Nothing to do with Fiat money, the worst that can happen to a banker is he loses his job. There is not much of a disincentive.Gotta love Fiat money.
Fuck Israel
So you'd prefer to go back to the days of personal loans? I'd like to see you down on your hands and knees begging a rich man to extend you a loanDilbert_X wrote:
Nothing to do with Fiat money, the worst that can happen to a banker is he loses his job. There is not much of a disincentive.Gotta love Fiat money.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Bankers doing stupid things is unrelated to fiat money.
Having a gold standard would not prevent them lending to fuckwits, the absence of a gold standard does make it many times worse when it goes wrong though.
Having a gold standard would not prevent them lending to fuckwits, the absence of a gold standard does make it many times worse when it goes wrong though.
Fuck Israel
No, that wouldn't work. More often than not the money required for a certain brilliant idea can only reasonably be acquired through that very idea. As such, getting rid off credit would completely stupify your economy. It would only work in combination with Lenninism.CameronPoe wrote:
By saving money from the wages paid for your own labour?DrunkFace wrote:
No, how is anyone going to start a business or buy a house without borrowing money?
Actually, yes. Owning a house isn't really that uncommon in the world or in history. It is our contemporary extreme urbanism that necks it. As such means should be provided to enable people to overcome these limitations. Also, while the younger generation may have grown up with not owning a house, in many countries or even provinces this is not the case. And to be honest,.. I don't even know if I wanna make it to 50; those whom the gods love die young.CameronPoe wrote:
In the alternate reality I can't imagine it being too much of stretch to own your own house by the age of say 50. Do you view owned housing as a right?
Regarding your comparison to an MP3 player,.. maybe it's a cutural thing, but that's just wrong. Houses are things of real value, essential in a way to your survival, they are also objects that often stay in the family. An MP3 player is a tacky piece of plastic that spews out sounds that don't even match the real thing.
They should ban credit cards though, especially for (young) Americans.
It sounds pretty retarded at first, but from what I've heard about it, it is actually genius.jsnipy wrote:
Nothing more than Islamic style credit should be allowed (yes I am serious)
Last edited by Lai (2009-09-11 07:57:51)
So if a bum asks to "borrow" $50 from me. With no source of income, no ability to pay it back. It would be his fault if I exteneded the loan that would never be paid back?JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't see anyone putting a gun to these peoples heads and telling them to accept the credit card offers. It's not the banks fault, it's the people accepting the cards who are at fault. It's the people taking out a loan on a house they can't really afford's fault.Dilbert_X wrote:
FixedIt's not the peoples fault these banks have no self control or fiscal sense.
No, it definitely goes both ways. The OP was criticizing banks and the lending system solely while ignoring the fact that much, if not most, of the problem was people overextending themselves on credit.nlsme1 wrote:
So if a bum asks to "borrow" $50 from me. With no source of income, no ability to pay it back. It would be his fault if I exteneded the loan that would never be paid back?JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't see anyone putting a gun to these peoples heads and telling them to accept the credit card offers. It's not the banks fault, it's the people accepting the cards who are at fault. It's the people taking out a loan on a house they can't really afford's fault.Dilbert_X wrote:
Fixed
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Saving up to buy something is a virtue lost on an entire generation and its a lesson that many are learning the hard way.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, it definitely goes both ways. The OP was criticizing banks and the lending system solely while ignoring the fact that much, if not most, of the problem was people overextending themselves on credit.nlsme1 wrote:
So if a bum asks to "borrow" $50 from me. With no source of income, no ability to pay it back. It would be his fault if I exteneded the loan that would never be paid back?JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't see anyone putting a gun to these peoples heads and telling them to accept the credit card offers. It's not the banks fault, it's the people accepting the cards who are at fault. It's the people taking out a loan on a house they can't really afford's fault.
