4 ms·

Many people make use of payday loans. If you remove that option, those people aren't any better off. Restricting or prohibiting payday loans is politicians sayi

by pitaj 8y ago

Many people make use of payday loans. If you remove that option, those people aren't any better off. Restricting or prohibiting payday loans is politicians saying they can make better choices than the people they're claiming to help. Does it come from good intentions? Of course. But it's also fundamentally elitist.

sangnoir 8y ago
> Many people make use of payday loans. If you remove that option, those people aren't any better off. This is a false dichotomy - the options are wider than "unregulated lenders" and "non-existant lenders". Imagine saying in 1850: "Many 8 year olds work in coal mines. If you remove that option, those kids aren't any better off."
- candiodari 8y ago
  They did not remove that option. They provided schools, as an option, without forcing people, then made them free (mostly because the church was out competing them, but ... it's not like that still matters). Kids were widely expected to work on the fields during school holidays as recently as the 70s. For that matter, ever notice how if you wanted your kid to work the fields, that school holidays sure have mighty convenient dates ? That's not a coincidence ... So they very much did not remove the option of having kids work in the coal mines and on the fields. Not for a LOOOONG time after the 1850s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws_in_the_United... You could apply that here: the government could get into the payday lending business and enforce a maximum interest rate that way.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >mostly because the church was out competing them, but ... it's not like that still matters I disagree that it does not still matter. For the past few centuries or so (depending on what country you're looking at) the church had the monopoly on morals and the state had the monopoly on violence. It seems to have in the last 100yr (in the US at least) the government, and to a lesser extent corporations, have replaced the church as the source of morals for a great deal of the population in Europe and North America. Public education is a great net good but we need to be careful with it because the line between education and indoctrination is a fine one. I think that the replacement of church provided education with public education poses a slow long term risk to secular societies. You do not want the entity that has a monopoly on violence also controlling education and with it morality. That's how you get the crusades, the USSR, etc. I'm not sure what the solution is. I don't think increased religion is it. FWIW I am not religious.
- pitaj 8y ago
  Why are people using payday loans if they already have better alternatives? If it wasn't their best option, why would they pick it? Yes, you're making them worse off by removing their best option. > Imagine saying in 1850: "Many 8 year olds work in coal mines. If you remove that option, those kids aren't any better off." Why are kids working in mines if they already have better alternatives? If it wasn't their best option, why would they pick it? Yes, you're making them worse off by removing their best option.
  - arthur_pryor 8y ago
    the point is, by removing the "least bad" option of an 8 year old working a coal mine, we were forced to improve our labor practices overall. if kids don't have a better option than working in a coal mine at 8, society needs to come up with that better option, rather than giving the kid/family the current "best".
    - pitaj 8y ago
      But doing so will only force them into worse options for the time being. By restricting those options, you aren't magically progressing society into higher standards of living. If you want better options, create them. Then you won't need to forcefully restrict other options, people will voluntarily switch over.
      - lazyasciiart 8y ago
        Citation needed.
    - kortilla 8y ago
      Well banning them certainly would have led to many families being worse off in the short term (lost income) and coal prices increasing (reduced labor pool). The analysis needs to be compared against alternative policies that would have discouraged it through market pressure (e.g. free school for children with a free meal) rather than an outright ban. Don’t ban the undesirable thing, figure out why people are doing the undesirable thing in the first place and address that. Btw the children example is bad because there is an entirely separate argument about the child not being old enough to make decisions that completely muddies the point.
threeseed 8y ago
Nobody is necessarily saying get rid of payday loans. Only that they are heavily regulated to ensure that (a) consumers are fully informed, (b) no lending occurs to people who can't afford them and (c) interest rates are capped to reasonably levels.
- pitaj 8y ago
  Doing that still means restricting the options people have
  - stouset 8y ago
    Yes, that would be the point of regulation.
  - dd36 8y ago
    The people that can’t afford it?
candiodari 8y ago
Ever notice how that's the entire premise of leftist thought ? "Let's just restructure society the way we see as better", and then the addendum "not by helping - of course, by force of punishment" once politicians come into it. I wish we went back to the left of the 90s. No more "you can't do X - bad for climate", "you can't do Y - bad for the poor", "you can't do Z - bad for the children". I want the left back of nuclear powered rockets for everyone. I want the left of a suburban home for EVERYONE with an on-demand electric private tram in front of it. Modernized, perhaps slightly less nuclear (although if that's what's needed, go for it) but essentially that concept. Granted that was more like the 60s, but ... In the 90s, the left was "We'll give everyone a good life. A car, a home, decent food, some amount of holiday, decent transport, ...". Now it's just "not that. No not that. Not that either. DEFINITELY NOT THAT!". Well, that and conspiracy theories (face it people, Exxon Mobil has a 5% profit margin, 9 in their best years, -40 in their worst. Eliminating all their profits ... won't just pay for everything. And no, that does not make them evil)
- breatheoften 8y ago
  Who is this 'left' you choose to misidentify everyone as?
- stouset 8y ago
  Constructing straw men and tearing them down might make you feel superior, but I hope you come to realize that it does absolutely nothing to convince anyone who doesn’t already share your viewpoint.
Bud 8y ago
You don't actually know, pitaj, that those people are not better off. You just made that up. I think the odds are much better that those protected from usury are, in fact, better off.
- pitaj 8y ago
  This is exactly what I was referring to by "elitism". If people were better off to not have the loans, why would they ever use them? You think you know better than these people, but you are not in their situation. Perhaps instead of restricting options, you should offer free poverty counseling or something. Expand people's options, don't restrict them.
  - stouset 8y ago
    If people are better off not falling for scams, why do they ever fall for them?
  - dlp211 8y ago
    Because people are not purely rational actors no matter how much you want them to be.
  - comicjk 8y ago
    In the context of limited time and information when making decisions - i.e. real life - removing an option that's (on average) a mistake can make the average chooser better off. That's obvious; it's why we have guardrails on the sides of highways. The question is utilitarian, not absolute. It depends on the specifics of the regulation. Furthermore you don't have to think that the regulators are elite - anyone can make a better decision in the abstract than they can in the heat of the moment.
    - appleiigs 8y ago
      > anyone can make a better decision in the abstract than they can in the heat of the moment. What if it’s not in the heat if the moment and you’ve taken my best option away because of a blanket restriction.

