4 ms·

Just playing the Devil's advocate here, why is this bad if profit and growth is the ultimate motive?

hprotagonist 8y ago
pragmatically: if you sow the wind it’s only a matter of time before you reap the whirlwind. It’s counterproductive if sustainability of growth is your aim. Predatory behavior will, eventually, blow up in your face. If individual companies do this eventually someone will step on their necks. If nation states do this at scale, eventually the people won’t take it any more. morally: because it is bad for profit and growth to be the ultimate motive just as soon as it requires you to treat people as things. The economy is a fine servant and a terrible master.
- gowld 8y ago
  This is wishful thinking. Predatory lending is bad for consumers, not for businesses.
  - hprotagonist 8y ago
    “bad for consumers” is my moral objection. But people here seem to object to flat moral objections, so i tried to offer a pragmatic CYA reason too.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Until the default rate of bad loans turns into a banking crisis.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
justin66 8y ago
> Just playing the Devil's advocate here, why is this bad if profit and growth is the ultimate motive? People who have shifted into a permanent state of servicing high-interest debt tend to be useless to the economy once they've entered that state. Unable to consume much (and this is still a consumer economy), unable to train for new work, probably overrepresented in public welfare programs for which others foot the bill. Literally the only "profit and growth" involved is for whoever holds the debt. The overall economic effect beyond a few big bondholders is quite negative.
ineedasername 8y ago
If profit is the ultimate motive then sure, these aren't bad. But there are all sorts of things the government regulates that, absent regulation, might result in higher business profits. They're regulated because they're seen to be a social good and/or in the interest of public health and safety. Just about any law might serve as an example here: Murder isn't allowed, even though it might be very good for a business that offered it as a service, or a business that endeavored to literally kill off its competition. That's admittedly an extreme example, so consider some a bit more banal: food quality regulation and ingredient label laws, or safety features built into cars. The entire concept of law intrinsically, implicitly, exists to limit some behavior that might be advantageous to one person or group but not to others or society as a whole. And so once you accept that laws of any sort are a necessary part of society, you're no longer arguing about something like whether or not laws and regulations should impinge upon a free market pursuit of profit-- that is a given. Instead, you're simply arguing about where the line should be drawn.

pragmatically: if you sow the wind it’s only a matter of time before you reap the whirlwind. It’s counterproductive if sustainability of growth is your aim. Predatory behavior will, eventually, blow up in your face. If individual companies do this eventually someone will step on their necks. If nation states do this at scale, eventually the people won’t take it any more. morally: because it is bad for profit and growth to be the ultimate motive just as soon as it requires you to treat people as things. The economy is a fine servant and a terrible master.

gowld 8y ago
This is wishful thinking. Predatory lending is bad for consumers, not for businesses.
- hprotagonist 8y ago
  “bad for consumers” is my moral objection. But people here seem to object to flat moral objections, so i tried to offer a pragmatic CYA reason too.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Until the default rate of bad loans turns into a banking crisis.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

justin66 8y ago

> Just playing the Devil's advocate here, why is this bad if profit and growth is the ultimate motive? People who have shifted into a permanent state of servicing high-interest debt tend to be useless to the economy once they've entered that state. Unable to consume much (and this is still a consumer economy), unable to train for new work, probably overrepresented in public welfare programs for which others foot the bill. Literally the only "profit and growth" involved is for whoever holds the debt. The overall economic effect beyond a few big bondholders is quite negative.

ineedasername 8y ago

If profit is the ultimate motive then sure, these aren't bad. But there are all sorts of things the government regulates that, absent regulation, might result in higher business profits. They're regulated because they're seen to be a social good and/or in the interest of public health and safety. Just about any law might serve as an example here: Murder isn't allowed, even though it might be very good for a business that offered it as a service, or a business that endeavored to literally kill off its competition. That's admittedly an extreme example, so consider some a bit more banal: food quality regulation and ingredient label laws, or safety features built into cars. The entire concept of law intrinsically, implicitly, exists to limit some behavior that might be advantageous to one person or group but not to others or society as a whole. And so once you accept that laws of any sort are a necessary part of society, you're no longer arguing about something like whether or not laws and regulations should impinge upon a free market pursuit of profit-- that is a given. Instead, you're simply arguing about where the line should be drawn.