Are “Buy Now, Pay Later” Retail Loans a Rip-Off?
themarkup.org
themarkup.org
> Are “Buy Now, Pay Later” Retail Loans a Rip-Off?
Uh, no? Not if the loan is interest-free!
> A charming dinner plate costs $28 or “4 interest-free installments of $7.00 by Afterpay.”
This is exactly like using a credit card and paying the previous month's balance on time.
> Because of the ease of access to credit, the danger is that somebody who is borrowing may not be in the best position to borrow
Yeah, so don't fucking do that. That doesn't make interest-free loans a rip-off.
This made me mildly sick. At the same time, so many people are struggling it's no wonder a low interest loan to buy a sandwich is a popular business model. In a perfect world this type of thing would just be banned, but then arguably some people wouldn't eat
>This made me mildly sick.
It made me mildly sick too, so much so that I decided to check out the video. After watching it I can't say that their claim that it was being framed as "the world’s biggest secret" is accurate. The video just shows someone shopping, and pointing out you can use quadpay like a credit card.
Yeah that was it. Thanks for the correction.
https://www.upstart.com/blog/lowest-cost-per-calorie-foods
2. White rice – $0.41 per 2,000 calories
7. Peanut butter – $1.25 per 2,000 calories
8. Whole milk – $1.37 per 2,000 calories
9. Pinto beans – $1.39 per 2,000 calories
13. Eggs – $1.61 per 2,000 calories
Add in a few extra dollars for fruits/vegetables and you got a balanced meal for less than 1 hour of the federal minimum wage.
Have you ever HAD to survive on that kind of diet?
Think about on which side of history you take your stand.
Drugs are illegal because white supremacist hate- and war-mongers made them illegal to further their hate- and war-mongering.
Do you really not see the connection?
What right or privilege are you saying people have with regards to money?
Yeah, it's more than possible to survive -- and people do -- but why are these "survival cost" calculations always so dishonest?
Because GP mentioned a specific claim, which is food prices? If you're malnourished, and rent costs $1500/month but you can feed yourself on $150, how much are food prices to blame for that?
Saying that credit cards should be illegal is laughable. Whether they're predatory could be debated, but there is zero downside to using credit cards if you pay off the monthly balance.
> Where is the business model if not to charge users
Well, the article says "the companies more often make their money from retailer commissions, not missed payments", so let's say that the business model is there.
Interchange fees. Most high limit card holders don't hold a balance (ex. the Amex Platinum/Gold/Green cards are charge cards that don't carry a balance). They make money by charging the retailing the .30c+2.9% fee on every transaction. This is why it's also makes sense to always use a credit card provided you pay it off - retails mark up everything to give credit card processors their "fee", but credit card companies give you kickbacks in the form of points. If you pay cash, you are subsidizing everyone else's credit card points.
Short term interest free loans? And all I have to do is give you a constant stream of information about where I am and what I'm buying that you can use to build a profile on me?
And it turns out its not even free, its just baked into the price even if you refuse to be tracked?
You could make the profiling illegal and it would still be good for buyers and profitable for businesses to give interest free loans while skimming processing fees.
It's predatory by design.
And that ultimately comes down to enforcing class norms. "Poors", the thinking goes, "shouldn't be allowed to purchase middle-class things on credit because then what is the middle-class?"
The idea of boosting consumer spending through consumer debt is weird. You boost spending in the short term but over the long term you cut back on consumer spending. Because of fees you actually end up with less consumer spending overall than if you hadn't introduced debt.
They are relying on the fact that customers will continue to spend because of the BNPL whereas they wouldn't have spent to buy if BNPL option doesn't exist.
The rise of overbearing debt corresponds to the information technology of tracking humans (eg "credit bureaus"). And when you think about it, this makes perfect sense as overbearing debt is essentially partial slavery. We look back at chattel slavery as some alien horror, but much of slavery was (and still is) "indentured servitude" whereby a worker would "borrow" the funds to obtain employment (eg ocean passage) and then slowly work off that debt as the master allowed (see also: company towns). Now an overarching record is kept by "credit bureaus", and they consider their titles over our lives so fundamental that they've created the term "identity theft" for when they've been defrauded, as if that should be our problem in some way.
Where is this going? Older societies had periodic events where debts were wiped out. We've got bankruptcy, but that only works for the occasional individual who has personally overextended - it does nothing for the debt load on the whole society. I would have hoped with Covid slowdown that there would have been some repudiation of debt but rather the very first thing the government did was bail out debt-laden (ie looted) companies. Now they're working towards paying all the backed up residential rent debt at par rather than discounting it at all. Eventually something is going to have to break - eg low-means individuals figure out how to hide/shield assets and stop paying en masse, the dollar breaks as the government prints ever more of it to feed the debt black hole, society gets so bifurcated between the rich and the poor that there is a revolution, or who knows. Until something catastrophic happens, the screws will continue to tighten.