|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing. A mortgage is essentially an investment in the housing market with leverage. And leveraged investments can be very safe for the party offering the leverage, as long as the party receiving it has enough exposure to cover variance. If I put $100,000 down on a $500,000 house then the bank doesn't give a shit if it drops to $450,000, nor if I stop making payments and it costs them $20,000 to reclaim and resell the asset. That's all coming out of my $100,000. The problem comes when the home owner can just moonwalk away because they have no skin in the game. And the problem is compounded when you start allowing the homeowner to not only not put any money in but also start cashing out equity whenever the value starts going up. You can put $0 down on a $500,000 house and owe $500,000. Then if the house goes up to $550,000 valuation you cash out $50,000 of equity so you now owe $550,000 on the house. Financial markets in the US play interesting games and generate interesting outcomes.
The only thing that I'd quibble with here is that no lender will let a borrower take equity out of the home such that the borrower has a <20% equity interest in the home at the time of the loan. In fact, lenders generally won't allow home equity line of credit loans for at least year after the initial purchase of the home. At the time of purchase, my current home appraised for higher than the contract value (which is basically unheard of in today's market), yet I still was not allowed to get a HELOC set up to tap into unused equity if I needed to. It didn't even matter that the home is in a market where it's value is expected to increase 10-15% over the course of the next year or that my credit is basically flawless. Stuff like this is why I tend to subscribe to the theory that there's no such thing as "good credit" so much as there's "acceptable credit" and "bad credit."
|
United States43778 Posts
On July 06 2017 05:31 brian wrote:
kwarks perspective of normal car buying in the us is not representative of any car buying experience of my own or my families.
i can see how that's possible and someone out there does it but to call it normal does not resonate. shrug.
The billboards where you live feature car prices? All I see is monthly payments and promotional periods. And the radio increasingly focuses on how much of your underwater car debt you can roll into the next car purchase if you just buy today. And yes, cash back.
Could be a New Mexico thing, we're a very poor state. But it's real.
|
On July 06 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:Meanwhile, as xDaunt alluded to earlier, the systems put in place to help people who actually need help buying a house will be monopolized by the likes of me. Back when I was playing EVE Online there used to be something we called Malcanis' Law which stated Show nested quote +Any mechanism put in place to help the newest players will inevitably end up being used exclusively by and for the oldest players It's a conundrum. Each of the last three years the government has happily doled out $2,000 in retirement savings credits to my wife and I. Meanwhile the working poor don't get shit because they don't read the tax code.
it's one thing I'd work on addressing if I were in congress. It's a very generalizeable problem. it should at least be possible to make some laws that require regulation creators to look at how the effects will vary based on the savviness of the people using them; and to favor systems which are comparatively better for the less savvy. (obviously they won't be better in an absolute sense)
|
United States43778 Posts
On July 06 2017 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:Meanwhile, as xDaunt alluded to earlier, the systems put in place to help people who actually need help buying a house will be monopolized by the likes of me. Back when I was playing EVE Online there used to be something we called Malcanis' Law which stated Any mechanism put in place to help the newest players will inevitably end up being used exclusively by and for the oldest players It's a conundrum. Each of the last three years the government has happily doled out $2,000 in retirement savings credits to my wife and I. Meanwhile the working poor don't get shit because they don't read the tax code. I feel like I am probably one of the people you describe. How do you recommend someone understands the tax code? I don't even know what I'd search. I am interested in being more efficient in the way you described, but the extent of that for me is just putting money in my 401k..
PM me your situation and what you wanna know.
|
Thankfully we live in the age of the internet, so it's easier than ever for someone to naturally be exposed to points of view outside their own. People who have grown up in the US, myself included, who would be otherwise raised on the tradition of private healthcare, wonky finance schemes behind all major purchases, and so on and so forth, can actually come to the realization that things are backward as fuck here, just by interacting with people who live in other countries. That way, support and demand can grow for policies that have been whitewashed from the US way of doing things, that people can't even imagine otherwise, and politicians can see that and adapt by making it part of their platform.
Nothing will happen overnight, but everyone's learning we're not an island anymore.
|
On July 06 2017 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:Meanwhile, as xDaunt alluded to earlier, the systems put in place to help people who actually need help buying a house will be monopolized by the likes of me. Back when I was playing EVE Online there used to be something we called Malcanis' Law which stated Any mechanism put in place to help the newest players will inevitably end up being used exclusively by and for the oldest players It's a conundrum. Each of the last three years the government has happily doled out $2,000 in retirement savings credits to my wife and I. Meanwhile the working poor don't get shit because they don't read the tax code. I feel like I am probably one of the people you describe. How do you recommend someone understands the tax code? I don't even know what I'd search. I am interested in being more efficient in the way you described, but the extent of that for me is just putting money in my 401k..
Hire a good accountant. You strike me as someone who earns enough such that you have no business doing your own taxes. Leave it to the experts.
|
On July 06 2017 05:31 brian wrote:
kwarks perspective of normal car buying in the us is not representative of any car buying experience of my own or my families.
i can see how that's possible and someone out there does it but to call it normal does not resonate. shrug.
Car mega church is pretty on point, tbh. I’ve been to some car dealerships that should be charged with crimes. I went it to have someone look at the electrical system and they tried to convince me they needed my car overnight to fix the breaks(were fine). But they would give me a loaner car if I let them run my credit card(to put a massive hold on it). I’ve never been so close to calling the police to resolve a dispute in my life.
|
On July 06 2017 05:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing. A mortgage is essentially an investment in the housing market with leverage. And leveraged investments can be very safe for the party offering the leverage, as long as the party receiving it has enough exposure to cover variance. If I put $100,000 down on a $500,000 house then the bank doesn't give a shit if it drops to $450,000, nor if I stop making payments and it costs them $20,000 to reclaim and resell the asset. That's all coming out of my $100,000. The problem comes when the home owner can just moonwalk away because they have no skin in the game. And the problem is compounded when you start allowing the homeowner to not only not put any money in but also start cashing out equity whenever the value starts going up. You can put $0 down on a $500,000 house and owe $500,000. Then if the house goes up to $550,000 valuation you cash out $50,000 of equity so you now owe $550,000 on the house. Financial markets in the US play interesting games and generate interesting outcomes. The only thing that I'd quibble with here is that no lender will let a borrower take equity out of the home such that the borrower has a <20% equity interest in the home at the time of the loan. In fact, lenders generally won't allow home equity line of credit loans for at least year after the initial purchase of the home. At the time of purchase, my current home appraised for higher than the contract value (which is basically unheard of in today's market), yet I still was not allowed to get a HELOC set up to tap into unused equity if I needed to. It didn't even matter that the home is in a market where it's value is expected to increase 10-15% over the course of the next year or that my credit is basically flawless. Stuff like this is why I tend to subscribe to the theory that there's no such thing as "good credit" so much as there's "acceptable credit" and "bad credit."
well, good credit vs acceptable credit lets you churn credit cards for sign up bonuses. which, ironically, is made possible by those with bad credit who carry balances and make the credit card co's fat on interest and willing to offer bonuses for more sign ups. when i know i'm making a couple larger purchases, i sign up for a card with a bonus, use big purchases to hit the spending threshold to qualify for the bonus and effectively get a big ole' discount.
|
On July 06 2017 05:39 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing. A mortgage is essentially an investment in the housing market with leverage. And leveraged investments can be very safe for the party offering the leverage, as long as the party receiving it has enough exposure to cover variance. If I put $100,000 down on a $500,000 house then the bank doesn't give a shit if it drops to $450,000, nor if I stop making payments and it costs them $20,000 to reclaim and resell the asset. That's all coming out of my $100,000. The problem comes when the home owner can just moonwalk away because they have no skin in the game. And the problem is compounded when you start allowing the homeowner to not only not put any money in but also start cashing out equity whenever the value starts going up. You can put $0 down on a $500,000 house and owe $500,000. Then if the house goes up to $550,000 valuation you cash out $50,000 of equity so you now owe $550,000 on the house. Financial markets in the US play interesting games and generate interesting outcomes. The only thing that I'd quibble with here is that no lender will let a borrower take equity out of the home such that the borrower has a <20% equity interest in the home at the time of the loan. In fact, lenders generally won't allow home equity line of credit loans for at least year after the initial purchase of the home. At the time of purchase, my current home appraised for higher than the contract value (which is basically unheard of in today's market), yet I still was not allowed to get a HELOC set up to tap into unused equity if I needed to. It didn't even matter that the home is in a market where it's value is expected to increase 10-15% over the course of the next year or that my credit is basically flawless. Stuff like this is why I tend to subscribe to the theory that there's no such thing as "good credit" so much as there's "acceptable credit" and "bad credit." well, good credit vs acceptable credit lets you churn credit cards for sign up bonuses. which, ironically, is made possible by those with bad credit who carry balances and make the credit card co's fat on interest and willing to offer bonuses for more sign ups.
I read Kwark's credit card churning post when he made it, and my recollection was that I had trouble seeing how all of the work would be really worthwhile. I think that the biggest advantage to credit card churning is the ability to effectively get interest-free financing on demand, but I don't carry credit card debt anyway (ie I pay off the balance every month).
|
On July 06 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:31 brian wrote:
kwarks perspective of normal car buying in the us is not representative of any car buying experience of my own or my families.
i can see how that's possible and someone out there does it but to call it normal does not resonate. shrug. Car mega church is pretty on point, tbh. I’ve been to some car dealerships that should be charged with crimes. I went it to have someone look at the electrical system and they tried to convince me they needed my car overnight to fix the breaks(were fine). But they would give me a loaner car if I let them run my credit card(to put a massive hold on it). I’ve never been so close to calling the police to resolve a dispute in my life.
i went to the dealership to get my airbag replaced after my model finally got put on the list for the takata recall. they tried to sell me a new car saying "this one won't have airbag problems!". uh dude, i'm getting my car fixed.
|
On July 06 2017 05:39 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing. A mortgage is essentially an investment in the housing market with leverage. And leveraged investments can be very safe for the party offering the leverage, as long as the party receiving it has enough exposure to cover variance. If I put $100,000 down on a $500,000 house then the bank doesn't give a shit if it drops to $450,000, nor if I stop making payments and it costs them $20,000 to reclaim and resell the asset. That's all coming out of my $100,000. The problem comes when the home owner can just moonwalk away because they have no skin in the game. And the problem is compounded when you start allowing the homeowner to not only not put any money in but also start cashing out equity whenever the value starts going up. You can put $0 down on a $500,000 house and owe $500,000. Then if the house goes up to $550,000 valuation you cash out $50,000 of equity so you now owe $550,000 on the house. Financial markets in the US play interesting games and generate interesting outcomes. The only thing that I'd quibble with here is that no lender will let a borrower take equity out of the home such that the borrower has a <20% equity interest in the home at the time of the loan. In fact, lenders generally won't allow home equity line of credit loans for at least year after the initial purchase of the home. At the time of purchase, my current home appraised for higher than the contract value (which is basically unheard of in today's market), yet I still was not allowed to get a HELOC set up to tap into unused equity if I needed to. It didn't even matter that the home is in a market where it's value is expected to increase 10-15% over the course of the next year or that my credit is basically flawless. Stuff like this is why I tend to subscribe to the theory that there's no such thing as "good credit" so much as there's "acceptable credit" and "bad credit." well, good credit vs acceptable credit lets you churn credit cards for sign up bonuses. which, ironically, is made possible by those with bad credit who carry balances and make the credit card co's fat on interest and willing to offer bonuses for more sign ups. when i know i'm making a couple larger purchases, i sign up for a card with a bonus, use big purchases to hit the spending threshold to qualify for the bonus and effectively get a big ole' discount.
I know someone who's hobby it is to just game these types of bonuses and credit things. Less so now, but you can really stretch the benefits quite far if you're willing to put in the time. Outside of a hobby you're probably better off focusing on other things, but it's still interesting how far you can get taking advantage of various credit and interest perks on offer.
I kinda wish the system didn't have things like promotional perks and cash back and just offered better baseline rates and incentives for people.
|
On July 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:38 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:12 Logo wrote:On July 06 2017 04:05 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 03:45 Plansix wrote:
Edit: Logo - he is right. There are entire cities full of people that know nothing about finance. That isn’t their fault. We destroyed home economics courses long ago because our parents thought they knew better. I think the other thing that bears mentioning on the home ec courses is that the bar of required financial sophistication is far higher now than it used to be. Credit cards and other easy forms of credit completely changed the game. We're way past the simple balancing of a checkbook -- albeit the concept behind that particular skill is still the key to getting good credit and having as many financial tools as possible as your disposal. That is the problem. Our education system did not keep up with the complexity of systems we created. And at the same time we deregulated many of the companies running those systems. You can't just go to your local bank and ask to start a retirement fund with any confidence. So people just ignore he hall of mirrors and hope they can make due without. I'd imagine the recession also did a lot of damage to trust in financial services (I can find sources saying it's low or that it's declined, but nothing like a year over year chart) which probably hurts people's desire to participate in the system until they are dragged into it. The closest your grandparent's generation would have come to modern credit debt are the tales their grandparents would have told them about company scrip. Credit is a game changer and, just like the company store, the system has incentives that could not be more opposed to that of the participant. I don't understand why you need home economics courses to understand that money spent on credit is money owed. You have to be pretty stupid to not understand that, or is there an American cultural issue I am missing? Pension funds and investments are fairly complicated though. Come to America and you'll see. You're starting with an assumption that you don't buy things on credit if you have cash. That's not valid here. Revolving credit has been normalized in a very weird way and interest rates are viewed as less important than monthly payment amounts. It's hard to really explain, coming from the UK to the US. You don't buy cars in the US. You go to the weird megachurch car temple place and you tell them how much you can afford monthly. Then they tell you the biggest truck you can get for that (a Ford F150 costing the median annual salary pre-tax) and give you a shovel of popcorn, a giant soda and you watch a cinema screen of aspirational truck stuff. The good news is that there are no payments to make for 48 months and it's interest free for 72 months. Then three years later you go back and trade it in for a new one. The old truck is the down payment on the new truck and the balance owed on the old truck (which is all the balance) is rolled in to a greater debt in the new truck. "Normal" in the US is very much not normal. Interest isn't really understood. It's normal to be making payments, if the payments are affordable then you're fine, it's only if they're unaffordable that you're irresponsible. I've been in the US for 3 years and I have over 20 credit cards and access to $100,000 or so of credit without giving them any real indication that I can be trusted with that kind of thing. It's a really weird country. But people base their expectations on what they see around them. If they see people around them doing things then the things must be okay. My mind is blown. I can understand the free food and drink, but who would waste their time watching a movie/advert? There's a similar thing in the UK called PCP, but you have to pay a deposit and monthly payments. Then you can choose to stop payment, buy the car outright with the remaining money owed or trade the depreciated value of the car for a new car. Sometimes if you choose to buy the car outright, you will end up paying less than the listed price. The bizarre thing is that total price and interest rate simply aren't part of the conversation when making large purchases anymore. What it costs, both the principal and the total amount you will pay if you finance it, just aren't viewed as important information. The important information in order of importance 1) Duration of promotional no payments period 2) Down payment required (often no down payment) 3) Amount of each payment 4) Amount of cash back they give you (this one will amaze you, so some of the time when you finance shit they actually give you a cash payment, so if you can't afford your rent then it may seem rational to upgrade your truck because you could really use that $2,000 cash back advance) 5) Amount of existing debt they will refinance into the new debt (so if instead of no down payment your situation is actually negative down payment, you owe more on the trade in than it is worth, that's still fine, you can roll that existing debt into the new debt's financing agreement) 6) Duration of promotional interest free period 7) Interest rate 8) Actual cost of the item you are buying 9) Total amount you will pay given 7 and 8 Try to get your head around that. You can buy shit with a negative amount as your down payment and have them add that negative amount to the total you'll owe and even get cash back, rolling that on top too. And people do it. All the time. This is just the normal for America now. It's how people operate. Everyone is in debt and everyone is fine with it and when you can't manage your debt anymore then you refinance to get the payments back under control and simply roll back the date until you've paid off the debt or go interest only for a while. What the actual? 4 is just bizarre. I don't understand 5. You lost your old car to finance your new car, yet you still have to pay for the old car as well as the new car?
