No one had mentioned prohibition...so this statement appears to be so out of place that it's likely to be a non sequitur or straw man.

Henry said The idea of prohibiting access follow naturally. I broadly agree with Henry but dont favour prohibition. I suspect Henry doesn't either and I never suggested he did.

I've no idea why this causes you such anguish.

Yeah, that sounds like me. I'm probably not quite dumb, but I've managed to pile up a considerable bit of debt over the past few years. Mainly by spending too much during my later college years because I was too stubborn/proud to ask my parents for more money per month (which they could and would have provided in a heart beat) and had a credit card with a generous line on it - because I previously almost always paid it off on time before interest kicked in to hurt me.

My idea was that I'd be able to pay it off in a short time frame as soon as I start working. What I did not account for was that moving to different countries on a regular basis and therefore spending time on the side lines looking for a new job, waiting for visas to go through, paying relocation related costs, etc add up to a ton of money.

I finally got frustrated now after a few years of working, earning a decent salary, not spending lavishly, yet still being in debt - more or less at the same level as I've been when I got out of college. So, as stupid as these plans may look like for financial discplined people, for guys like me this is a decent way to force myself into an organized life style when it comes to finances. It just needs some hammering into my mind to set up and stick to a realistic budget.

It would be nice to have something or someone to blame for my debt (bad upbringing, or whatever) but it's the plain old classic lack of discipline in my case.

I also believe that especially for people like me, lacking in the discpline arena, psychological effects of having paid off one debt may have a far stronger impact than telling yourself repeatedly that you're paying it off in the financially better order.

I'm definitely not in favour of prohibition although I can see how that statement would lead Chezlaw to that conclusion. I just find the whole shift toward a victimization of the borrower as completely unacceptable. These idiots got themselves into insane amounts of consumer debt and the attitude at least in Canada is that the credit card companies are to blame. For example, the credit card companies tend to set up booths at university during frosh week is seen as predator behaviour. WTF? If first year university students are too stupid to understand what a credit card is maybe we need better admission standards.

I also find that the ability to avoid paying debt is just too easy. Again this is probably a Canadian thing as the US you can do it but it is considerably more painful. In Canada any 20-something can basically game the system for $40-50k or more with no consequences. Other people then have to subsidize their behaviour though high borrowing costs. There should be no SOL on consumer debt and bankruptcy should be a hellish process that actually has a lasting and meaningful impact on the person's life.

Can you explain this? I hate to think I missed something in my 20s.

I understand that you are a rather odd man with perspectives that differ pretty far from the norms but to me this is like the discovery channel episode where the alligators ravage the cattle as they try to cross the river.

I threw up in my mouth at the level of nanny state this implies.

I don't really want to give people a step by step guide to scam the system but just the fact that consumer credit has a SoL of two years in Ontario, banks don't proceed criminally against people who kite, and credit ratings are meaningless except for getting credit should give you a general idea.

This mentality is why society is full of losers. If university students are not going to be held to the standard of having the intelligence required to understand the implications of using credit then I have no idea who should be held responsible for their own choices.

There are two reasons this happens. 1) as Cmoneymaker9 says, you buy more this week and "plan" to spend less the next. Then you forget and end up spending $800 every week and still have that debt.

2) is something Ramsey harps on as a second reason he hates credit cards--people don't realize they spent more. He says people spend 16% more using CC than when using cash.

Think of it this way: you budget $100 for a trip to the mall. At the end of the day, you think to yourself "I spent $50 at store 1; $10 at store 2; and 20 at store 3. I can afford this $20 item at store 4." But in reality, you spent $55 at store 1; $14 at store 2; and $25 at store 3. And, with tax, your $20 item will cost $22. So, without thinking, you've spent $116, even though you thought you spent $100.

OTOH, if you took a $100 bill with you to the mall, you'd know exactly how much you have left at any time.

Both reasons can be categorized as just being stupid. I forgot and I can't add when using a different form of payment are not excuses unless you accept that the people involved are dumb. I've heard the same thing about people spending more when they use credit but that isn't the fault of the credit card it is their fault.

You're too libertarian henry.

You seem to be in the uber free market Milton Friedman camp. I don't think you're allowing for corporations to knowingly employ sophisticated psychology that normal people just aren't able to be aware of. The CC companies KNOW that you spend more with a card than cash...which is also why they're pushing their own debit cards.

Because companies know people are stupid and they exploit that stupidity for profit doesn't change anything. The fact remains people are stupid. Most marketing is based on the fact that a large percentage of the population is just not that bright.

I've done some thinking on that stat of the 16% the research seems quite sound, but only applicable when people are readily shopping based on price and have a number of different options. This shouldn't apply to everyone.

"I understand that you are a rather odd man with perspectives that differ pretty far from the norms but to me this is like the discovery channel episode where the alligators ravage the cattle as they try to cross the river."



So the alligators should starve to death rather than resort to violence in order to survive? Is the cattle's life worth more than a gator's? What if left alone the cattle's numbers swelled to such a degree that they overconsumed on the surrounding grassy areas causing all other indigenous and morally superior herbivores, including themseleves, to starve the next summer? Taken from this perspective, do the gator's contribute to the continued prosperity of the local ecosystem?

No, I never said anything even close to that, I made an analogy and people jumped on it as if I had made the much stronger statement you imply. Henry seemed shocked and upset that the setting up of booths could be on campus during frosh week was viewed as predatory, which is absurd. Of course it's predatory. That was all my post was supposed to convey, not some absurd banning of the practice.