True on the value of the car. Less so I think on the interest. The interest I pay on my main house would rent my rental property, and I lived in that house for 10 years. It's a nice little place.
But on the subject of status symbols: My Econ 101 teacher has a saying: Incentives Matter.
For the Ghetto folks (of all colors) we have set up a system where, if they are "poor" enough, the .gov will give them money, food, and housing. Or at least parts of it. The government, being mostly not ghetto folks, then set the benchmarks for "poor enough" by non ghetto norms. i.e. good job, own a house, bank accounts. Things like that. We incentiveized NOT having traditional signs of wealth. Incentives Matter.
So, because I really do think competition is hardwired into the human psyche the folks responded to that incentive and found ways to compete with their neighbors without loosing the free benefits. They pretty much made up new wealth symbols. So we have wheels, shoes, clothes, cars and the like rising in this subculture. It's not any different from the more traditional forms of wealth competition.
You can argue about "basic needs first" and debt all you want, but by and large the folks with shoes, suits and nice cars are demonstrably not starving, nor are they living in the streets. I'm not sure what basic needs you feel they haven't met before they bought the kicks?
I understand, and agree, that the mooching they use to meet those needs is repugnant, but it is a pretty obvious response to the system and incentives Liberal White Guilt set up for poor america. Out where near where I live it's a rough trailer, a $50,000 truck and $5000 worth of Duck Commander clothes. In the city it's a Caddy, 30 pairs of Nike's and a different hat for every day. In my actual neighborhood it's $300,000 homes, more cars in the family than drivers, and Nice suits from Nordstroms. Either way it's all the same dance. I applaud the OP for finding a good way to profit from human nature.
