The recent congressional legislation on credit cards (expected to be signed by President Obama, including a totally unrelated measure to allow concealed handguns in national parks) limits advertising that credit card companies can do towards young people. It would require, for anyone under 21, either a parent cosigner or demonstration of
(
Read more... )
In a way, this is similar. Sure, we don't want people drinking because it's bad for them, but mostly, it's bad for other people. If there's one thing that the economic crisis has shown, it is that people spending money that they don't have (and have no plausible chance at ever getting) is supremely bad for other people, and that the market doesn't do a good enough job of internalizing that cost to society.
But there's the other similarity to the drinking age, and that is that people will have had experience with something else before they are 21, and that is spending money. And the thing is, spending cash is very different than using a credit card. Cash is tangible. You can't bounce cash. You can't go above a limit. You have it or you don't, and when you don't, you only cause problems for yourself, not others. So the result is that if you don't allow credit cards before 18, then people who have had many years worth of spending experience will suddenly assume that it's the exact same thing, and go crazy.
As far as requiring a parent to cosign before 21, I agree with something you mentioned above that pushing the legal definition of "full adult" higher is a bad idea.
So, I guess, in summary, I agree :-)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I would be cool with limiting the under 18 crowd to Bud Lite, for example. You can still get drunk on that stuff, but to get to that point (for those of Irish extraction at any rate) you're going to be rushing to the toilet a lot. Some people get drunk much easier, of course.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment