Actually it is. Simply take out a couple of loans you don't need and pay them off at the agreed upon schedule.

Taking out loans that you don't need, not spending the money, and paying them back on time (with interest) should be a very positive credit score indicator.

It shows that the person is planning ahead, is careful with not overspending even if they have cash available, is organized enough to make all the monthly payments on time. To me that seems like a better signal than someone who does need the loan.

How would a person who takes out the same loan, but actually spends the money be a better credit risk?

I agree, but in fairness, the way credit agencies use that information is nonetheless gameable. They ignore all of your payment diligence when it comes to bills (utilities, rent, cable, etc) but consider it a positive indicator when you get a credit card that you pay off every month.

This leads people to do something they don't want to do, and is no more informative than paying all those other bills would have been, merely to increase their score. That's a kind of gaming.

I think you do have to consider too, that these companies also want to give you credit (it is their business,) and in many cases they will likely have insurance that pays when you default.

If the way they have allowed you to "game" this metric results in you signing up for some credit in order to improve your credit score, that's nothing but a net win for them. They got you some credit, that's definitely a score for them.

(I'm not saying that credit card companies would prefer all of their customers to default, they would never be able to buy insurance again... I just want to put it out there that maybe the system works exactly this way, 100% deliberately, because it benefits them too.)

That doesn't change the value of "has paid back all debts owed?".

But it does affect the "has paid off x% of loans"

Which wasn't the couterexample.