by pitaj 8y ago

sangnoir 8y ago

> Many people make use of payday loans. If you remove that option, those people aren't any better off. This is a false dichotomy - the options are wider than "unregulated lenders" and "non-existant lenders". Imagine saying in 1850: "Many 8 year olds work in coal mines. If you remove that option, those kids aren't any better off."

candiodari 8y ago
They did not remove that option. They provided schools, as an option, without forcing people, then made them free (mostly because the church was out competing them, but ... it's not like that still matters). Kids were widely expected to work on the fields during school holidays as recently as the 70s. For that matter, ever notice how if you wanted your kid to work the fields, that school holidays sure have mighty convenient dates ? That's not a coincidence ... So they very much did not remove the option of having kids work in the coal mines and on the fields. Not for a LOOOONG time after the 1850s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws_in_the_United... You could apply that here: the government could get into the payday lending business and enforce a maximum interest rate that way.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >mostly because the church was out competing them, but ... it's not like that still matters I disagree that it does not still matter. For the past few centuries or so (depending on what country you're looking at) the church had the monopoly on morals and the state had the monopoly on violence. It seems to have in the last 100yr (in the US at least) the government, and to a lesser extent corporations, have replaced the church as the source of morals for a great deal of the population in Europe and North America. Public education is a great net good but we need to be careful with it because the line between education and indoctrination is a fine one. I think that the replacement of church provided education with public education poses a slow long term risk to secular societies. You do not want the entity that has a monopoly on violence also controlling education and with it morality. That's how you get the crusades, the USSR, etc. I'm not sure what the solution is. I don't think increased religion is it. FWIW I am not religious.
pitaj 8y ago
Why are people using payday loans if they already have better alternatives? If it wasn't their best option, why would they pick it? Yes, you're making them worse off by removing their best option. > Imagine saying in 1850: "Many 8 year olds work in coal mines. If you remove that option, those kids aren't any better off." Why are kids working in mines if they already have better alternatives? If it wasn't their best option, why would they pick it? Yes, you're making them worse off by removing their best option.
- arthur_pryor 8y ago
  the point is, by removing the "least bad" option of an 8 year old working a coal mine, we were forced to improve our labor practices overall. if kids don't have a better option than working in a coal mine at 8, society needs to come up with that better option, rather than giving the kid/family the current "best".
  - pitaj 8y ago
    But doing so will only force them into worse options for the time being. By restricting those options, you aren't magically progressing society into higher standards of living. If you want better options, create them. Then you won't need to forcefully restrict other options, people will voluntarily switch over.
    - lazyasciiart 8y ago
      Citation needed.
  - kortilla 8y ago
    Well banning them certainly would have led to many families being worse off in the short term (lost income) and coal prices increasing (reduced labor pool). The analysis needs to be compared against alternative policies that would have discouraged it through market pressure (e.g. free school for children with a free meal) rather than an outright ban. Don’t ban the undesirable thing, figure out why people are doing the undesirable thing in the first place and address that. Btw the children example is bad because there is an entirely separate argument about the child not being old enough to make decisions that completely muddies the point.

