73 Reds

<< I can't figure out>> Yep.

Sure Sanjeev, everyone should pay exhorbitant interest rates. Nice lesson there!

@dwy000 You genuinely remind me of my kids when they were teenagers. I'm done here.

That's horseshit. No foresight whatsoever. And not good for the economy, society, the debtor or his/her creditors.

The punishment and solution for not being able to pay your bills should never be an increasing inability to pay your bills.

No! How is it that college students are literally bombarded with CC applications?

I think that is just silly. Find me someone (anyone) who applied for a CC with the specific intent to pay max interest and minimum monthly payments. No one is happy or content doing that. And it is not good for anyone. It should not even be an option to begin with.

Student loans is a more complex issue. I have no issue with student loans (or any loans, really) as long as there is a legitimate means of repayment by the debtor. Ideally, the purpose of the loan is an education that leads to a productive job or career; hardly the same as financing consumer debt. I also don't know of any student loans at rates of 20%+/year. And student loans are not the only way to get an education for those without means; I went to school with many folks who worked to pay for their educations while going to school (myself included). Others pursued alternative forms of assistance like grants, scholarships, etc... It is a complicated issue because of how valuable a higher education is normally viewed.

Legal gambling (as opposed to illegal gambling with a bookie, e.g.) is a different issue - theoretically you can only lose what you bet, you don't pay perpetual interest on your losses. You can lose everything you bet but not more than everything.

Didn't answer the question. CC companies can deny CC applications. Everyone is not "legally entitled" to a CC. There are means other than credit cards in order to live. As someone involved in direct lending and credit businesses I find it unconscionable that companies can charge such interest rates to people with no legitimate means of repayment. And you completely avoided the real issue (good for the economy?), which guido-like interest rates are clearly NOT.

So how is that beneficial to the economy, not to mention the individual, their dependents, their creditors, and society as a whole? The GOAT investor achieved 20%/year CAGR yet it is fine for people living paycheck to paycheck or no paycheck whatsoever to pay that interest rate and more on depreciating assets or no assets at all? On what planet does that make any sense?

Oh gee - a recession! The World might come to an end. And I think you're wrong. Who pays these interest rates and why? Is that something worth promoting?

It will ultimately be good for 70% of the Country. It is short term thinking that gets people in trouble. It will be even better if it is extended in some form or fashion, rather than being a carve-out exception to usury laws.

That is textbook absurdity. No one who can afford it pays 20 - 30% interest on consumer debt. But go ahead and think usury is OK. Glad you're not running any of my businesses.

Its just amazing to me that people actually believe that creating overextended finances for the very people who can least afford it is good for the economy. Or maybe it isn't amazing at all. Those of us who get our heads out of text books and reported data know better.

What the hell kind of generalization is "most of America"? Who do you think pays for those who spend beyond what they can afford?

Correction: The won't be spending what they don't have.

Because usury is wrong, damaging and debilitating to those directly affected. And if you are correct that 70% of people won't have CCs as a result, it is a good thing that people who can't afford such interest rates won't have to pay them.

Attacks on the Fed are a lot of bluster and hot air but am very curious how the threat of 10% max interest rates on CCs plays out. Personally think it is a great idea and could care less how it is viewed politically or by financial markets.

Yeah, by itself a moat has little value. The real value is in the brand the moat is there to defend. You need both. As great as KO's moat may be, for decades the stock has just done OK.

Mostly the same as what I own today but certainly less Berkshire.

Whoa Nelly, the division started a long time before 2016. Trump was a direct result of the growing division.

<<It is stupid and reckless. They should have been arrested and their car impounded.>>. Completely agree. If that would happen immediately after one warning when any law enforcement operation is being intentionally impeded, there would be a lot less incidents.

Also important to distinguish between paid protesters and people that are genuinely out there expressing their opinions. When you have to pay people to act unsavory in order to make a point, the narrative becomes more important than the point you are trying to make. Kind of sad really, that the public falls for it.

John, he's a lousy debater but a good investor.