I understand credit reports, I just don't understand why a report is even being made on that and framed as relevant to the economy. It's a figure with no meaning, some bastardized mix of 'how much people spend on shit' and 'how underwater everyone is'.You just now figuring out how credit reports work?
I guess, so is there really no way to determine carried debt outside surveys? That's kind of a big gap.
I understand credit reports, I just don't understand why a report is even being made on that and framed as relevant to the economy. It's a figure with no meaning, some bastardized mix of 'how much people spend on shit' and 'how underwater everyone is'.
Then it's a pointless figure lol, no wonder the govt is so out of touch with the average American if the understanding is that debt statements is just people buying TVs and shit and using cc instead of cash.The individual CC companies would know hard #s. But good luck getting it all from every vendor.
Then it's a pointless figure lol, no wonder the govt is so out of touch with the average American if the understanding is that debt statements is just people buying TVs and shit and using cc instead of cash.
That was one chart out of 8. We agree nominal CC debt doesn't mean much. My point is that, as a whole, the charts in the article show that the Biden economy is doing fairly well. If you want to nitpick the writer for one misleading chart, or for perhaps trying too hard to appear "fair and balanced," that's okay. IMO that doesn't ruin the credibility of the entire piece.Yes, I think that part of the article is economically ignorant. The data most certainly does not speak for itself though as crucial context is left out as you mention below. That’s bad journalism.
Although my assumption is that reported aggregate CC debt is heavily based on statement balances reported to credit agencies, the methodology is likely more complex. Analysts know who all the major CC issuers are, and they regularly report their credit portfolios in financial results. The Visa/MC/etc. networks report transactional data so they can somewhat model behaviors from that as well. Disclaimer: I'm not an econometrician.I understand credit reports, I just don't understand why a report is even being made on that and framed as relevant to the economy. It's a figure with no meaning, some bastardized mix of 'how much people spend on shit' and 'how underwater everyone is'.
It is if you're making policy off it. It's only partial information so you can only make a partially successful policy off it. I'd rather the govt force the credit agencies to centrally report anonymized debt quantities first, then make policies off that information (both debt carried and spending levels).I mean it's not useless since majority of CC users don't pay off every month. It's just not perfect.
People sell willingly is a fiction we winners tell ourselves to hide from the fact that many many real estate transactions are based on human misery and the destruction of socially vibrant neighborhoods to be replaced by people living in pod-like isolation chambers They sell because the system does not give a shit about them. And I suppose also you don't see that this is exactly what the system is designed to do. Happy people don't spend their pay checks chasing after this and that balm that promises all manner of gratifications.That's pretty rare. I havent' seen it around here in my time. If someone doesn't want to sell their home to an investor, no, the government doesn't come in and claim eminent domain. People sell willingly, but zoning laws then restrict denser housing from being built there.
Same here. I keep a little cash but rarely use it so now there isn’t a month Im not carrying CC debt and those totals are higher than 10 years agoYes. I basically never use cash anymore. I haven’t confirmed this but I assume the data here is statement balances, not revolving debt. Ten years ago I would say my non-bill spending was about 50-50 cash/credit. Now it’s like 95% credit and each month I have a several thousand dollar balance that I pay off in full.
es. I basically never use cash anymore. I haven’t confirmed this but I assume the data here is statement balances, not revolving debt. Ten years ago I would say my non-bill spending was about 50-50 cash/credit. Now it’s like 95% credit and each month I have a several thousand dollar balance that I pay off in full.
You are so fucking dumb as always. I've literally sold people's homes that was part of their retirement nest egg and part of the plan. Trust me they were very fucking happy. People get older and want to move on from a more urban life because they prefer boringness culture free living at some retirement community they boughta house in. They're all pretty fucking happy when they cash out though let me tell you.People sell willingly is a fiction we winners tell ourselves to hide from the fact that many many real estate transactions are based on human misery and the destruction of socially vibrant neighborhoods to be replaced by people living in pod-like isolation chambers They sell because the system does not give a shit about them. And I suppose also you don't see that this is exactly what the system is designed to do. Happy people don't spend their pay checks chasing after this and that balm that promises all manner of gratifications.
I am not so fucking dumb that when I read someone saying that many many real estate sales take place for reasons than you have described as not having seen in your own experience, that a rebuttal to my assertion can’t be you don’t see that in your experience. That was already a given.You are so fucking dumb as always. I've literally sold people's homes that was part of their retirement nest egg and part of the plan. Trust me they were very fucking happy. People get older and want to move on from a more urban life because they prefer boringness culture free living at some retirement community they boughta house in. They're all pretty fucking happy when they cash out though let me tell you.