|
When you trade in your old car, it typically is worth less money than the value of the principle left on the loan. Rather than making you pay it off, you can add that amount to the loan for the new car.
|
On July 06 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:39 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 06 2017 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing. A mortgage is essentially an investment in the housing market with leverage. And leveraged investments can be very safe for the party offering the leverage, as long as the party receiving it has enough exposure to cover variance. If I put $100,000 down on a $500,000 house then the bank doesn't give a shit if it drops to $450,000, nor if I stop making payments and it costs them $20,000 to reclaim and resell the asset. That's all coming out of my $100,000. The problem comes when the home owner can just moonwalk away because they have no skin in the game. And the problem is compounded when you start allowing the homeowner to not only not put any money in but also start cashing out equity whenever the value starts going up. You can put $0 down on a $500,000 house and owe $500,000. Then if the house goes up to $550,000 valuation you cash out $50,000 of equity so you now owe $550,000 on the house. Financial markets in the US play interesting games and generate interesting outcomes. The only thing that I'd quibble with here is that no lender will let a borrower take equity out of the home such that the borrower has a <20% equity interest in the home at the time of the loan. In fact, lenders generally won't allow home equity line of credit loans for at least year after the initial purchase of the home. At the time of purchase, my current home appraised for higher than the contract value (which is basically unheard of in today's market), yet I still was not allowed to get a HELOC set up to tap into unused equity if I needed to. It didn't even matter that the home is in a market where it's value is expected to increase 10-15% over the course of the next year or that my credit is basically flawless. Stuff like this is why I tend to subscribe to the theory that there's no such thing as "good credit" so much as there's "acceptable credit" and "bad credit." well, good credit vs acceptable credit lets you churn credit cards for sign up bonuses. which, ironically, is made possible by those with bad credit who carry balances and make the credit card co's fat on interest and willing to offer bonuses for more sign ups. I read Kwark's credit card churning post when he made it, and my recollection was that I had trouble seeing how all of the work would be really worthwhile. I think that the biggest advantage to credit card churning is the ability to effectively get interest-free financing on demand, but I don't carry credit card debt anyway (ie I pay off the balance every month).
i don't carry a balance. there are a lot of cards which will offer an easy $100/$200 if you spend a cumulative $500 or $1,000 over 1-3 month period. Some cards will offer really big rewards, like the Chase Sapphire Reserve was offering $1000 in points if you hit $4k in 3 months. Let's say you want to buy a new TV. You get a new card, put the $500 TV on the card and effectively you've just gotten $100 instant rebate on your new TV.
On July 06 2017 05:44 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:39 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 06 2017 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing. A mortgage is essentially an investment in the housing market with leverage. And leveraged investments can be very safe for the party offering the leverage, as long as the party receiving it has enough exposure to cover variance. If I put $100,000 down on a $500,000 house then the bank doesn't give a shit if it drops to $450,000, nor if I stop making payments and it costs them $20,000 to reclaim and resell the asset. That's all coming out of my $100,000. The problem comes when the home owner can just moonwalk away because they have no skin in the game. And the problem is compounded when you start allowing the homeowner to not only not put any money in but also start cashing out equity whenever the value starts going up. You can put $0 down on a $500,000 house and owe $500,000. Then if the house goes up to $550,000 valuation you cash out $50,000 of equity so you now owe $550,000 on the house. Financial markets in the US play interesting games and generate interesting outcomes. The only thing that I'd quibble with here is that no lender will let a borrower take equity out of the home such that the borrower has a <20% equity interest in the home at the time of the loan. In fact, lenders generally won't allow home equity line of credit loans for at least year after the initial purchase of the home. At the time of purchase, my current home appraised for higher than the contract value (which is basically unheard of in today's market), yet I still was not allowed to get a HELOC set up to tap into unused equity if I needed to. It didn't even matter that the home is in a market where it's value is expected to increase 10-15% over the course of the next year or that my credit is basically flawless. Stuff like this is why I tend to subscribe to the theory that there's no such thing as "good credit" so much as there's "acceptable credit" and "bad credit." well, good credit vs acceptable credit lets you churn credit cards for sign up bonuses. which, ironically, is made possible by those with bad credit who carry balances and make the credit card co's fat on interest and willing to offer bonuses for more sign ups. when i know i'm making a couple larger purchases, i sign up for a card with a bonus, use big purchases to hit the spending threshold to qualify for the bonus and effectively get a big ole' discount. I know someone who's hobby it is to just game these types of bonuses and credit things. Less so now, but you can really stretch the benefits quite far if you're willing to put in the time. Outside of a hobby you're probably better off focusing on other things, but it's still interesting how far you can get taking advantage of various credit and interest perks on offer. I kinda wish the system didn't have things like promotional perks and cash back and just offered better baseline rates and incentives for people.
