Before You Get Hooked on Credit Cards

People often call me on the phone and accost me at the airport to try and sell me a credit card. The benefits of this modern banking service are that, allegedly, I can use the bank's money for up to 45 days at no charge, and that I also get a 1-2 percent kickback on my purchases. I trigger surprise and incredulity by repeatedly declining this great opportunity.

I suggest that you also say no to it firmly and courageously. The questions below will help you consider why.

1. In principle, you can use the bank's money for up to 45 days at no charge, but then what's in it for the bank? Is the bank a charitable institution that, for some mysterious reason, gives depositors' money away? So there is such a thing as a free lunch, after all? Or will a credit card, in some tricky way, cost you a lot? If not, how do you suppose the salespeople pushing credit cards ever get paid?

2. In principle, if you use the credit card wisely, you'll only pay the annual fee ? how much is that and how much in terms of loan interest does it come to?

3. Only those people will pay interest on their credit card purchases who don't use the card wisely, i.e. withdraw cash with it or fail to repay the cost of their purchases in a timely manner. How much is that interest? Don't you think around 40 percent is a bit too hefty? In plain language, that's normally called usury and private persons go to jail for engaging in it. Did you know that the bank will make you pay a full month's interest for a single day of delay? How much is 40 percent times 30? That's how much you'll end up paying for a day's delay. Does it seem fair to punish "unwise" credit card users with such exorbitant interests?

4. Suppose you'll always use the credit card wisely and end up paying nothing but the annual fee. Doesn't it concern you how this product impacts on other people's lives? Do you only care about yourself in your community, aren't you the least bit concerned with your fellow-humans?

5. Suppose you regard credit cards as a pedagogical tool: they make people wise at their own expense, they jump-boost people's financial culture. The famous "cup game" does pretty much the same thing and yet, it's not considered a pedagogical tool. So do confidence tricksters and pyramid scheme organisers, then why don't they earn recognition for the life lessons they impart? Are you sure you're doing the right thing by getting involved in this "pedagogical" scheme?

6. Suppose you're an optimist, reasoning that if everyone takes care of their finances wisely, then everyone will benefit. Except for the bank? Can you seriously envisage such a situation? When credit cards stop generating exorbitant interest revenue thanks to unwisely behaving debtors, they'll become untenable and will be terminated, meaning the moral problem will sort itself out. Until that happens, will you sleep well at night? Won't the second thought that you're part of a system that rips off unwise fellow-humans bother you? Will you support a system that you predict will be terminated the moment its participants start behaving reasonably? How much more rational, honest and fair would you be by not getting involved with it to begin with? For your part, this terminates the scheme on Day 0.

7. What exactly does it mean that you can use the bank's money at no charge for up to 45 days? Did you know the bank only pays merchants in 45 days' time, whereas they would normally get paid immediately? So whose money are you actually using? At no charge? Do you buy that?

8. Circular debt, i.e. companies paying each other in 60-90-120 day cycles, is a major problem in the economy. Supermarket chains also pay farmers for their produce using similar cycle times, so farmers often resort to bridging loans to make ends meet. Who from? From the bank that says you can use its money at no charge for up to 45 days. It doesn't actually pay anything for 45 days, so the supermarket doesn't get its revenue and, in turn, it won't pay the farmers, to whom your bank will graciously offer a loan for 45-60-90-120 days, at commercial interest rates, of course. Does this drive prices down or up? At the end of the day, who will pay the full cost of this intentionally slowed-down settlement system? You as end user? You who've become financially cultured, behave wisely, and allegedly use the bank's money at no charge? How is that possible?

9. Normally, when you buy goods, you pay for them right away. In this respect, it doesn't matter whether you pay with gold pieces, bank notes or a debit card, because the merchant receives the purchase price immediately. Why would a bank insert 45 days into this process? Is your credit card a tool for your bank to inject itself to where it doesn't belong and make you pay for it? Do you volunteer to facilitate that? If not, what exactly would you need a credit card for?

10. Did you know that people spend about 15 percent more with a credit card than without one? Are you sure you need to consume 15 percent more? Is this good for you, your loved ones, your society, and the planet? Is it wise to overspend, as opposed to managing your finances responsibly?

