4 ms·

I'm sorry to dismiss this more or less out of hand, but this is a case of anecdotal evidence. Using your case to generalise to greater choice is falling victim

I'm sorry to dismiss this more or less out of hand, but this is a case of anecdotal evidence. Using your case to generalise to greater choice is falling victim to the assumption that all players are rational actors.

kortilla 8y ago
>the assumption that all players are rational actors. A.k.a the assumption that people should have agency
- kelnos 8y ago
  Not at all. Just because you have agency, it doesn't mean you'll wield it rationally, or even responsibly. And so you get the central question: in what cases should you protect people from themselves? It's a hard question to answer. Given that financial education in the US is nearly nonexistent, I would personally err on the side of protections in the financial sphere. Does that mean that some legitimate cases get denied? Probably. Is that a worse outcome? I don't know the answer to that.
  - towelr34dy 8y ago
    So by protection, you mean the bill as it was, that would 'remove pay day lending'. Maybe we'll copy what we did with drugs. Hmm... what guarantees mob option will stop existing? That's what's happened with drugs. Drugs are easily available. Or are you suggesting creating another lender of last resort? I'm sorry, I'm not sure your offering a solution. It seems what is offered is a blind restriction to satiate your own feelings of 'protecting others'. Like we've done with drugs. It doesn't work because it doesn't address the problem, just the symptom. It's arrogant and short sighted.
    - kelnos 8y ago
      I wasn't coming down for or against the bill as-is at all; merely on the assertion about agency the parent commenter made. I suggest you calm your anger and finger pointing and avoid reading things that I did not write. I too agree that the War on Drugs is a boondoggle and has caused more harm and created more criminals (legitimate and otherwise) than we'd have without it. But I think we can agree that having a lot of people (for example) suffering and dying from opioid abuse isn't great either. Rehabilitation programs are the obvious answer, not just jailing people. Payday lending is a totally different beast. I'm not sure what a great solution might be. While it's physically safer to take a loan from a payday lender than from an illegal, shady, mob-run loan shark, payday lending can still be incredibly harmful. Outright banning probably isn't the answer, but allowing them to run as they have been isn't great either.
towelr34dy 8y ago
How dare consenting adults do things I find offensive. I don't drink. Drunk people act stupid. Let's ban alcohol. It'll be great. Prove to me it won't! Oh, you enjoy alcohol responsibly? That's just anecdotal. Not like MY anecdotal evidence, I see drunks everywhere... everyone knows that. And they are all alcoholics who are depraved by predatory beer companies. My anecdotal evidence is good and corroborated by my tribe. And you must prove me wrong, despite the fact that I'm the one making statements like we need to regulate something. Oh, and of course, once we ban it, no mafia guy is going to start offering it in a sketchy way... there's NO WAY that will happen in a low class neighborhood because we really take care of our poor. I have this all planned out. Going with my gut to make emotive detached decisions instead of dealing with the grit of reality is so nice. /s
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  I mean despite your terrible sarcasm, we do have rational regulations on things like alcohol or gambling because we recognize that it helps protect people overall, sometimes indeed from themselves. Your argument is essentially 'I don't drive drunk, therefore we don't need any laws against drunk driving' since the expectation is that people will behave rationally. Or that we don't need regulations against things like cigarettes because people know the harm already. Obviously there's room to debate on how socially dangerous something is and whether it warrents regulation; hence the ongoing debate on marijuana legalization; but in general he's right: relying on anecdotal evidence and extrapolating that is bad form. It provides context and reason for your arguments, but is not an argument in itself.
  - towelr34dy 8y ago
    Err, we do have payday lending regulations. The new ones would basically destroy the industry. It would remove the vast majority of lenders of last resort. It wasn't just capping fees. It was 'making sure the lender could pay' Let's see, who else does that... banks. How? a credit score. Which has nothing to do with being able to pay truly pay long term or be sustainable. Some poor people have good credit. Some rich people have bad. It's... messy. But please don't let the details of what you support actually alter what you support in name. BTW, if the rules were only targeting continuation fees (i.e. multiple debit restriction part), I'd 100% support them. Remember, your talking to someone who has been there, done that. I'm not against all legislation. I'm against privileged people sitting on a high horse, looking down on 'the commoners' and telling them what they need. I personally would not have qualified under the new regulations when I took the loans. I feel like I'm talking to someone who has good health wanting to ban sneezing instead of helping the sick. And you are talking to someone who has been sick.