I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you to understand that it isn't moral to prevent everything around you from changing. And I don't want to get into a side discussion about how morality doesn't exist. That isn't the point. You should not have the right to prevent other people from doing things they think will make them happy, whether you think they are making a mistake or not. You bought your land and house. You didn't buy the right to control everything that happens around it. Short of creating a physical health hazzard, people should be able to do what they want with their land.I am not so fucking dumb that when I read someone saying that many many real estate sales take place for reasons than you have described as not having seen in your own experience, that a rebuttal to my assertion can’t be you don’t see that in your experience. That was already a given.
But even in the happy instances where lucky people bought low in the best growth areas, their decisions to sell may be happy because they are fleeing an area that has become inamicable to their concept of a decent life. I would not want to flatter myself with the thought that a service that helps people gladly flee some sort misery conforms to my idea of free will. That was my point. The economy is driven by emotional needs the system participates in ensuring exist because in a capitalist system money is everything.
I use CC for everything except for groceries and fast food (not very often). Not sure why I draw the line. I guess I feel that if you can't feed yourself without borrowing, you are in trouble, or something like that.Same here. I keep a little cash but rarely use it so now there isn’t a month Im not carrying CC debt and those totals are higher than 10 years ago
I use my CC for groceries because I get a 6% discount. Hell, I even put my rent on a CC because I get rewards for that (Bilt card - no fees when paying rent). All of them get paid off each cycle.I use CC for everything except for groceries and fast food (not very often). Not sure why I draw the line. I guess I feel that if you can't feed yourself without borrowing, you are in trouble, or something like that.
Exactly - the YIMBY movement is simply looking to allow people to make their own choices as to where they want to live. Moonbeam wants to ban people from living in houses he personally disapproves of.I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you to understand that it isn't moral to prevent everything around you from changing. And I don't want to get into a side discussion about how morality doesn't exist. That isn't the point. You should not have the right to prevent other people from doing things they think will make them happy, whether you think they are making a mistake or not. You bought your land and house. You didn't buy the right to control everything that happens around it. Short of creating a physical health hazzard, people should be able to do what they want with their land.
I am not so fucking dumb that when I read someone saying that many many real estate sales take place for reasons than you have described as not having seen in your own experience, that a rebuttal to my assertion can’t be you don’t see that in your experience. That was already a given.
But even in the happy instances where lucky people bought low in the best growth areas, their decisions to sell may be happy because they are fleeing an area that has become inamicable to their concept of a decent life. I would not want to flatter myself with the thought that a service that helps people gladly flee some sort misery conforms to my idea of free will. That was my point. The economy is driven by emotional needs the system participates in ensuring exist because in a capitalist system money is everything.
People sell willingly is a fiction we winners tell ourselves to hide from the fact that many many real estate transactions are based on human misery and the destruction of socially vibrant neighborhoods to be replaced by people living in pod-like isolation chambers They sell because the system does not give a shit about them. And I suppose also you don't see that this is exactly what the system is designed to do. Happy people don't spend their pay checks chasing after this and that balm that promises all manner of gratifications.
Two things, dank……….. I don’t see anything in what I said equating to me wanting to prevent change, nor do I see anything in your post to suggest it would be immoral to do so.I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you to understand that it isn't moral to prevent everything around you from changing. And I don't want to get into a side discussion about how morality doesn't exist. That isn't the point. You should not have the right to prevent other people from doing things they think will make them happy, whether you think they are making a mistake or not. You bought your land and house. You didn't buy the right to control everything that happens around it. Short of creating a physical health hazzard, people should be able to do what they want with their land.
If you don't want to prevent change then you're ok with eliminating zoning laws that prevent people from building 'pod-like isolation chambers' - correct?Two things, dank……….. I don’t see anything in what I said equating to me wanting to prevent change, nor do I see anything in your post to suggest it would be immoral to do so.
If you don't want to prevent change then you're ok with eliminating zoning laws that prevent people from building 'pod-like isolation chambers' - correct?
I think a small studio would be an unpleasant place to live. That being said, I would never want to ban someone from living in it and I bet it's a whole hell of a lot nicer than sleeping on the street or in your car, which is the real alternative.Why do I think he's probably describing like a 400sq ft studio apartment as some kind of inhumane torture dungeon.