it's very easy to do. credit card apps take about 15 minutes to fill out. you've got your spend lined up (on stuff you've planned/ put aside money to buy) it's basically hundreds of $ for 15 minutes work. penny saved, penny earned and all that.
the point i'm trying to make here i guess is that for people who know how to work the system can really milk it to their advantage. hell, think of what the really rich people are able to get.
i can't find the link right now, but on the other hand you have poorer people making what is effectively a rational decision to take a big haircut on paycheck by cashing at a payday lender/ check cashing place. they may need the money right then, and they'd rather take the hit at the check cashing place rather than risk not being able to pay bills because of unavailable funds in their bank account and being hit with a bunch of late fees all over the place.
but somewhere in the middle are people with means, but who are financially illiterate and a couple wrong turns from turning into the latter group.
|
On July 06 2017 05:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:38 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:12 Logo wrote:On July 06 2017 04:05 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 03:45 Plansix wrote:
Edit: Logo - he is right. There are entire cities full of people that know nothing about finance. That isn’t their fault. We destroyed home economics courses long ago because our parents thought they knew better. I think the other thing that bears mentioning on the home ec courses is that the bar of required financial sophistication is far higher now than it used to be. Credit cards and other easy forms of credit completely changed the game. We're way past the simple balancing of a checkbook -- albeit the concept behind that particular skill is still the key to getting good credit and having as many financial tools as possible as your disposal. That is the problem. Our education system did not keep up with the complexity of systems we created. And at the same time we deregulated many of the companies running those systems. You can't just go to your local bank and ask to start a retirement fund with any confidence. So people just ignore he hall of mirrors and hope they can make due without. I'd imagine the recession also did a lot of damage to trust in financial services (I can find sources saying it's low or that it's declined, but nothing like a year over year chart) which probably hurts people's desire to participate in the system until they are dragged into it. The closest your grandparent's generation would have come to modern credit debt are the tales their grandparents would have told them about company scrip. Credit is a game changer and, just like the company store, the system has incentives that could not be more opposed to that of the participant. I don't understand why you need home economics courses to understand that money spent on credit is money owed. You have to be pretty stupid to not understand that, or is there an American cultural issue I am missing? Pension funds and investments are fairly complicated though. Come to America and you'll see. You're starting with an assumption that you don't buy things on credit if you have cash. That's not valid here. Revolving credit has been normalized in a very weird way and interest rates are viewed as less important than monthly payment amounts. It's hard to really explain, coming from the UK to the US. You don't buy cars in the US. You go to the weird megachurch car temple place and you tell them how much you can afford monthly. Then they tell you the biggest truck you can get for that (a Ford F150 costing the median annual salary pre-tax) and give you a shovel of popcorn, a giant soda and you watch a cinema screen of aspirational truck stuff. The good news is that there are no payments to make for 48 months and it's interest free for 72 months. Then three years later you go back and trade it in for a new one. The old truck is the down payment on the new truck and the balance owed on the old truck (which is all the balance) is rolled in to a greater debt in the new truck. "Normal" in the US is very much not normal. Interest isn't really understood. It's normal to be making payments, if the payments are affordable then you're fine, it's only if they're unaffordable that you're irresponsible. I've been in the US for 3 years and I have over 20 credit cards and access to $100,000 or so of credit without giving them any real indication that I can be trusted with that kind of thing. It's a really weird country. But people base their expectations on what they see around them. If they see people around them doing things then the things must be okay. My mind is blown. I can understand the free food and drink, but who would waste their time watching a movie/advert? There's a similar thing in the UK called PCP, but you have to pay a deposit and monthly payments. Then you can choose to stop payment, buy the car outright with the remaining money owed or trade the depreciated value of the car for a new car. Sometimes if you choose to buy the car outright, you will end up paying less than the listed price. The bizarre thing is that total price and interest rate simply aren't part of the conversation when making large purchases anymore. What it costs, both the principal and the total amount you will pay if you finance it, just aren't viewed as important information. The important information in order of importance 1) Duration of promotional no payments period 2) Down payment required (often no down payment) 3) Amount of each payment 4) Amount of cash back they give you (this one will amaze you, so some of the time when you finance shit they actually give you a cash payment, so if you can't afford your rent then it may seem rational to upgrade your truck because you could really use that $2,000 cash back advance) 5) Amount of existing debt they will refinance into the new debt (so if instead of no down payment your situation is actually negative down payment, you owe more on the trade in than it is worth, that's still fine, you can roll that existing debt into the new debt's financing agreement) 6) Duration of promotional interest free period 7) Interest rate 8) Actual cost of the item you are buying 9) Total amount you will pay given 7 and 8 Try to get your head around that. You can buy shit with a negative amount as your down payment and have them add that negative amount to the total you'll owe and even get cash back, rolling that on top too. And people do it. All the time. This is just the normal for America now. It's how people operate. Everyone is in debt and everyone is fine with it and when you can't manage your debt anymore then you refinance to get the payments back under control and simply roll back the date until you've paid off the debt or go interest only for a while. What the actual? 4 is just bizarre. I don't understand 5. You lost your old car to finance your new car, yet you still have to pay for the old car as well as the new car?
