3 ms·

That depends on how essential you consider that thing you’re taking back to be. You probably don’t consider them necessities. Then again, if they weren’t, why w

That depends on how essential you consider that thing you’re taking back to be. You probably don’t consider them necessities. Then again, if they weren’t, why would people take out predatory loans for them? Can you live without electricity? Do you have any destiny apart from poverty without a mobile phone? It depends on the society these people are living in.

perl4ever 6y ago
It's been a thing in the so-called first world for a while to make loans on cars that can be remotely disabled for non-payment.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  Predatory loans have also been a thing in the so-called first world for a while.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    Normally when people call loans predatory, they're talking about the interest rates. Remote repossession seems like the alternative to "predatory" loans.
refurb 6y ago
So you’re saying someone should be able to get a loan for a phone, stop paying and then keep it because it’s “essential”? I mean there was a time when they didn’t have a phone.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  No, if a phone is essential you shouldn’t make people get a loan for it. If you consider a phone to be non essential than enticing people to get one using a predatory loan scheme is bad. And if it is essential then you should make sure they can get and keep one, and predatory loans are not the solution for that.