3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoIf people are better off not falling for scams, why do they ever fall for them?
- dlp211 8y agoBecause people are not purely rational actors no matter how much you want them to be.
- comicjk 8y agoIn 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.