Hero today

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38210863)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38210867)

this dumb broad is just trolling for clicks by appealing to the absolute gutter and calling it "populist"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38210935)

And then when people default and the bank's at risk of going under, we socialize the losses, hehe.

Fuck that. I hope the Dems assrape the banks the instant they gain power.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38210955)

"Simply coping with daily expenses is driving some people into debt, especially lower-income families, defined here as those earning less than $50,000 a year. "Buying groceries" ranked as the top expense that added to people's balances, according to the survey.

About 28 percent of respondents say they depend on credit cards to pay for essentials such as rent and utilities.

Emergency expenses also contribute significantly to credit card debt, many respondents say. About 30 percent cite medical bills, and 40 percent say car repairs have added to their balance."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/70-percent-of-people-with-credit-card-debt-cant-pay-it-off-this-year.html

Oh what irresponsible deadbeats!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38211014)

You think credit cards wouldn't be profitable capped at 15% interest?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38214785)

protecting irresponsible people to the detriment of responsible people pretty much sums up the lib mentality

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38211135)

They enact or repeal legislation when no one is paying attention when they know it would have no popular support. Then, when people try to change the law to correct whatever horrible shit they've done, they get tards like ITT to defend the new status quo.

Could anyone plausibly defend eliminating a usury cap? Of course not. But once you eliminate it you'll get bootlickers to defend changing it, because of course they'll defend it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38213536)

Their credit card business is being restructured as all fuck too. The merchant payments side of the business (Paymentech) is doing well but the consumer side is meh at best.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38211012)

In what and why is that bad? Why do you hate a healthy economy?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38215549)

She could be so 180000

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38210893)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38213222)

Why would banks extend credit to people that are likely to default when the only incentive to do so is to capture 15% interest IF and only IF they actually ever pay (plus interchange fees of course). Remember, this is unsecured debt, so if there’s a default they’ll never get the money back. Banks will just raise their lending standards.

Now, one poaster above mentioned disparate impact. This is the only real concern, but it won’t keep banks from restricting their offers of credit but so much. With the CFPB less militant now, and the use of credit scoring to justify the decision, the risk is lower. Even the Obama CFPB when it was hitting up banks for disparate impact had to take the position that disparities could not be explained credit score. Banks won’t utterly compromise their credit modeling to avoid fair lending risk.

Edit: And there’s precedent now - after the financial crisis, all banks restricted mortgage lending, which undoubtedly had a disparate impact. Banks faced some heat from left wing advocacy groups, but those groups weren’t particularly successful in getting regulators to require banks to drop their standards. This was during the height of Obama CFPB/DOJ fair lending craziness, and even then you only saw mortgage lending standards start to relax when it made economic sense for banks to do so, not as a result of huge pressure on fair lending.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38214368)

*Leans into mic*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38214474)

This makes perfect sense of course. This is like saying, prior to the 90s, people who didn’t go to medical school couldn’t work as doctors.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38214483)

fourths of American families had one or more credit cards, up from about one-half of a smaller population in 1970"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38214515)

Do you think banks would have simply stopped giving out credit because they could only make good profits instead of completely unprecedented ludicrous profits?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38214655)

You seem fixated on corporate profits when my OP wasn’t about that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38214661)

https://i.imgur.com/z9PO9zA.png

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38215624)

Now you’re changing your argument to “Jamie Diamond is overpaid!”

Do you want the federal government to cap executive pay?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38215814)

Do you also think Apple is fleecing poor people with their 22% net margin?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38215849)

Look, I think you’re conflating two subsets of consumers. There is a subset of consumers who gets charged more than 15% interest currently but for whom it would still be profitable to extend them credit at a 15% rate. That’s just an acknowledgement that it’s not a perfect market and that even if it was, some people don’t pick their credit based solely on rate (in fact, most don’t - rewards seem to be a bigger driver).

But then there’s the other group of consumers for whom it’s not profitable to extend them personal, consumer, unsecured credit at 15% or less. While I don’t have hard numbers on this counterfacutal, I surmise that is a pretty large group based on what I know about this market. For that group, they will be priced out. It’s that marginal group I’m talking about. It’s not about profit margin. A bank isn’t going to extend credit if it’s a losing proposition.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38216310)

everyone is guaranteed credit. that's how this works.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38213892)

capitalism bad. that's been taught to them since kindergarten and the 2010s inundated them with that plus socialism good from politicians, actors, talk shows, news shows, etc

end result? bernie, aoc, 2020 dem field

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38215898)

you are jealous of what others have. you think it's not fair. you don't care about why it happened, you want it to be closer to your idea of fair. you can't explain what fair is, but you'll know it when you feel it.

right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38216342)

A full 63% of U.S. had a credit card in 1977, 3 years before Congress exempted banks from state usury laws. 38% had a bank-type card, more than double the percent of families that had a bank-type card in 1970.. Again, this was *before* Congress decided to betray the American public. Somehow, banks had no problem giving out credit even when they were bound to standards of decency by the U.S. government.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38214609)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258088&forum_id=2#38214674)