February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad

« Advice to impressionable young minds who want to change the world | Main | Religion in the U.S. »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Not that I'm aware of. I was recently looking for a review essay on this very topic but ended having to rely on Buchanan's original book.

Clearly a gap in the market to expand and update the argument.

The idea that credit card companies want their card holders to pay the monthly minimum and never pay off the complete debt is curious. It is my understanding that the credit card companies charge merchants about 3% of the purchase price for everything you buy with your credit card. If you pay your card off in full every month the credit card company is making 3% on money that is out for only 2-4 weeks. That must be an annual rate of somewhere around 36% to as high as 78%.

While credit card interest on unpaid balances is high it isn't that high. It would seem that the best customer for a credit card company is one that regularly makes large purchases by credit card and pays it off in full every month.

Journalists and documentary makers wouldn't have to be professional economists to think that one through and realize that no lender profits by lending to people who don't pay it back.

I think that for the 3% return I would like to finance the purchases of others with as much money as I have or can obtain by borrowing at a lower rate if I could be sure I'd get paid back in less than a month.

Actually, since the credit card company pays the merchant $97 for every $100 dollars you put on your credit card the return is even better, about 3.1% or 37.2% to 80.6% annually.

It might be true that credit card companies don't much mind late payments because of the large late fees they charge, but borrowers who habitually pay late usually stop paying altogether at some point.

It's a pity that there isn't an austrian economist available (even on this website) that has seen the film that could write a review. Of course, said economist would have to first do a thorough search of all other austrian economists to ensure that no such review existed. Being required, of course, to not write a review of a film that's already been reviewed. Double review? What a waste. Couldn't one argue that, in order to prevent such waste, a government program be developed that would ensure only one austrian economist would write reviews of films?

(Sorry about the snark. I couldn't resist.)

I don't really understand the "rules" of blogs and the internet in general. Instead, I view these are open arenas for questions and discussion. I asked a question about something I am completely ignorant of and asked for somebody to point me in the right direction. I didn't make a claim to know something that in fact I didn't know, I claimed instead that I didn't know and perhaps somebody could straighten me out. Perhaps there are lots of reviews of the movie from an Austrian perspective, if so I would still be interested in the pointer. Because I remain ignorant of their existence. Perhaps I should do a google search to eliminate my ignorance, but I thought instead to ask a question aloud in this blogosphere classroom. Is that a violation of the rules of the blogosphere? If so, please tell me and I will not ask any more like questions.


Clearly, the smile that was on my face as I wrote my smart-alec comment was not transmitted. I did not mean to suggest that you violated any rules. My apologies. No offense was intended. Sorry if it happened.

What was intended was to make a light-hearted suggestion that you write a review of the show. I was also trying to suggest that the existence or lack of existence of other austrian reviews shouldn't impact your decision to review it. Finally, I was trying to put in a (sarcastic) plug for a government program to ensure that one and only one austrian review ever existed. (I don't really think such a program should exist.)

So again, my apologies. Re-reading my post, it's easy to see how it might not come off as good natured ribbing, which is how I intended it.

Thanks for the information...I bookmarked your site, and I appreciate your time and effort to make your blog a success!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books