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?
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.
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.