4 ms·

The crux of your argument is that "consumers often have no choice but to take whatever deal" and that lack of choice makes this issue important enough for the g

The crux of your argument is that "consumers often have no choice but to take whatever deal" and that lack of choice makes this issue important enough for the government to step in. Is that right? I strongly disagree, because there are options to: * Own a less expensive car * Take transit * Ride a bike * Find a closer job * Find a closer house * Ride share Now, you can probably craft a specific story where none of those are an option. Let's say a single mother living in section-8 housing with limited job prospects who is already driving a really old car and who found one job 20 miles away in an area with no transit. That's pretty bad, and it represents failures of our system at multiple levels. First I would propose spending government time to address those core issues before burning time on this symptom. Second, all these rules will make the car more expensive; it's a slight tax on the responsible paid by those who might miss payments. Third, this case is rare and it's unclear its worth the cost and unexpected consequence of regulation.

Iftheshoefits 12y ago
You can disagree, but your disagreement is based on incorrect assumptions about the availability, reliability and proximity of public transit, work to housing, etc. Your "specific story" that you think is "rare" isn't as rare as you think it is.
shkkmo 12y ago
> The crux of your argument is that "consumers often have no choice but to take whatever deal" and that lack of choice makes this issue important enough for the government to step in. Is that right? No, that's completely wrong. "Lack of choice" is not the only or main argument for consumer protection. We don't regulate the arsenic content of toys because parents have no choice but to buy commercially made toys. The argument is "consumers are being treated by some bad actors in a manner by that interferes with their safety, privacy and dignity". The solution is to look at what the good actors are doing, and mandate that behavior to protect consumers. > First I would propose spending government time to address those core issues before burning time on this symptom. Why? Those core issues are incredibly controversial. We shouldn't avoid regulating a new means of loan efforcement because we can't solve fundamental social issues. > Second, all these rules will make the car more expensive; it's a slight tax on the responsible paid by those who might miss payments. What are you talking about? This technology (as discussed in the article) only applies to people who's are being offered subprime car loans and are a high risk on not paying. Additionaly, the technology in question should REDUCE the loan costs of subprime auto loans. > Third, this case is rare and it's unclear its worth the cost and unexpected consequence of regulation. What are you talking about? The article doesn't give clear numbers for the US market for this technology, but it doesn't seem to be particularly small. "Corinne Kirkendall, vice president for compliance and public relations for PassTime, which has sold 1.5 million devices worldwide," "Roughly 25 percent of all new auto loans made last year were subprime, and the volume of subprime auto loans reached more than $145 billion in the first three months of this year."

Iftheshoefits 12y ago

You can disagree, but your disagreement is based on incorrect assumptions about the availability, reliability and proximity of public transit, work to housing, etc. Your "specific story" that you think is "rare" isn't as rare as you think it is.

shkkmo 12y ago

> The crux of your argument is that "consumers often have no choice but to take whatever deal" and that lack of choice makes this issue important enough for the government to step in. Is that right? No, that's completely wrong. "Lack of choice" is not the only or main argument for consumer protection. We don't regulate the arsenic content of toys because parents have no choice but to buy commercially made toys. The argument is "consumers are being treated by some bad actors in a manner by that interferes with their safety, privacy and dignity". The solution is to look at what the good actors are doing, and mandate that behavior to protect consumers. > First I would propose spending government time to address those core issues before burning time on this symptom. Why? Those core issues are incredibly controversial. We shouldn't avoid regulating a new means of loan efforcement because we can't solve fundamental social issues. > Second, all these rules will make the car more expensive; it's a slight tax on the responsible paid by those who might miss payments. What are you talking about? This technology (as discussed in the article) only applies to people who's are being offered subprime car loans and are a high risk on not paying. Additionaly, the technology in question should REDUCE the loan costs of subprime auto loans. > Third, this case is rare and it's unclear its worth the cost and unexpected consequence of regulation. What are you talking about? The article doesn't give clear numbers for the US market for this technology, but it doesn't seem to be particularly small. "Corinne Kirkendall, vice president for compliance and public relations for PassTime, which has sold 1.5 million devices worldwide," "Roughly 25 percent of all new auto loans made last year were subprime, and the volume of subprime auto loans reached more than $145 billion in the first three months of this year."