it today, or i don't buy it.
Now, with subprime mortgages, those little puppies inflated house prices SO high that anyone who actually had cash in the bank (to buy a house outright, by writing a check) got the shaft. Those people saw houses go up so high in value, that it was worth it to just keep their money in the bank and not spend a penny.
My theory was that if there was no 'credit' and everyone had to either purchase with cash (on the spot, paid in full without the help of a company lending you money) prices wouldn't be as high as they are. There wouldn't be as much 'inflation'.
Would the country be worse off if there was just no credit card companies and you could only buy stuff with money you currently have?
I know we are too far gone at this point, but if CC companies (and companies who loan money at a fixed rate) were never invented in the first place, this country might be better off.
Would we be better off or worse off? Inflation and lending seems to actually only hurt people who have money and not the people who do not.
What incentive does Joe Schmoe have to go out and make something of himself if a company is just going to come along and lend him a million bucks to buy a house?