>Debt is a powerful tool when used by educated people for legit reasons,

Debt is a dangerous tool when used carefully and intelligently. When used carelessly or unintelligently it is a ruinous monster. We live in a world that allegedly is more educated than ever, but I don't think education is sufficient to avoid this pitfall.

I got a similar vibe from RobinHood adding sports prediction markets.

I highly approve of the acknowledgment of both of those types of gambling being treated as one thing.

I trust both entities equally.

Which is to say: not at fucking all.

> Agree re chicken wings but there are plenty of reasonable and responsible credit options for spreading payments for a relatively unusual purchase - at least, not a daily or weekly necessity - like a TV

That stopped being true a long time ago, at least in the US. TVs can be had incredibly cheaply nowadays. A quick Amazon search shows many models available for circa $100. That's like less than a dozen fast food meals.

If you need a TV, save your money and buy one you can afford. A predatory payment plan should not be used.

OK but US really is in a world of its own these for a lot of things. In the UK it's very common to get 0% interest installments.

Which is not to have a go at the US, but to just make the point that buying domestic appliances is not a simple "bad credit" case. Unlike chicken wings.

Not really - for something like a TV you can wait or get a more modest model. And if waiting would take too long then it's probably not a reasonable expense for you.

Sorry no but domestic white goods such as TVs, fridges, laundry appliances, etc are the perfect use case for small credit plans where doing without or "saving up" is a poor alternative, and sensible non-extortionate credit options have been around for literally decades for this reason.

There are obviously external forces that contribute to anyone’s circumstances rich or poor.

But, ultimately, you can only spend as much as you make in income, or go bankrupt. Choosing to tack on an interest payment to your costs is often an unnecessary additional cost for people. That’s true if you’re poor buying a rudimentary TV or rich maxing out credit cards to furnish your mansion.

Depends. If your poor in America, then spending is often part of the equation. If your poor in India then perhaps not.

Since we're already dealing in absurds here, what if one were to Doordash 50 servings of wings as a emergency/backup catering option for a banquet or wedding? That could easily top $500-800. I sure some consumers—including financially secure ones—would appreciate an interest free loan option on that.

Obviously there is also the opposite dark and pessimistic take here, but there are potentially good things as well?

A financially-secure person can put it on their credit card, and pay no interest because they always pay their full statement balance.

Someone who can't probably shouldn't be spending $800 on wings.

>A financially-secure person can put it on their credit card, and pay no interest because they always pay their full statement balance.

klarna offers a 4 equal interest free payments option. How that any different from a credit card?

As a financially secure person, why would I want to spend $800 today when I can spend $800 over four months with no penalty? It doesn't make any sense in the slightest, that is unless you're not savvy enough to keep track of your money?

Klarna is four payments over eight weeks. That's about the same float as a credit card, which can be up to 60.

I was mistaken in thinking it was longer than that. If it is only about two months then it's of little value over a conventional CC (depending on when you buy it in your statement cycle).

My example with the wings is an extreme/incidental use-case, and I realize that it'd be atypical to unheard of in practice.

Because for me, overspending is a bad habit, even if there's no interest.

im all for let us poor brokies do what we want

The sort of person who would order wings as their backup catering for a wedding doesn't shouldn't be borrowing for this, one would think. If they did need the loan they were already stretching themselves far too thin for a wedding event.

Well, what if you were in budget, your caterer failed to meet their obligation but aren't paying you back for several business days, and that extra $800 put you just over budget?

This is an extreme/incidental example, and very likely isn't how this feature is going to be used in practice: I realize that.

>The sort of person who would order wings as their backup catering for a wedding doesn't shouldn't be borrowing for this, one would think.

We're splitting hairs over personal opinions on personal finance here.

>Well, what if you were in budget, your caterer failed to meet their obligation but aren't

Ok. This is for someone who is thinking that they need another $500-800 for the backup catering. For them, an extra $800 with no warning is an expense they can't just eat with the change in their pocket either, one presumes. But they're budgeting for a wedding that likely costs upwards of $7500 (all other costs considered), and they're spending that much without being able to set aside another $1000 for last minute incidentals? I think that this cost might just be the sort of bad decision making that we're all talking about rather than a legitimate use case. And that's even allowing for the recovery of the funds from the original caterer.

The net effect is 0 if you're being paid back and paying back on time. How is this any different from putting it on a CC and paying it back on time? What's the big deal here that warrants this level of discussion? Why not let others do them and you do you? Maybe the real bad decision we're all participating in here—myself included—is feeling the need to split hairs over a hypothetical situation about personal opinions on personal finance?

> Why not let others do them and you do you?

Debt affects everyone, not just the borrower and the lender. When lenders make one bad loan, society can bear that burden and especially so if many of the loans are good loans that serve mutual interest. When most of the loans are bad, taxpayers pay to enforce loan terms (not the lender), then they pay again when the economy melts down (the lender just reincorporates under some other business name). So it is a big deal when someone is proposing an entirely new class of lending, and it does warrant this level of discussion. If anything, it warrants a much more intense level of discussion than what we've seen so far or what we are likely to see.

Your inability to grasp this is disturbing and should come across as some sort of profound warning to everyone.

You've stepped way out of the discussion we were having and are now engaging in sanctimonious grandstanding.

> Your inability to grasp this is disturbing and should come across as some sort of profound warning to everyone.

Way out of line, dude. Now you're insulting my ability to understand things? You think I don't know about all that? Obviously there are plenty of people who don't deserve credit, but there are also plenty who do. I take pride in having an exceptional credit score.

I'd get those wings. And I'd have a 'profound' time sharing them with friends and family making memories.