True, people will live beyond their means if they have access to easy credit. But easy credit has one other effect that creates a feed back loop leading people deeper into debt, that being when people en masse can access more money to pay for items then those items will artificially rise in value. Case in point is the housing fiasco, house prices rising at a rate of 20% per year, year after year. Why did houses rise in value so dramatically? it was because people could access easy credit and the prices paid are what the market will bear. Insert easy credit and the ability to pay higher prices goes up beyond what should be reasonably expected. Now you add easy credit for pay at the gas pump, pay for food, pay for restaurants, pay for goods and services and that creates upward pressure on all prices. "if you ask your price for it, they will swipe to pay for it." What was seen in the recent crash and the run up on gas prices and household staples was that people became even more dependant on credit because of the simple fact that real wages have declined over the last 25 years. Whatever, happened to the ideal of the husband being able to make enough to support the whole family so the wife can stay at home and raise the children to be good citizens. Today two wage earners can have difficult time to make ends meet.
So while you can say most of the problem was people over extending themselves, in fact much of the deflationary pressures we now face are the result of easy credit artificially inflating prices and you can't ignore the fact that if easy credit never existed then these people could not have over extended themselves in the first place. And the fact that the inflationary pressures of easy credit also adversely affected other people who would otherwise have lived more prudently by saving before spending. Those people suffered because they saw their real income diminish due to the run up on prices and I'm sure that some of those people had to start using credit cards more to make ends meet.
If easy credit is the problem, the the regulators should take a page from the supply siders and dry up the supply of easy credit. And if the supply of easy credit is the problem then its the banks who are to blame. btw watch the movie maxed out it describes how easy credit to people who ultimately default is a profit bonanza for banks because after late fees, penalties, legal fees etc are added, the original debt on the card gets doubled. People might be stupid and greedy, but the banks are loan sharking and acting like criminals.
As for usury, whatever happened to the criminal usury, imo all fees should be factored in at a percentage rate. Its insane that a person owing $5, might be facing $10 on a late fee which is a penalty at the rate of 200%. This nickel and diming of the American public is truly criminal.
It takes two to tango:Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't see anyone holding guns to the heads of bankers and forcing them to send out fliers to people they haven't researched offering them credit cards with $25,000 credit limits, or forcing them to hand over hundreds of thousands of dollars to people who will never repay it.I don't see anyone putting a gun to these peoples heads and telling them to accept the credit card offers. It's not the banks fault, it's the people accepting the cards who are at fault. It's the people taking out a loan on a house they can't really afford's fault.
I do see a lot of bankers taking highly risky steps in the knowledge they will reap the bonuses if it goes right and someone else will bear the cost if it goes wrong.
I also see banks loaning many times more than they have on deposit - pretty much the definition of imprudence.
Someone who's willing to take on more than they know they can afford
and
someone who's willing to offer them that
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ec … isprudence
I'm not one to usually support religion getting involved with business, but the Islamic concept of lending without interest has always appealed to me.
I'm not one to usually support religion getting involved with business, but the Islamic concept of lending without interest has always appealed to me.
Correct, which is why I initially saidFEOS wrote:
It takes two to tango:
'There's nothing wrong with credit used properly, provided credit isn't advanced to people who are certain not to repay it, and people don't take credit they know they'll never repay'
John G@lt was leaning on the customer too much.
Fuck Israel
Of course, because you believe in someone getting the benefit while someone else is footed with the bill.Turquoise wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economic_jurisprudence
I'm not one to usually support religion getting involved with business, but the Islamic concept of lending without interest has always appealed to me.
And you were leaning on the banker too much.Dilbert_X wrote:
Correct, which is why I initially saidFEOS wrote:
It takes two to tango:
'There's nothing wrong with credit used properly, provided credit isn't advanced to people who are certain not to repay it, and people don't take credit they know they'll never repay'
John G@lt was leaning on the customer too much.
Which is why I said
"It takes two to tango"
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I would be very much for severely limiting the ability to gain credit. All you people arguing that you would be unable to afford a lot of things without credit have to change how you think. I sure hope you realize that you are paying a lot more for something when purchased on credit. If you were to save for something you would be able to afford it much quicker than you may realize. Of course this is assuming you have saved for everything you are buying (except large purchases of course). I do agree that we, as a society are far to needy. We most certainly do not need the houses that we live in. We certainly do not need the kind of cars we drive.
