|
|
|
|
|
by jakelazaroff
2695 days ago
|
|
> So then they decide to: Ban the bad thing people do for relief when they are desperate. All while not ameliorating the suffering that cause the desperate bad relief efforts. There's another option, of course: create regulations to limit only the harmful effects of the thing. It's not like there's some law of economics that says we can't find a way to make loans accessible to people who need money without also enabling predatory lending. |
|
The new laws would have removed 90% of the industry, including my ability to have participated.
I fully supported the limitation of debiting end user accounts, which was part of the legislation.
I'm completely against the need to 'verify someone can pay'... which I read as basically requiring credit scores. Which again, don't really protect people as they have little to do with your ability to pay (just your previous history of payment)
I'm seeing this as filled with details that need to be considered and making decisions to support or oppose based on that.
But please, don't let details or getting to know what you are talking about get in the way of your decision to support something or not.