Correct, if you have no credit history then financial institutions are not as confident in your ability to pay back loans. This is not remotely comparable to reducing people's social credit for associating with political undesirables.

I wasn't making the comparison, I was correcting a misrepresentation you made about the US credit scoring system only penalizing you for not paying debts.

I never said the system only penalizes you for not paying debts:

> It's all based on your debts, and repayment of said debt.

Absence of credit history is based on your debt (or more specifically lack thereof).

And as written, someone that didn't already know about it would make a false inference about what kind of people would be marked as radioactive. I was pre-empting that (very likely) false inference. The fact that you didn't explicitly say the false thing (or that you can cleverly read "based on debts" to mean some non-obvious thing) doesn't obviate the need for that clarification.

"Clarifications" shouldn't start with the word "No".

It might be non-obvious but the phrasing wasn't deceptive or "clever", it's the system that's weird.