kortilla 8y ago

>the assumption that all players are rational actors. A.k.a the assumption that people should have agency

kelnos 8y ago
Not at all. Just because you have agency, it doesn't mean you'll wield it rationally, or even responsibly. And so you get the central question: in what cases should you protect people from themselves? It's a hard question to answer. Given that financial education in the US is nearly nonexistent, I would personally err on the side of protections in the financial sphere. Does that mean that some legitimate cases get denied? Probably. Is that a worse outcome? I don't know the answer to that.
- towelr34dy 8y ago
  So by protection, you mean the bill as it was, that would 'remove pay day lending'. Maybe we'll copy what we did with drugs. Hmm... what guarantees mob option will stop existing? That's what's happened with drugs. Drugs are easily available. Or are you suggesting creating another lender of last resort? I'm sorry, I'm not sure your offering a solution. It seems what is offered is a blind restriction to satiate your own feelings of 'protecting others'. Like we've done with drugs. It doesn't work because it doesn't address the problem, just the symptom. It's arrogant and short sighted.
  - kelnos 8y ago
    I wasn't coming down for or against the bill as-is at all; merely on the assertion about agency the parent commenter made. I suggest you calm your anger and finger pointing and avoid reading things that I did not write. I too agree that the War on Drugs is a boondoggle and has caused more harm and created more criminals (legitimate and otherwise) than we'd have without it. But I think we can agree that having a lot of people (for example) suffering and dying from opioid abuse isn't great either. Rehabilitation programs are the obvious answer, not just jailing people. Payday lending is a totally different beast. I'm not sure what a great solution might be. While it's physically safer to take a loan from a payday lender than from an illegal, shady, mob-run loan shark, payday lending can still be incredibly harmful. Outright banning probably isn't the answer, but allowing them to run as they have been isn't great either.

towelr34dy 8y ago

How dare consenting adults do things I find offensive. I don't drink. Drunk people act stupid. Let's ban alcohol. It'll be great. Prove to me it won't! Oh, you enjoy alcohol responsibly? That's just anecdotal. Not like MY anecdotal evidence, I see drunks everywhere... everyone knows that. And they are all alcoholics who are depraved by predatory beer companies. My anecdotal evidence is good and corroborated by my tribe. And you must prove me wrong, despite the fact that I'm the one making statements like we need to regulate something. Oh, and of course, once we ban it, no mafia guy is going to start offering it in a sketchy way... there's NO WAY that will happen in a low class neighborhood because we really take care of our poor. I have this all planned out. Going with my gut to make emotive detached decisions instead of dealing with the grit of reality is so nice. /s

fzeroracer 8y ago
I mean despite your terrible sarcasm, we do have rational regulations on things like alcohol or gambling because we recognize that it helps protect people overall, sometimes indeed from themselves. Your argument is essentially 'I don't drive drunk, therefore we don't need any laws against drunk driving' since the expectation is that people will behave rationally. Or that we don't need regulations against things like cigarettes because people know the harm already. Obviously there's room to debate on how socially dangerous something is and whether it warrents regulation; hence the ongoing debate on marijuana legalization; but in general he's right: relying on anecdotal evidence and extrapolating that is bad form. It provides context and reason for your arguments, but is not an argument in itself.
- towelr34dy 8y ago
  Err, we do have payday lending regulations. The new ones would basically destroy the industry. It would remove the vast majority of lenders of last resort. It wasn't just capping fees. It was 'making sure the lender could pay' Let's see, who else does that... banks. How? a credit score. Which has nothing to do with being able to pay truly pay long term or be sustainable. Some poor people have good credit. Some rich people have bad. It's... messy. But please don't let the details of what you support actually alter what you support in name. BTW, if the rules were only targeting continuation fees (i.e. multiple debit restriction part), I'd 100% support them. Remember, your talking to someone who has been there, done that. I'm not against all legislation. I'm against privileged people sitting on a high horse, looking down on 'the commoners' and telling them what they need. I personally would not have qualified under the new regulations when I took the loans. I feel like I'm talking to someone who has good health wanting to ban sneezing instead of helping the sick. And you are talking to someone who has been sick.