73 Reds

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.

Every single issue? The issues we discuss here are hardly what anyone would consider a proper sample size of everything and anything important to me from a policy standpoint. You yourself just today for the very first time asked me what Trump policies I don't agree with after months of labeling me a cultist. I'm sure you don't buy now and research later when it comes to your investments. I am also reasonably certain that if you ask people how they define MAGA, everyone's definition would be different yet it is just so easy to slap a label on it in pursuit of a narrative.

So you assume that when people speak up on certain issues here on this Board that happen to also coincide with Trump's positions on these matters that they are all cultists? Without even a shred of evidence other than the few issues we have discussed here, you accused me and others of just that. You assume things not in evidence (sorry for the legal jargon) and make conclusions based on your own ideology rather than a complete understanding. And we're in the cult?

OK, my bad. But if you support some Trump policies why is it so hard to understand why people voted for Trump? To some of us everything the other side did was intentional and thereby worse than mere incompetence.

I didn't ask you; you asked me. Are you sure you're OK?

When you and others label people as a cult, or Maga, it is hard to take the discussion seriously. Labels are convenient and lazy. But just for you, one of my biggest gripes with Trump is his pushing Crypto. A lot of people are going to get hurt someday.

Wrong. When you assume......Thanks for so clearly making my point yet again.

See, that's just silly. What you fail to grasp is that many people (myself included) support issues regardless of who peddles them. I've long since argued that usurious interest rates are predatory and that didn't change with the advent of Donald Trump. When you label everyone as being part of a cult you demonstrate a lack of understanding and your own "cultist" attitude. You asked how they can make money at 10%. Well, how do they make money on people like me who pay 0%?

On the surface it sounds fine to me but I haven't read the details.

I support not charging usurious interest rates to people who are either ignorant, desperate or in financial straights. No one can withstand 20%+ interest rates for long and certainly not for consumer debt. Even as a hard money lender, I always suggest that borrowers try all other alternatives before coming to me.