11. When the credit crunch hit in 2009, the balance of an American household stood at around US$ -3000, due to credit card purchases. In the panic that ensued, the majority of households could not top up their account within 45 days and had to pay exorbitant interests. Were Americans wise when they made the use of credit cards the rule in retail, or did they wise up when they returned them in large numbers and went back to using debit cards with immediate payment?

12. Is there any argument left in favour of credit cards? Submit it in a comment.

I'm NOT Charlie Hebdo

I'm not fighting religion like Charlie Hebdo. The fight against religion has killed far, far more people than all the religions combined.

I don't believe France is a secular country, like Charlie Hebdo believes. France is based on the values of a silent Christian majority, that's a hard fact.

I don't mean to offend like Charlie Hebdo. I think it's in people's best interest to think coherently, even if that sometimes causes them to question received axioms. Such as the axiom that all religions are equal, i.e. equally bad. What if they are not equal, nor equally bad?

Let's pause to consider that.

In fact, Christianity is the only religion in the world that stands the critical thinking world improvement test. This makes it the best religion in the world and places it over atheism. Atheism doesn't stand the critical thinking world improvement test. Islam doesn't pass that test. Nor does Judaism. Then in what sense would they be equal? Certainly not in the sense of improving the world, where Christianity is in a league of its own.

If Judaists sticking with the old ways after Jesus had been critical thinkers, they would have realised that either Jesus was THEIR Messiah, or there would never be a Messiah for them, ever, so they might as well fish with Jesus or cut bait altogether.

If Muhammad had been a critical thinker 600 years after Jesus, he would have found it counter-productive for humanity's well-being to start a new religion on desert sand, without any foundation - and to use violence, on top of all, to propagate it. That's totally unacceptable for any humane thinker. It means you have to suspend coherent thinking to become a Muslim, which explains the abominable violence that has accompanied "total submission to God" since the outset.

If Jesus had been a critical thinker... well, he was a terrific critical thinker, which is why he did the things he did. And which is why it's in everyone's best interest to try and implement his teaching. Since Jesus passes the critical thinking world improvement test with flying colours, feel free to challange him. Like Charlie Hebdo. Go ahead, make our day. Jesus wins any critical thinking world improvement debate hands down.

Christians don't use violence to spread their good news, good news spreads on its own. You look at prosperous communities in the West and envy them for the prosperity they achieved with Jesus. Challengers don't meet violent ends, because they are trumped by logic, reason and critical thinking. Just like the silent French Christian majority has let Charlie Hebdo do what it did over the years. Things could have gone on that way forever, were it not for those who use violence to force total submission to... well, brutality. Armed radical bullying is a last refuge for those whose ideas don't stand the critical thinking world improvement test or any rational market review. They will fail even with arms, as their concepts are not marketable and don't lead to anything like the peace and prosperity achieved with Jesus.

Charlie Hebdo never stood a chance in a rational debate with the Messiah, and those who brutally murdered Charlie Hebdo staff don't stand even a fighting chance in that debate, theirs is a groundless, merciless, mindless, inherently lost cause. Moreover, their kind of behaviour does not belong in the land of the Messiah's peace and prosperity.

I am NOT Charlie Hebdo, since I know better, but I am NOT a mindless Charlie Hebdo hater either, because I'm confident that reason with Jesus the Messiah will save the day and improve the world.

Jesus, Wise Man of Nazareth

Jesus was a divisive celebrity, his contemporaries either loved him or hated him passionately. To this day, opinions are divided about his political teachings, i.e. whether he had a coherent political teaching at all, and whether it makes sense to talk about that teaching while disregarding the resurrection-related cult.

The Messiah expected by Judaists is quite a political figure, a triumphant king of the world. He may perform miracles, but they're not in his job description, and the script developed by scripture analists doesn't anticipate Him rising from the dead. As opposed to the script, Jesus is less political (doesn't object to paying taxes to Emperor Augustus, doesn't start an uprising to kick out the Roman oppressors, doesn't allow people to elect Him king), apparently, he doesn't triumph (ends up in the gallows, the cross being its equivalent at the time), and then his resurrection puts his achievements in a fundamentally new light. But what if he didn't rise? Let's examine what changes in that case.