If your old car with worth $5000 and you own $7000 (happens due to depreciation) then they'll give you $5000 to pay off the debt you own for your car then roll the $2000 you still owe into your new loan.
|
United States43778 Posts
On July 06 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:39 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 06 2017 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing. A mortgage is essentially an investment in the housing market with leverage. And leveraged investments can be very safe for the party offering the leverage, as long as the party receiving it has enough exposure to cover variance. If I put $100,000 down on a $500,000 house then the bank doesn't give a shit if it drops to $450,000, nor if I stop making payments and it costs them $20,000 to reclaim and resell the asset. That's all coming out of my $100,000. The problem comes when the home owner can just moonwalk away because they have no skin in the game. And the problem is compounded when you start allowing the homeowner to not only not put any money in but also start cashing out equity whenever the value starts going up. You can put $0 down on a $500,000 house and owe $500,000. Then if the house goes up to $550,000 valuation you cash out $50,000 of equity so you now owe $550,000 on the house. Financial markets in the US play interesting games and generate interesting outcomes. The only thing that I'd quibble with here is that no lender will let a borrower take equity out of the home such that the borrower has a <20% equity interest in the home at the time of the loan. In fact, lenders generally won't allow home equity line of credit loans for at least year after the initial purchase of the home. At the time of purchase, my current home appraised for higher than the contract value (which is basically unheard of in today's market), yet I still was not allowed to get a HELOC set up to tap into unused equity if I needed to. It didn't even matter that the home is in a market where it's value is expected to increase 10-15% over the course of the next year or that my credit is basically flawless. Stuff like this is why I tend to subscribe to the theory that there's no such thing as "good credit" so much as there's "acceptable credit" and "bad credit." well, good credit vs acceptable credit lets you churn credit cards for sign up bonuses. which, ironically, is made possible by those with bad credit who carry balances and make the credit card co's fat on interest and willing to offer bonuses for more sign ups. I read Kwark's credit card churning post when he made it, and my recollection was that I had trouble seeing how all of the work would be really worthwhile. I think that the biggest advantage to credit card churning is the ability to effectively get interest-free financing on demand, but I don't carry credit card debt anyway (ie I pay off the balance every month).
Depends on your $/hr, your available time and your interest in doing it. Honestly, I love it. It's a game to me. But all it takes is a spreadsheet, a binder full of printouts of the offers to reference in case I ever need to argue something, reading a subreddit/mailing list and shuffling money around. I do it at work, although the $/hr is so much higher than what I get paid at work that I would happily take a morning off work and do it at home if I had to.
I've made over $10k doing it. Whether or not that seems worth it depends on your time and effort valuation of $10k. It's worth it for me, might not be worth it for others. It's done amazing things for my credit score though. I've gone from having zero credit history to 800 in 2 years of playing the game.
|
United States43778 Posts
On July 06 2017 05:49 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:38 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:12 Logo wrote:On July 06 2017 04:05 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2017 03:56 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I think the other thing that bears mentioning on the home ec courses is that the bar of required financial sophistication is far higher now than it used to be. Credit cards and other easy forms of credit completely changed the game. We're way past the simple balancing of a checkbook -- albeit the concept behind that particular skill is still the key to getting good credit and having as many financial tools as possible as your disposal. That is the problem. Our education system did not keep up with the complexity of systems we created. And at the same time we deregulated many of the companies running those systems. You can't just go to your local bank and ask to start a retirement fund with any confidence. So people just ignore he hall of mirrors and hope they can make due without. I'd imagine the recession also did a lot of damage to trust in financial services (I can find sources saying it's low or that it's declined, but nothing like a year over year chart) which probably hurts people's desire to participate in the system until they are dragged into it. The closest your grandparent's generation would have come to modern credit debt are the tales their grandparents would have told them about company scrip. Credit is a game changer and, just like the company store, the system has incentives that could not be more opposed to that of the participant. I don't understand why you need home economics courses to understand that money spent on credit is money owed. You have to be pretty stupid to not understand that, or is there an American cultural issue I am missing? Pension funds and investments are fairly complicated though. Come to America and you'll see. You're starting with an assumption that you don't buy things on credit if you have cash. That's not valid here. Revolving credit has been normalized in a very weird way and interest rates are viewed as less important than monthly payment amounts. It's hard to really explain, coming from the UK to the US. You don't buy cars in the US. You go to the weird megachurch car temple place and you tell them how much you can afford monthly. Then they tell you the biggest truck you can get for that (a Ford F150 costing the median annual salary pre-tax) and give you a shovel of popcorn, a giant soda and you watch a cinema screen of aspirational truck stuff. The good news is that there are no payments to make for 48 months and it's interest free for 72 months. Then three years later you go back and trade it in for a new one. The old truck is the down payment on the new truck and the balance owed on the old truck (which is all the balance) is rolled in to a greater debt in the new truck. "Normal" in the US is very much not normal. Interest isn't really understood. It's normal to be making payments, if the payments are affordable then you're fine, it's only if they're unaffordable that you're irresponsible. I've been in the US for 3 years and I have over 20 credit cards and access to $100,000 or so of credit without giving them any real indication that I can be trusted with that kind of thing. It's a really weird country. But people base their expectations on what they see around them. If they see people around them doing things then the things must be okay. My mind is blown. I can understand the free food and drink, but who would waste their time watching a movie/advert? There's a similar thing in the UK called PCP, but you have to pay a deposit and monthly payments. Then you can choose to stop payment, buy the car outright with the remaining money owed or trade the depreciated value of the car for a new car. Sometimes if you choose to buy the car outright, you will end up paying less than the listed price. The bizarre thing is that total price and interest rate simply aren't part of the conversation when making large purchases anymore. What it costs, both the principal and the total amount you will pay if you finance it, just aren't viewed as important information. The important information in order of importance 1) Duration of promotional