Imagine what kind of life your children or their children could have if you work your butt off for most of your life and pass down what you have acquired to them and so on. They wouldn't have to worry much about financing anything would they. Sacrifice for your spawn you greedy pukes.
As for whoever said it would only make the rich, richer. How so? Where do the rich get their money? If people would be more selective about how they spend their money they would retain a lot more personal wealth instead of gleefully funnelling it to bankers and investors.
In reality, we need to hold ourselves accountable. I blame the banks as much as the people. If I walk into a bank, I am responsible for the loan I walk out with, no-one else. I take full responsibility, no-one else. If I default on the loan, what-ever was down as collateral is the banks. My loss, no government bail-out, no hard feelings on my part. If the bank made a wise deal as far as appropriate collateral, then they are just fine as well, maybe even ahead if I had been paying for a bit.
Summary for you slow readers: Overall credit is useful, but dangerous. We are greedy people.
Imagine what kind of life your children or their children could have if you work your butt off for most of your life and pass down what you have acquired to them and so on. They wouldn't have to worry much about financing anything would they. Sacrifice for your spawn you greedy pukes.
As for whoever said it would only make the rich, richer. How so? Where do the rich get their money? If people would be more selective about how they spend their money they would retain a lot more personal wealth instead of gleefully funnelling it to bankers and investors.
In reality, we need to hold ourselves accountable. I blame the banks as much as the people. If I walk into a bank, I am responsible for the loan I walk out with, no-one else. I take full responsibility, no-one else. If I default on the loan, what-ever was down as collateral is the banks. My loss, no government bail-out, no hard feelings on my part. If the bank made a wise deal as far as appropriate collateral, then they are just fine as well, maybe even ahead if I had been paying for a bit.
Summary for you slow readers: Overall credit is useful, but dangerous. We are greedy people.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
That's one way of looking at it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Of course, because you believe in someone getting the benefit while someone else is footed with the bill.Turquoise wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economic_jurisprudence
I'm not one to usually support religion getting involved with business, but the Islamic concept of lending without interest has always appealed to me.
Oddly enough I favor the Islamic approach to banking.
you should ~ between Islamic countries and China, we may need to learn how banking's done.ATG wrote:
Oddly enough I favor the Islamic approach to banking.
it may be the new system.
Wrong, you are borrowing money at a reasonably low interest rate to make larger gains in capital growth. It's called investing.LividBovine wrote:
I would be very much for severely limiting the ability to gain credit. All you people arguing that you would be unable to afford a lot of things without credit have to change how you think. I sure hope you realize that you are paying a lot more for something when purchased on credit. If you were to save for something you would be able to afford it much quicker than you may realize. Of course this is assuming you have saved for everything you are buying (except large purchases of course). I do agree that we, as a society are far to needy. We most certainly do not need the houses that we live in. We certainly do not need the kind of cars we drive.
Read that... To buy an average house in Sydney you need to be earning in excess of $75,000 just to keep even with price increases, and much more in order to save enough to purchase one. Or you could rent, which would cost you about the same of interest repayments but you'll get none of the capital gains and wont own anything after 20 or so years.DrunkFace wrote:
House prices double approx every 7 years (or 10% a year). The average house price in Sydney is about $500,000 and if you want to live anywhere remotely nice you're looking at $800,000-1mil +. You start out on a good salary of say $50k a year, (lets say after tax to make it easier, which btw would be an awesome salary for any uni grad), about 25k goes in living expenses assuming you live on the bare minimum and rent a shit house apartment miles from anywhere. So you save 25k.... but in that time on average house prices rose by 10% or $50,000. So now after working for a year you are now $25k worse off.
Ohh goody lets leave the prospects of my future in the hands of my parents and their parents, tough luck if your born into the wrong family with the selfish or stupid parents.Imagine what kind of life your children or their children could have if you work your butt off for most of your life and pass down what you have acquired to them and so on. They wouldn't have to worry much about financing anything would they. Sacrifice for your spawn you greedy pukes.
