And who would you like to decide that - Gubmint?Fine. Used to be 21 before this wholesale insanity started.
And some people want it lowered to 16.
But the point of being "emotionally mature" at some age (or never) is still valid.
And who would you like to decide that - Gubmint?Fine. Used to be 21 before this wholesale insanity started.
And some people want it lowered to 16.
But the point of being "emotionally mature" at some age (or never) is still valid.
And who would you like to decide that - Gubmint?
I take that rambling as a yes you want gubmint to decide.The topic is generally referred as the "Age of Majority".
It has varied widely in our country/culture.
Marriage at age 16 was common in the 19th century, Amish still follow that practice.
During WWII, many young men had emotional maturity way beyond their biological age.
During the Vietnam war, the voting age was 21.
But Selective Service (the "draft") was sending 18 year-olds
half way around the world to become cannon fodder.
So, many facets of the Age of Majority were lowered (voting, etc).
But people of all ages knew
they had to take responsibility for their actions/debts.
Times change. And so do people.
I would be in favor of raising the age of majority to at least 25, maybe 28.
Many people struggle now with growing up.
Hmm. Would a better education, ie. preparing for adult life, not be better instead of this?I would be in favor of raising the age of majority to at least 25, maybe 28.
Many people struggle now with growing up.
Trust is an important factor in the financial world.The U.S. currently has $34.5 Trillion in direct debt,
which is higher than 120% debt to GDP ratio.
As with all sovereigns who have slid into such a derelict situation,
the U.S. has two choices:
1) default on the debt
2) actively embark on a monetary program to devalue the fiat,
pay the debt back with devalued dollars (aka inflation).
In either case, the result is less than optimal for all parties involved.
Debt Jubilee is somewhere between 1 & 2.
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be"
... Shakespeare
And who would you like to decide that - Gubmint?
No, definitely not. Age limits and restrictions need to be determined by local community standards. The government has no business deciding things like this. If one local bar wants to have a minimum age of, say, eleven years old, while another local bar has a minimum age of 24, that's free market economics, man. Let the market decide who can drink. it's all about supply and demand.
If my nine year old wants to open up a Robin Hood account and trade with his allowance, why the fuck should the government be able to say he can't do that??
And if my 14-year old daughter decides to join a club that meets in the basement of a pizza shop, and is run by a bunch of 40-something guys, what's wrong with that? Doesn't the US Constitution give us a right to freedom of association? Why should we allow the goverment to trample our constitutional rights?
If there is anything creepy going on in that club, we have groups like QAnon that can deal with it, and reliable sources of information like Alex Jones at InfoWars. The goverment has no fucking business telling me how to raise my kids.
This post is a parody.
%%the defense and or justification of high interest rates sounds like an elite of some sort maybe a rothschild but we poor people like very low interest rates.
be interesting to take a poll and see ho many people like higher interest rates so don't be surprised when i scoff and dismiss your comment as pretty crazy.
i have often lent money to relatives with no interest and right now freddy yates in texas ,still owes me 40k from a decade ago. if he were to pay me tomorrow he would still just owe me 40k.
but i'm an extremely nice non predatory lender.

[The main group I have seen ranting against interest[usury] also rants against capitalism + common sense. I dont mind naming that group ,but back on topic,now]