no payments period 2) Down payment required (often no down payment) 3) Amount of each payment 4) Amount of cash back they give you (this one will amaze you, so some of the time when you finance shit they actually give you a cash payment, so if you can't afford your rent then it may seem rational to upgrade your truck because you could really use that $2,000 cash back advance) 5) Amount of existing debt they will refinance into the new debt (so if instead of no down payment your situation is actually negative down payment, you owe more on the trade in than it is worth, that's still fine, you can roll that existing debt into the new debt's financing agreement) 6) Duration of promotional interest free period 7) Interest rate 8) Actual cost of the item you are buying 9) Total amount you will pay given 7 and 8 Try to get your head around that. You can buy shit with a negative amount as your down payment and have them add that negative amount to the total you'll owe and even get cash back, rolling that on top too. And people do it. All the time. This is just the normal for America now. It's how people operate. Everyone is in debt and everyone is fine with it and when you can't manage your debt anymore then you refinance to get the payments back under control and simply roll back the date until you've paid off the debt or go interest only for a while. What the actual? 4 is just bizarre. I don't understand 5. You lost your old car to finance your new car, yet you still have to pay for the old car as well as the new car? If your old car with worth $5000 and you own $7000 (happens due to depreciation) then they'll give you $5000 to pay off the debt you own for your car then roll the $2000 you still owe into your new loan.
You're thinking of my point 5, rolling an underwater car debt into a new loan. Point 4 was cashback. If your old car is worth $5,000 and you owe $7,000 then they'll roll $4,000 into your new debt, take the old car off your hands, let you buy a new car and give you a check to $2,000. You've not seen cashback car loans?
|
On July 06 2017 05:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:49 Logo wrote:On July 06 2017 05:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:38 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:12 Logo wrote:On July 06 2017 04:05 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That is the problem. Our education system did not keep up with the complexity of systems we created. And at the same time we deregulated many of the companies running those systems. You can't just go to your local bank and ask to start a retirement fund with any confidence. So people just ignore he hall of mirrors and hope they can make due without. I'd imagine the recession also did a lot of damage to trust in financial services (I can find sources saying it's low or that it's declined, but nothing like a year over year chart) which probably hurts people's desire to participate in the system until they are dragged into it. The closest your grandparent's generation would have come to modern credit debt are the tales their grandparents would have told them about company scrip. Credit is a game changer and, just like the company store, the system has incentives that could not be more opposed to that of the participant. I don't understand why you need home economics courses to understand that money spent on credit is money owed. You have to be pretty stupid to not understand that, or is there an American cultural issue I am missing? Pension funds and investments are fairly complicated though. Come to America and you'll see. You're starting with an assumption that you don't buy things on credit if you have cash. That's not valid here. Revolving credit has been normalized in a very weird way and interest rates are viewed as less important than monthly payment amounts. It's hard to really explain, coming from the UK to the US. You don't buy cars in the US. You go to the weird megachurch car temple place and you tell them how much you can afford monthly. Then they tell you the biggest truck you can get for that (a Ford F150 costing the median annual salary pre-tax) and give you a shovel of popcorn, a giant soda and you watch a cinema screen of aspirational truck stuff. The good news is that there are no payments to make for 48 months and it's interest free for 72 months. Then three years later you go back and trade it in for a new one. The old truck is the down payment on the new truck and the balance owed on the old truck (which is all the balance) is rolled in to a greater debt in the new truck. "Normal" in the US is very much not normal. Interest isn't really understood. It's normal to be making payments, if the payments are affordable then you're fine, it's only if they're unaffordable that you're irresponsible. I've been in the US for 3 years and I have over 20 credit cards and access to $100,000 or so of credit without giving them any real indication that I can be trusted with that kind of thing. It's a really weird country. But people base their expectations on what they see around them. If they see people around them doing things then the things must be okay. My mind is blown. I can understand the free food and drink, but who would waste their time watching a movie/advert? There's a similar thing in the UK called PCP, but you have to pay a deposit and monthly payments. Then you can choose to stop payment, buy the car outright with the remaining money owed or trade the depreciated value of the car for a new car. Sometimes if you choose to buy the car outright, you will end up paying less than the listed price. The bizarre thing is that total price and interest rate simply aren't part of the conversation when making large purchases anymore. What it costs, both the principal and the total amount you will pay if you finance it, just aren't viewed as important information. The important information in order of importance 1) Duration of promotional no payments period 2) Down payment required (often no down payment) 3) Amount of each payment 4) Amount of cash back they give you (this one will amaze you, so some of the time when you finance shit they actually give you a cash payment, so if you can't afford your rent then it may seem rational to upgrade your truck because you could really use that $2,000 cash back advance) 5) Amount of existing debt they will refinance into the new debt (so if instead of no down payment your situation is actually negative down payment, you owe more on the trade in than it is worth, that's still fine, you can roll that existing debt into the new debt's financing agreement) 6) Duration of promotional interest free period 7) Interest rate 8) Actual cost of the item you are buying 9) Total amount you will pay given 7 and 8 Try to get your head around that. You can buy shit with a negative amount as your down payment and have them add that negative amount to the total you'll owe and even get cash back, rolling that on top too. And people do it. All the time. This is just the normal for America now. It's how people operate. Everyone is in debt and everyone is fine with it and when you can't manage your debt anymore then you refinance to get the payments back under control and simply roll back the date until you've paid off the debt or go interest only for a while. What the actual? 4 is just bizarre. I don't understand 5. You lost your old car to finance your new car, yet you still have to pay for the old car as well as the new car? If your old car with worth $5000 and you own $7000 (happens due to depreciation) then they'll give you $5000 to pay off the debt you own for your car then roll the $2000 you still owe into your new loan. You're thinking of my point 5, rolling an underwater car debt into a new loan. Point 4 was cashback. If your old car is worth $5,000 and you owe $7,000 then they'll roll $4,000 into your new debt, take the old car off your hands, let you buy a new car and give you a check to $2,000. You've not seen cashback car loans?
