I agree generally, but I don't think the problem with regulators is overheads. If it was just a matter of cost, I'd say we (as consumers and/or citizens) should

I agree generally, but I don't think the problem with regulators is overheads. If it was just a matter of cost, I'd say we (as consumers and/or citizens) should pay it. The problem is more complicated. "Regulation" (as it's usually done via a regulator) creates centralisation, usually. IE, fewer, bigger players. It creates a rigidity, where the way things are is locked in, incumbent companies and ways of doing things become hopelessly intertwined with regulationary systems. Regulation also tends strongly towards bureaucracy, and it's impossible to tell where a company's bureaucracy starts and the regulatory bureaucracy begins. I've seen this happen in companies. "Compliance" becomes a magic word that justifies senselessness, wins every argument, and puts lawyers in command. Idk what the answers are. Like you, I think there are plenty of problems that cannot stand. Left totally unregulated, payday loans gets very ugly. Pushed to the black market, it gets even uglier. Itoh, I feel like we should reject the choice between known-2-be-bad regulatory regimes and the often worse problems they attempt to solve. My best guess would be to try and make micro-lending a public or charitable service. Maybe it just doesn't lend well to a for-profit business model... But, I don't really know.