|
|
|
|
|
|
by noodlenotes
2695 days ago
|
|
|
This brings up an interesting ethical question. Let's say for every entrepreneur who stays afloat because of a payday loan, there are two people who don't manage money well and the payday loan sends them spiraling into debt. Do you prevent all three from taking the payday loan option because it has negative consequences for two of them? What if the ratio of people that benefit from payday loans is more like one in ten? One in a hundred? I don't feel justified in legally preventing the entrepreneur from taking an action that helps them just because two or nine or ninety-nine people have the same freedom and make a bad decision. (That doesn't mean I blanket oppose all regulation however.) |
|
|
Even IF that is true.
What do you get by regulating out of existence?
It stops?
Or it goes underground.
Think marijuana. What happened when legal? What happened when illegal?
I'm not saying don't regulate. I'm saying don't regulate it to death where only 3-4 big companies can operate in the space and then play oligopoly games.
Paying $200 in fees and stuff over 12 months on a $50 loan IS 400%. Just like an overdraft fee of $50 on a $10 charge could be touted in the papers as 500% interest.
Is there stuff to be cleaned up? Absolutely. Did this bill do it? No. It was restrictive.
I actually think this is something better suited for states to decide. And that is what is happening now.