4 ms·

The question lawmakers ought to ask is what is more beneficial, overall, for society? Some will suffer by denying exorbitant interest rate loans. Some will be

by syki 5y ago

The question lawmakers ought to ask is what is more beneficial, overall, for society? Some will suffer by denying exorbitant interest rate loans. Some will benefit by restricting them. I suggest our society would be better by not having exorbitant rate loans be legal.

adventured 5y ago
Why should a society be structured by majority rule / majority benefit for such things, even if one agrees with your premise that society is supposedly better off (which I disagree with, you're not counting all the required consequences that go with re-ordering the system, you're pretending we're only talking about one thing)? Actual democracy is an extreme negative, not a positive approach to organizing society. You can claim the majority would benefit from eating the wealth of Sergey Brin and Larry Page at this point, they no longer operate Google, they're just ~50 year olds sitting on $200 billion in Google shares, piddling around until the day they die. So why not let society benefit sooner rather than later by consuming their wealth to its (supposed) benefit, divvy up their wealth to the poorest 51%. You can invent a huge number of scenarios for doing things like that, where society supposedly is better off if we violate the property rights of some minority group. Why shouldn't some minority of people be allowed to lend at 43% interest if there are takers at that rate? Because you say so? Why shouldn't their property rights be respected - the property right to lend their money out at the rates they can command - and why should the majority get to arbitrarily restrict their property rights? It sets up an obvious exploitation situation, which is always the case in democracy, where the majority can endlessly torture, exploit and abuse the minority. It would very clearly be better for the top 51% (far more than that actually) - the majority of society - if the economic bottom 10% did not exist (a group that rarely holds a job, has vast health & drug addiction problems, rarely pays taxes into the system, rarely contributes much of anything; and in fact that's true in nearly all welfare states, including the US). So they should all be gotten rid of, is that right? Democracy in action. The tax paying majority is sick and tired of carrying the never-tax-paying economic segments at the bottom, time to get rid of them, for the benefit of "society" (aka the majority power herd).
- syki 5y ago
  Your response delves into topics my post does not cover. I think society would be better off banning exorbitant interest rate loans. Beyond this, on this topic, I have said nothing.
- confidantlake 5y ago
  The loan sharks being the ones exploited and abused is certainly an interesting take.
- lief79 5y ago
  Is the bottom 10% that sticky ... nvm, looks like it may be. From a quick search, 43% of the individuals raised in the bottom 25% stay in the bottom quartile. https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_a...
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    So if you're born into the bottom 25 you have slightly worse than 60-40 odds odds of getting out? Those seem like damn good odds for something that is necessarily a zero sum. I would expect that as you get lower down (say bottom 10) it becomes even more volatile since the wealth needed to get out gets even lower.
- Zigurd 5y ago
  > Why shouldn't some minority of people be allowed to lend at 43% interest if there are takers at that rate? For the same reasons we have regulations and standards in construction, transportation, etc. Because we know that uninspected cars will leads to death and injury on the roads. So laws and regulations are there to reduce selling and using blatantly unsafe vehicles.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Why shouldn't people be allowed to buy and own slaves, if there are takers willing to sell themselves into slavery (say, to provide for their family)?

by syki 5y ago

adventured 5y ago

Why should a society be structured by majority rule / majority benefit for such things, even if one agrees with your premise that society is supposedly better off (which I disagree with, you're not counting all the required consequences that go with re-ordering the system, you're pretending we're only talking about one thing)? Actual democracy is an extreme negative, not a positive approach to organizing society. You can claim the majority would benefit from eating the wealth of Sergey Brin and Larry Page at this point, they no longer operate Google, they're just ~50 year olds sitting on $200 billion in Google shares, piddling around until the day they die. So why not let society benefit sooner rather than later by consuming their wealth to its (supposed) benefit, divvy up their wealth to the poorest 51%. You can invent a huge number of scenarios for doing things like that, where society supposedly is better off if we violate the property rights of some minority group. Why shouldn't some minority of people be allowed to lend at 43% interest if there are takers at that rate? Because you say so? Why shouldn't their property rights be respected - the property right to lend their money out at the rates they can command - and why should the majority get to arbitrarily restrict their property rights? It sets up an obvious exploitation situation, which is always the case in democracy, where the majority can endlessly torture, exploit and abuse the minority. It would very clearly be better for the top 51% (far more than that actually) - the majority of society - if the economic bottom 10% did not exist (a group that rarely holds a job, has vast health & drug addiction problems, rarely pays taxes into the system, rarely contributes much of anything; and in fact that's true in nearly all welfare states, including the US). So they should all be gotten rid of, is that right? Democracy in action. The tax paying majority is sick and tired of carrying the never-tax-paying economic segments at the bottom, time to get rid of them, for the benefit of "society" (aka the majority power herd).

syki 5y ago
Your response delves into topics my post does not cover. I think society would be better off banning exorbitant interest rate loans. Beyond this, on this topic, I have said nothing.
confidantlake 5y ago
The loan sharks being the ones exploited and abused is certainly an interesting take.
lief79 5y ago
Is the bottom 10% that sticky ... nvm, looks like it may be. From a quick search, 43% of the individuals raised in the bottom 25% stay in the bottom quartile. https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_a...
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  So if you're born into the bottom 25 you have slightly worse than 60-40 odds odds of getting out? Those seem like damn good odds for something that is necessarily a zero sum. I would expect that as you get lower down (say bottom 10) it becomes even more volatile since the wealth needed to get out gets even lower.
Zigurd 5y ago
> Why shouldn't some minority of people be allowed to lend at 43% interest if there are takers at that rate? For the same reasons we have regulations and standards in construction, transportation, etc. Because we know that uninspected cars will leads to death and injury on the roads. So laws and regulations are there to reduce selling and using blatantly unsafe vehicles.
int_19h 5y ago
Why shouldn't people be allowed to buy and own slaves, if there are takers willing to sell themselves into slavery (say, to provide for their family)?