Sorry, it was just me quoting too much; I was addressing point 5 that Dangermouse didn't understand.
|
On July 06 2017 05:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 05:39 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 06 2017 05:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2017 05:17 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 05:14 chocorush wrote:On July 06 2017 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Why do you need to "maintain credit" to take out a mortgage? Isn't proof of regular income over the last 3 months enough?
In anycase the problem doesn't seem to be one that will be solved through home ec classes. Once you get to loans with principles that large and interest rates that low, it's not profitable for banks to trust the average person with a job. It is in the UK, which is his base of experience. With a decent down payment and a stable housing market a lender can reliably assume that the underlying asset won't lose too much of its value in any given time. Therefore they can repossess the asset and apply all the costs to the 20% down payment the homeowner made. Obviously it all gets more interesting once you introduce 0% down payments and creative American financing. A mortgage is essentially an investment in the housing market with leverage. And leveraged investments can be very safe for the party offering the leverage, as long as the party receiving it has enough exposure to cover variance. If I put $100,000 down on a $500,000 house then the bank doesn't give a shit if it drops to $450,000, nor if I stop making payments and it costs them $20,000 to reclaim and resell the asset. That's all coming out of my $100,000. The problem comes when the home owner can just moonwalk away because they have no skin in the game. And the problem is compounded when you start allowing the homeowner to not only not put any money in but also start cashing out equity whenever the value starts going up. You can put $0 down on a $500,000 house and owe $500,000. Then if the house goes up to $550,000 valuation you cash out $50,000 of equity so you now owe $550,000 on the house. Financial markets in the US play interesting games and generate interesting outcomes. The only thing that I'd quibble with here is that no lender will let a borrower take equity out of the home such that the borrower has a <20% equity interest in the home at the time of the loan. In fact, lenders generally won't allow home equity line of credit loans for at least year after the initial purchase of the home. At the time of purchase, my current home appraised for higher than the contract value (which is basically unheard of in today's market), yet I still was not allowed to get a HELOC set up to tap into unused equity if I needed to. It didn't even matter that the home is in a market where it's value is expected to increase 10-15% over the course of the next year or that my credit is basically flawless. Stuff like this is why I tend to subscribe to the theory that there's no such thing as "good credit" so much as there's "acceptable credit" and "bad credit." well, good credit vs acceptable credit lets you churn credit cards for sign up bonuses. which, ironically, is made possible by those with bad credit who carry balances and make the credit card co's fat on interest and willing to offer bonuses for more sign ups. I read Kwark's credit card churning post when he made it, and my recollection was that I had trouble seeing how all of the work would be really worthwhile. I think that the biggest advantage to credit card churning is the ability to effectively get interest-free financing on demand, but I don't carry credit card debt anyway (ie I pay off the balance every month). Depends on your $/hr, your available time and your interest in doing it. Honestly, I love it. It's a game to me. But all it takes is a spreadsheet, a binder full of printouts of the offers to reference in case I ever need to argue something, reading a subreddit/mailing list and shuffling money around. I do it at work, although the $/hr is so much higher than what I get paid at work that I would happily take a morning off work and do it at home if I had to. I've made over $10k doing it. Whether or not that seems worth it depends on your time and effort valuation of $10k. It's worth it for me, might not be worth it for others. It's done amazing things for my credit score though. I've gone from having zero credit history to 800 in 2 years of playing the game.
I'm impressed that you can get to 800 churning. My understanding is that you need an absurd amount of promotional offers to get that high, which tanks the age of credit line and number of new inquiries/lines aspect of the score.
Are you counting things like cash rewards that you would have normally gotten just from having a single card?
|
On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:On July 06 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:
I don't see the issue with classical liberalism at all. A functioning free market economy that provides a strong foundation for people from all backgrounds to compete on an even basis through the provision of healthcare, education, housing and so forth for all without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual preference etc. Seems pretty much ideal to me.
The problem is that in America you can't join the political right without pledging allegiance to the anti-science anti-gay agenda and even the free market economics is little more than crony capitalism. Meanwhile the centre left comes under fire for not being extreme enough, as if that's some kind of failing. This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete? Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock? Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with? Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory? And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions. It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible? Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me.
I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable.
What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