In order to talk about Jesus' political teachings from an unbiased vantage point, it makes sense to subscribe to the Judaist majority opinion that he was executed, died and... stayed dead, end of story. The pious tradition is hereby suspended, at least for the duration of the arguments that follow. This leaves a Jesus "only" a man, and the man's teachings can be examined in their own right. Siddharta (the Enlightened), Aristoteles, Plato, Socrates, Zarathustra, Epicthetos, Hedon, Lao Ce, Alexander the Great and Muhammed all entered history books as "only" men, and that doesn't stop people studying them. Let's use a single standard and not brush Jesus aside on grounds that according to some (be it the founders of our civilisation), he also rose from the dead.

What did Jesus teach according to the Gospels? His parables are summed up by these four values: brotherhood, equality, responsible freedom and meritocracy (BERM for short). These four values seem to be quite close to the slogans of the French Revolution, but at second sight, they are quite far from them in substance. Jesus teaches that all humans are brothers/sisters and are, therefore, equal; freedom is valuable only if it comes with a sense of responsibility for the state of the world; and the community should be led by those who merit through humility to lead it. All of Jesus' statements fall under these four values and none of His statements contradict any of these four values. Let's appraise this teaching in its own right: is there any other set of values that would benefit the world more than BERM? If yes, what is that, where is it implemented, and where can its results be checked? In the absence of such an alternative, BERM is the best and, therefore, prevails, whether taught by Jesus or not, and whether the teacher of BERM rose from the dead or not.

Let's test whether our assessment of BERM is based on a single standard, by applying it to Siddharta and His teachings for instance. Suppose the Buddha was "only" a wise man who gave His followers earthly teachings that serve as the foundations of a relatively successful civilisation.

What did Siddharta teach? Compassion, love of all beings, keeping a distance from all physical stimuli and passion, and the happiness of a relative indifference. Now suppose Siddharta gets a critical reappraisal by modern science. Suppose critics think he was deluded, he was never enlightened and never reached Nirvana (especially as there is no such place). Suppose modern science concludes that not one extraordinary detail about Siddharta is true, He was merely a teacher, nothing beyond that. Does that invalidate his teaching of compassion, love of all beings, distance from stimuli and passion, happiness of relative indifference? No, it does not. A relatively successful civilisation is built upon this teaching, why should members of that civilisation suddenly reject its core values? Does it follow that "Siddharta" is a take-it-or-leave-it package you either accept or reject as is? No, it does not. There may be many people (there ARE many) who are not sure whether the Buddha was the Buddha and whether He ever made it to Nirvana, but they do know from experience that a relatively successful civilisation is built upon his teaching, and that success confirms the teaching.

So if you want to rid Buddhist civilisation of the Buddha, you may have bitten off more than you can chew. It's not enough to say that Siddharta was deluded and made up a non-existant Nirvana he never reached. You must also add that Siddharta was not a wise man, that he failed as a human, the civilisation built upon His teaching is nothing, which annuls His teaching. This is going to be a hard sell to Buddhists. (There is a better product you can actually sell: the Buddha was a great wise man, but the Nazarean was an even greater wise man, at least the civilisation based on His teaching is more successful, and should thus be considered as an upgrade.)

What does this suggest regarding the teaching of Jesus, the Wise Man of Nazareth? Aspiring to implement BERM built the world's most successful civilisation, which confirms Jesus' teaching even in the absence of faith in His resurrection or anything supernatural. It doesn't even challenge the idea that He may have been the Jewish Messiah, because the Jewish Messiah was not supposed to rise from the dead or be the Son of God to begin with, there was no such requirement. The "Wise Man of Nazareth" package is not a take-it-or-leave-it proposition that you either accept with resurrection or reject completely. There may be many people (in fact, there should be many non-believers) who are not sure whether Jesus actually rose from the dead, whether He actually sits on the Father's right and whether He'll actually come to judge the world, but they do know from experience that aspiring to implement BERM has resulted in the most successful civilisation of all time, which confirms the teaching. This is sufficient for ensuring the Christian World's success and coexistence in prosperity.

Openness is a key component of any argumentation that relies on a single standard: if there is a wise man who is even greater than the Nazarean, if there is an approach that's better and more just than BERM, if it results in a civilisation that is even more attractive than Christianity, great, let's have the data. Let's see what that approach is, let's assess its merit, and consider the comparative outcome as a potential upgrade. (If you know of any such approach, please submit it in a comment.)