Rent. If you can't borrow money to buy your own home, you're going to have to rent of someone who does have enough money to have bought the property. So instead of investing in your future, you're paying for someone else's.As for whoever said it would only make the rich, richer. How so? Where do the rich get their money? If people would be more selective about how they spend their money they would retain a lot more personal wealth instead of gleefully funnelling it to bankers and investors.
Yes, but if you default on your loan you lose nothing. The banks are the ones with the money and the ones who should be insuring their assets. They are 95% responsible for the banking collapse. Let me put it this way, you get you pay check every week and want to put it in the bank, do you choose the large respected and funded bank or the dodgy loan shark down at the track. If you choose the dodgy loan shark and he packs ups and skips town, who's fault is it that you lost your money?In reality, we need to hold ourselves accountable. I blame the banks as much as the people. If I walk into a bank, I am responsible for the loan I walk out with, no-one else. I take full responsibility, no-one else. If I default on the loan, what-ever was down as collateral is the banks. My loss, no government bail-out, no hard feelings on my part. If the bank made a wise deal as far as appropriate collateral, then they are just fine as well, maybe even ahead if I had been paying for a bit.
Credit is essential to today's society and every other functioning society in the past 4000 years.Summary for you slow readers: Overall credit is useful, but dangerous. We are greedy people.
What moron is going to risk their assets without any form of compensation?Turquoise wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economic_jurisprudence
I'm not one to usually support religion getting involved with business, but the Islamic concept of lending without interest has always appealed to me.
Also how are banks going to make money to pay for their employees? fees? Which is in a sense the same as interest just not based on amounts borrowed. Then you ave a problem of people no longer depositing their savings in banks because it offers them nothing in return. Better off keeping the money under the mattress. At least then you wont lose it when the bank goes bankrupt (which it most certainly will).
Last edited by DrunkFace (2009-09-11 19:35:31)
So people who had parents who earned enough to save are entitled to a better life, those whose parents only broke even aren't?Imagine what kind of life your children or their children could have if you work your butt off for most of your life and pass down what you have acquired to them and so on. They wouldn't have to worry much about financing anything would they.
Sorry thats crap, plus the 'clogs to clogs in three generations' theory means you're not achieving much.
Credit is good, it means I make a good return on what I have in the bank, and if I need money to develop a business or some other investment which might return more than base rates its there too.
It also means people can have what they need now and pay it off, rather than earning and buying when its too late.
Fuck Israel
DrunkFace wrote:
Wrong, you are borrowing money at a reasonably low interest rate to make larger gains in capital growth. It's called investing.
This wreeks of greed. Take that out of it and try again. The market changes in this hypothetical situation.DrunkFace wrote:
House prices double approx every 7 years (or 10% a year). The average house price in Sydney is about $500,000 and if you want to live anywhere remotely nice you're looking at $800,000-1mil +. You start out on a good salary of say $50k a year, (lets say after tax to make it easier, which btw would be an awesome salary for any uni grad), about 25k goes in living expenses assuming you live on the bare minimum and rent a shit house apartment miles from anywhere. So you save 25k.... but in that time on average house prices rose by 10% or $50,000. So now after working for a year you are now $25k worse off.
Why do you have to live in Sydney?DrunkFace wrote:
Read that... To buy an average house in Sydney you need to be earning in excess of $75,000 just to keep even with price increases, and much more in order to save enough to purchase one. Or you could rent, which would cost you about the same of interest repayments but you'll get none of the capital gains and wont own anything after 20 or so years.
Imagine what kind of life your children or their children could have if you work your butt off for most of your life and pass down what you have acquired to them and so on. They wouldn't have to worry much about financing anything would they. Sacrifice for your spawn you greedy pukes.
Yeah lets keeps things going the way they are. Oh goody, I will hand my kids over a house that is worth less than is owed for it. Same for the car. And all those goodies in my house, well those were financed as well. Great option too. Read my post again, I feel like it wreeked of personal responsibility. Is that a bad thing?DrunkFace wrote:
Ohh goody lets leave the prospects of my future in the hands of my parents and their parents, tough luck if your born into the wrong family with the selfish or stupid parents.
