>> Now did the banks enter into a contract with those people with an expectation of payment? No. They wanted to drag it out as long as they could.
Clearly the banks make more money if the CC borrower delays paying back the loan.
But the borrower is always in complete control of the process. Don’t borrow more than you can afford to pay back each month, and you’ll never have to pay that exhorbitant rate.
If you view credit card lending as immoral, then the immorality is in the actions of the borrower, who didn’t know when to quit.
In all my years I have never had a revolving account lender force his way into my home, put a gun to my head, and thereby make be borrow money from him.
The banks provided a service that literally millions of borrowers were clamoring for — in the GOOD times, that is. Why are they the evil ones?
Never said they were evil just they knew they could find plenty of suckers to take them up and the banks had no qualms doing it.
You equated it to a moral issue. My point is that it is not. The banks don’t care and a non-living thing has no ethics. The banks made loads of money and should have been forced to failure for bad risks.
The issue is with the government doling out relief. It is nothing to do with a contract signed by parties.