threeseed 8y ago

Nobody is necessarily saying get rid of payday loans. Only that they are heavily regulated to ensure that (a) consumers are fully informed, (b) no lending occurs to people who can't afford them and (c) interest rates are capped to reasonably levels.

pitaj 8y ago
Doing that still means restricting the options people have
- stouset 8y ago
  Yes, that would be the point of regulation.
- dd36 8y ago
  The people that can’t afford it?

candiodari 8y ago

Ever notice how that's the entire premise of leftist thought ? "Let's just restructure society the way we see as better", and then the addendum "not by helping - of course, by force of punishment" once politicians come into it. I wish we went back to the left of the 90s. No more "you can't do X - bad for climate", "you can't do Y - bad for the poor", "you can't do Z - bad for the children". I want the left back of nuclear powered rockets for everyone. I want the left of a suburban home for EVERYONE with an on-demand electric private tram in front of it. Modernized, perhaps slightly less nuclear (although if that's what's needed, go for it) but essentially that concept. Granted that was more like the 60s, but ... In the 90s, the left was "We'll give everyone a good life. A car, a home, decent food, some amount of holiday, decent transport, ...". Now it's just "not that. No not that. Not that either. DEFINITELY NOT THAT!". Well, that and conspiracy theories (face it people, Exxon Mobil has a 5% profit margin, 9 in their best years, -40 in their worst. Eliminating all their profits ... won't just pay for everything. And no, that does not make them evil)

breatheoften 8y ago
Who is this 'left' you choose to misidentify everyone as?
stouset 8y ago
Constructing straw men and tearing them down might make you feel superior, but I hope you come to realize that it does absolutely nothing to convince anyone who doesn’t already share your viewpoint.

Bud 8y ago

You don't actually know, pitaj, that those people are not better off. You just made that up. I think the odds are much better that those protected from usury are, in fact, better off.

pitaj 8y ago
This is exactly what I was referring to by "elitism". If people were better off to not have the loans, why would they ever use them? You think you know better than these people, but you are not in their situation. Perhaps instead of restricting options, you should offer free poverty counseling or something. Expand people's options, don't restrict them.
- stouset 8y ago
  If people are better off not falling for scams, why do they ever fall for them?
- dlp211 8y ago
  Because people are not purely rational actors no matter how much you want them to be.
- comicjk 8y ago
  In the context of limited time and information when making decisions - i.e. real life - removing an option that's (on average) a mistake can make the average chooser better off. That's obvious; it's why we have guardrails on the sides of highways. The question is utilitarian, not absolute. It depends on the specifics of the regulation. Furthermore you don't have to think that the regulators are elite - anyone can make a better decision in the abstract than they can in the heat of the moment.
  - appleiigs 8y ago
    > anyone can make a better decision in the abstract than they can in the heat of the moment. What if it’s not in the heat if the moment and you’ve taken my best option away because of a blanket restriction.