As for whoever said it would only make the rich, richer. How so? Where do the rich get their money? If people would be more selective about how they spend their money they would retain a lot more personal wealth instead of gleefully funnelling it to bankers and investors.
Maybe buy a smaller house. Didn't I say except large purchases? Yep I did:DrunkFace wrote:
Rent. If you can't borrow money to buy your own home, you're going to have to rent of someone who does have enough money to have bought the property. So instead of investing in your future, you're paying for someone else's.
LividBovine wrote:
(except large purchases of course)
In reality, we need to hold ourselves accountable. I blame the banks as much as the people. If I walk into a bank, I am responsible for the loan I walk out with, no-one else. I take full responsibility, no-one else. If I default on the loan, what-ever was down as collateral is the banks. My loss, no government bail-out, no hard feelings on my part. If the bank made a wise deal as far as appropriate collateral, then they are just fine as well, maybe even ahead if I had been paying for a bit.
Lose nothing? I lose my HOME. The bank gets it and gets to sell it. Read the stinking post. If the bank had made a wise loan, they would now own a house that is worth more than the balance. You really think peoples greed is only worth 5% of the blame or is that split with the government, so they each get 2.5%.Drunkface wrote:
Yes, but if you default on your loan you lose nothing. The banks are the ones with the money and the ones who should be insuring their assets. They are 95% responsible for the banking collapse. Let me put it this way, you get you pay check every week and want to put it in the bank, do you choose the large respected and funded bank or the dodgy loan shark down at the track. If you choose the dodgy loan shark and he packs ups and skips town, who's fault is it that you lost your money?
Summary for you slow readers: Overall credit is useful, but dangerous. We are greedy people.
Did I say get rid of credit? NO!DrunkFace wrote:
Credit is essential to today's society and every other functioning society in the past 4000 years.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Didn't say get rid of credit. You are also confusing the term NEED with WANT.Dilbert_X wrote:
So people who had parents who earned enough to save are entitled to a better life, those whose parents only broke even aren't?Imagine what kind of life your children or their children could have if you work your butt off for most of your life and pass down what you have acquired to them and so on. They wouldn't have to worry much about financing anything would they.
Sorry thats crap, plus the 'clogs to clogs in three generations' theory means you're not achieving much.
Credit is good, it means I make a good return on what I have in the bank, and if I need money to develop a business or some other investment which might return more than base rates its there too.
It also means people can have what they need now and pay it off, rather than earning and buying when its too late.
Have you ever lived by spending only what you have and not putting things on credit? I mean only large purchases on credit and everything else is saved for. You will find you get ahead very quickly. That whole paying interest to a credit card company is foolish. I only do it for the fun.
Last edited by LividBovine (2009-09-11 20:02:20)
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Chinese banking is shit btw. No ethics at all. Just imagine American bankers but will put your money in anything that seems nice.burnzz wrote:
you should ~ between Islamic countries and China, we may need to learn how banking's done.ATG wrote:
Oddly enough I favor the Islamic approach to banking.
it may be the new system.
Thats exactly how I live, I've never paid a cent of interest for anything - cars included - even better than that I've loaned a ton of money to people and made wads of interest.Have you ever lived by spending only what you have and not putting things on credit?
But buying a house with cash is unrealistic, and not everyone can rely on what their parents have saved.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-11 23:54:06)
Fuck Israel
Ethics are the enemy of innovation and creativity.Cybargs wrote:
Chinese banking is shit btw. No ethics at all. Just imagine American bankers but will put your money in anything that seems nice.burnzz wrote:
you should ~ between Islamic countries and China, we may need to learn how banking's done.ATG wrote:
Oddly enough I favor the Islamic approach to banking.
it may be the new system.
How many times do you want me to say it? Credit is fine as long as it is used judiciously, like for large purchases. I am agreeing with you.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats exactly how I live, I've never paid a cent of interest for anything - cars included - even better than that I've loaned a ton of money to people and made wads of interest.Have you ever lived by spending only what you have and not putting things on credit?
But buying a house with cash is unrealistic, and not everyone can rely on what their parents have saved.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)