obviously in my example "fair" is a subjective term i can't prove with facts what is and isn't fair anymore than i can prove red is a better color than blue.
i think the grand total of college expenses than went on the credit card were in the $5,000 and she spend in the neighborhood of $7,000 to remove the debt.
look i know the credit card was the only option. geez are you going to explain how water is wet next?
How is my point moot? Maybe you've misunderstood my point, which is that being forced to choose between failing out college and over-paying a debt is a shit choice.
I'm not arguing that the credit card didn't have a benefit, simply that it was overpriced non-choice benefit. A parallel would be if someone offered you cake, but to get the cake you had to break your left pinkie finger, and if you decided not to take the cake, you had to break your right pinkie.
You could argue that in the end you got the benefit of cake but that doesn't mean had a choice in the matter
I haven't really made this clear but my main bone to pick with the credit card companies is the overly inflated interest rates. I agree that its good to have the option of credit as it allows people to purchase necessities which they are unable to pay wholly out of pocket.
I'm confused what your point is. Do you think that because the credit card companies are lending the money they should be able to charge whatever interest rate they choose? Is 40% interest too much? 50%? Do you think 25% interest (which seems to be current average) is fair?
But its not a voluntary transaction if its a necessity and there are no viable alteratives (be they not making the transaction or getting credit through an alterative source)
50 years ago the gap between average income and the cost of necessities like shelter was not as great, thats why they got along fine without them.
As a general principal its true that if you dictate the terms then you must be free to dictate the offer yes. However credit is not a luxary in our current economic system. Its all but short of a necessity. Therefore I think its immoral to make the kind of profits credit card companies make off of a necessity.
I can't explain any better that the choice between massive debt and failing out of college or job loss is a non-choice and therefore not voluntary. The argument is therefore not moot.
just as an example of the income/cost gap in 1950 average income was $3210 per year and the average cost of a new house was $8450 (2.6 years of income)
in 2007 (the latest year i could find) average income was $40,405 and the average cost of a new house was $299,1000 (7.4 years of income)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
dwer.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2009-10-12 02:48 pm
Re: Yep, that sounds like democrats.
i think the grand total of college expenses than went on the credit card were in the $5,000 and she spend in the neighborhood of $7,000 to remove the debt.
What do I think would be fair? 5,800 to 6,000.
Re: Yep, that sounds like democrats.
How is my point moot? Maybe you've misunderstood my point, which is that being forced to choose between failing out college and over-paying a debt is a shit choice.
I'm not arguing that the credit card didn't have a benefit, simply that it was overpriced non-choice benefit. A parallel would be if someone offered you cake, but to get the cake you had to break your left pinkie finger, and if you decided not to take the cake, you had to break your right pinkie.
You could argue that in the end you got the benefit of cake but that doesn't mean had a choice in the matter
Re: Yep, that sounds like democrats.
I'm confused what your point is. Do you think that because the credit card companies are lending the money they should be able to charge whatever interest rate they choose? Is 40% interest too much? 50%? Do you think 25% interest (which seems to be current average) is fair?
Re: Yep, that sounds like democrats.
Re: Yep, that sounds like democrats.
Re: Yep, that sounds like democrats.
As a general principal its true that if you dictate the terms then you must be free to dictate the offer yes. However credit is not a luxary in our current economic system. Its all but short of a necessity. Therefore I think its immoral to make the kind of profits credit card companies make off of a necessity.
I can't explain any better that the choice between massive debt and failing out of college or job loss is a non-choice and therefore not voluntary. The argument is therefore not moot.
Re: Yep, that sounds like democrats.
in 2007 (the latest year i could find) average income was $40,405 and the average cost of a new house was $299,1000 (7.4 years of income)