5 ms·

Stating that still assumes rational actors. It is based off the premise of "freedom" above all else. The problem with freedom is that the way it is defined real

Stating that still assumes rational actors. It is based off the premise of "freedom" above all else. The problem with freedom is that the way it is defined really depends on what you want to achieve. Infinite choice is the simplest form of freedom, but in this case, you are enabling market forces to remove the ability for people with poor judgement to lose any capacity for future financial freedom, a form of freedom I would argue is more important that short term choice. Edit: I would also like to state that extending credit also increases demand, pushing up prices in the rest of the market, increasing the demand for credit for all players. This is exactly how housing bubble flames are fanned, and it applies at any level of the economy. If people at the bottom are unable to afford necessities, providing them more credit doesn't actually increase their capacity to afford necessities, it is simply a time shift. If that is the scenario that is coming up, a different solution must be found, otherwise you just end up with more interest going to people who already have the money. Classic Gamblers ruin.

rayiner 8y ago
Yes, I’m assuming poor people aren’t irrational. Silly me.
- stouset 8y ago
  We’re all irrational. We all lack access to complete information about any market we’re acting in. Entire business models have been created to take advantage of and even maximize this type of information asymmetry. Legislation exists to curb the most egregious offenders. You can argue whether or not this specific case is egregious enough to warrant regulation. But implying we’re all fully rational actors who can make perfect (or even good) decisions in times of great distress and who don’t ever need sort of safety rail to protect us from our own ignorance, urgency, or rashness is just arguing in bad faith.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Information asymmetry results in market failures, and can justify regulation. But the Obama payday regulations aren’t directed to information asymmetry. They do not, for example, require certain transparency measures. Instead, what they do is place limits on who lenders and lend to.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      You seem to assume that there are transparency measures that would adequately resolve an information assymetry (which doesn't just exist in possession of information but practical capacity to apply it), and further in making a claim about what the regs are directed at that the regulators agree with you in that belief. Neither point is obvious.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Yes, I’m assuming poor people aren’t irrational. Silly me. Quite silly; that people in general are well modelled by the assumption of rationality is one of the most thoroughly disproven offer in the social sciences, and that the people who end up at the bottom end of the economic distribution disproportionately includes those who are particularly poorly modelled by the assumption of perfect utility maximization as if with full knowledge of the costs and utilities of all available should be fairly obvious.
neveroffensive 8y ago
There is no such thing as "financial freedom". Financial freedom is a concept that arises from personal beliefs and practices. There is only one universal freedom, the freedom of chioce. I think this is more important than any 21st century pay day lending problem. We need to preserve free choice not just for our generation/set of problems, but for all time. Edit: Don't confuse living a long, healthy, happy life with freedom. They could not be more different.
- Arbalest 8y ago
  No, absolutely not. Choice in its purest form is and always was an illusion. People are driven by their circumstances and their environment, they do not have a consciousness that is capable of perceiving and acting apart from the world they live in. Jean-Paul Satre make a very cute case for Radical Freedom, but it is little more than a thought experiment. Ultimately people would prefer to know that things are going to get better, but perhaps they don't have the tools and know-how to do it. Much like telling a depressed person they have a choice to not be depressed, someone desperately poor doesn't have the simple choice to not be poor. Financial freedom can be thought of at many levels, some all the way up to super rich and able to subvert laws at their whim. In this context, I am meaning freedom from the emotional distress caused from being incapable of being secure in the knowledge that there is a high probability they will have a roof over their head and food to eat for at least a couple of months. In turn, this allows for forward planning, and forward planning is the manifestation of being capable of exercising choice with regards to that persons/family's future development. So, considering that people are constrained by their environment, our "generation/set of problems" is absolutely relevant, suggesting there is some universal otherwise which can be preserved with impunity is akin to suggesting there exists/can exist a form of universal justice.
  - neveroffensive 8y ago
    I believe universal justice exists. I believe you can quantify justice. I think at the end of the day you and I are both right, and both wrong. We hold utterly different perspectives on life, choice, and freedom. These may be irreconcilable. For example, I genuinely believe depression can be cured by "not being depressed". Edit: What if I want to live my life paycheck to paycheck? What if none of what you just described about freedom from the emotional stress of finances matters to me? What right do you have to force me to make the "right" choices and be financially responsible? Why shouldn't I be allowed to hurt myself?

rayiner 8y ago

Yes, I’m assuming poor people aren’t irrational. Silly me.

stouset 8y ago
We’re all irrational. We all lack access to complete information about any market we’re acting in. Entire business models have been created to take advantage of and even maximize this type of information asymmetry. Legislation exists to curb the most egregious offenders. You can argue whether or not this specific case is egregious enough to warrant regulation. But implying we’re all fully rational actors who can make perfect (or even good) decisions in times of great distress and who don’t ever need sort of safety rail to protect us from our own ignorance, urgency, or rashness is just arguing in bad faith.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Information asymmetry results in market failures, and can justify regulation. But the Obama payday regulations aren’t directed to information asymmetry. They do not, for example, require certain transparency measures. Instead, what they do is place limits on who lenders and lend to.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    You seem to assume that there are transparency measures that would adequately resolve an information assymetry (which doesn't just exist in possession of information but practical capacity to apply it), and further in making a claim about what the regs are directed at that the regulators agree with you in that belief. Neither point is obvious.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Yes, I’m assuming poor people aren’t irrational. Silly me. Quite silly; that people in general are well modelled by the assumption of rationality is one of the most thoroughly disproven offer in the social sciences, and that the people who end up at the bottom end of the economic distribution disproportionately includes those who are particularly poorly modelled by the assumption of perfect utility maximization as if with full knowledge of the costs and utilities of all available should be fairly obvious.

neveroffensive 8y ago

There is no such thing as "financial freedom". Financial freedom is a concept that arises from personal beliefs and practices. There is only one universal freedom, the freedom of chioce. I think this is more important than any 21st century pay day lending problem. We need to preserve free choice not just for our generation/set of problems, but for all time. Edit: Don't confuse living a long, healthy, happy life with freedom. They could not be more different.

Arbalest 8y ago
No, absolutely not. Choice in its purest form is and always was an illusion. People are driven by their circumstances and their environment, they do not have a consciousness that is capable of perceiving and acting apart from the world they live in. Jean-Paul Satre make a very cute case for Radical Freedom, but it is little more than a thought experiment. Ultimately people would prefer to know that things are going to get better, but perhaps they don't have the tools and know-how to do it. Much like telling a depressed person they have a choice to not be depressed, someone desperately poor doesn't have the simple choice to not be poor. Financial freedom can be thought of at many levels, some all the way up to super rich and able to subvert laws at their whim. In this context, I am meaning freedom from the emotional distress caused from being incapable of being secure in the knowledge that there is a high probability they will have a roof over their head and food to eat for at least a couple of months. In turn, this allows for forward planning, and forward planning is the manifestation of being capable of exercising choice with regards to that persons/family's future development. So, considering that people are constrained by their environment, our "generation/set of problems" is absolutely relevant, suggesting there is some universal otherwise which can be preserved with impunity is akin to suggesting there exists/can exist a form of universal justice.
- neveroffensive 8y ago
  I believe universal justice exists. I believe you can quantify justice. I think at the end of the day you and I are both right, and both wrong. We hold utterly different perspectives on life, choice, and freedom. These may be irreconcilable. For example, I genuinely believe depression can be cured by "not being depressed". Edit: What if I want to live my life paycheck to paycheck? What if none of what you just described about freedom from the emotional stress of finances matters to me? What right do you have to force me to make the "right" choices and be financially responsible? Why shouldn't I be allowed to hurt myself?