If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules: - Don't post meaningless one-liners. - Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate. - Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand. - Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT.
On June 06 2019 14:06 gotchaman wrote: The Democrats should not make the mistake of underestimating Trump's election chances again. Of the present crop of candidates, I think Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with a shot at beating him although it seems like her most vicious opposition comes from her own side.
You tell dems to not understand trump's chances and then advocate for a worse Hillary Clinton but without the money and name recognition?
Being the most anti-establishment candidate in the field, taking only single donor donations, putting an end to the endless wars etc. Yeah that sounds exactly like Hillary...
Shes a female senator from New york. Not nearly as anti-establishment as literal Bernie sanders or Elizabeth "how about not likeing the big banks maybe?" warren.
Tulsi is a congresswoman from Hawaii and a former army major. There are legitimate concerns and criticisms when it comes to Tulsi Gabbard, but likening her to Hillary is not one of them. I agree she is unlikely to go very far in this race, but she is an important anti regime change war voice nonetheless.
I apologize for the sarcasm in the last post, but she is really as far from Hillary as you can go. She even resigned from the vice chair of the DNC when they cheated Bernie out of the nomination last go around. She and Bernie are the only candidates that go against the status quo without compromise. Warren is great on some policies, but weak on others, like foreign policy, medicare for all, whistleblowers, among others. Therefore I am not entirely sure she can be trusted when push comes to shove.
Sanders has to be the number one choice for everyone calling themselves progressives. Making compromises is what gave us Trump in the first place. And lets be honest here, a Biden like character will be almost as bad as Trump himself. Protect the establishment, keep the status quo while lying out his teeth. Say what you will about Trump, but hes at least not hiding what he really is.
Sorry my bad was wrong confused her with Gillibrand who is also running for president. She's a hindu somoan woman. You give America way too much credit if you think she's got a chance.
Making no compromise is what got Hillary nominated not trump elected. A lot of people had to compromise with their beliefs to sit on that train. Compromise is what politics is about. Bernie Sanders would have won beacuse he had a modivated base not some weird ideological purity you're trying to make a good thing. We'll see how that ground game shakes out this time but theres a lot more hate on the left these days and it might backfire and scare off moderates.
This guy is so terrible. Why is it bad to robot away repetitive, boring, minimum wage jobs (the examples he lists as call centers, checkouts, pizza delivery, and retail)? People SHOULD be moving up into service jobs, I'm all for those jobs disappearing. The people who are going to lose jobs are people who are in high school and need a part time after school job to buy marijuana. Andrew Yang is a waste of airtime.
It doesn't seem to me like he's saying "automation is bad and we have to stop it", but rather "automation is inevitable so how do we help people to adjust and to remain in the economy". The argument you're attributing to him is one that he's criticizing Trump for making: "bad immigrants (or robots) are stealing the jobs".
Trump is 80% to get reelected with the bookmakers. There is money to be made for the democrats who think its better. Sanders is 2nd with 12.5% which was a surprise for me but apearently he is (for now) the most likely to win the democratic nomination. It would be funny if sanders gets it and then pulls a huge upset to win.
Slightly off topic: Maybe in the future trump will be seen as a great president,i would not rule it out. Reagan was widely criticized during his era,specially oversees. Only since recent years people started to see him as a great president. I can see some similarities between him and trump. If current trend continues (where politics all over the world seems to shift towards the right,despite growing attention for climate change) then eventually he will be regarded as a great president.
@below:yes I have to agree bush jr. is also a consideration. The reason I chose Reagan is because Reagan was a sort of revolution. Trump is also as a sort of revolution hence my comparison to Reagan (though they are very different,the comparison is based on the impact they had and the way in wich they changed the traditional political practices) . Bush was more like a traditional conservative hawk and also a bit of a continuation from Reagan,not really a revolution.(at least that's how I see it)
Another note,as said before:the only one who can beat trump I think is michelle Obama. Trump would not be able to handle here,she is untouchable and everything bad he says would backfire. He would have big problems dealing with her in debates and attacking her in his campaign. She would probably still be the underdog but she would have much more chance then someone like sanders.
It's interesting how differently people are reading things right now.
Trump's approval rating is underwater in 8 major 2020 battleground states, and it's a troubling sign for his reelection prospects
"Trump had a net approval rating of -19 in New Hampshire, with 39% approving of his job performance and 58% disapproving. He had a net approval rating of -13 in Wisconsin, with 42% approval and 55% disapproval. In Michigan, Trump had a -12 net approval rating, with 42% approval and 54% disapproval. Trump also had a -12 net approval rating in Iowa, with 42% approval and 54% disapproval. He had a -7 net approval rating in Pennsylvania, with 45% approval and 52% disapproval. In Arizona, Trump had a -6 net approval rating, with 45% approval and 51% disapproval. Trump held a -4 net approval rating in Ohio, with 46% approval and 50% disapproval. His net approval was also -4 in North Carolina, also with 46% approval and 50% disapproval. And Trump had a net approval rating of zero in Florida, with 48% approval and 48% disapproval (the margin of error for the state was plus or minus 1 percentage point)."
Approval rating and odds to win the election are 2 very different things. The bookmakers they do this for a living and I think they are right. (I would put democratic odds even lower). For trump I think anything above 40% is good enough Just imagine,despite all the "horrible" things trump has done there is 40%+ people who approve it even in battleground states.
Biden would be the worst pick I agree,then trump will win big.
On June 08 2019 12:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Expand Worker Ownership, Wall Street Speculation Tax, End Predatory Lending, Public Education Bernie's got ideas out for all of them and they aren't entirely terrible. Yang's one of the few candidates that also has ideas, but much worse ones.
You realize that "ending predatory lending" roughly equates to "ending lending for poor people," right? It's a dumb policy because it is going to make it much harder for many people to get access to any kind of capital when they need it. Things like payday loans have high interest rates because they are inherently risky loans. High interests rates are necessary to compensate for the large number of such loans that turn into bad debt. If you don't let lenders charge those market rates for those types of loans, they simply won't offer those loans any more. How does that help the poor person who needs immediate access to money for something? This "ending predatory lending" policy is a perfect example of how the road to hell is paved over with good, socialist intentions.
On June 10 2019 07:58 JimmiC wrote: Payday loads are awful, they provide no benefit. Same with these "rent to own" places that basically just super over charge and repo stuff.
It is not like you can use a payday loan to invest, no investment will ever make up the interest.
You don't use payday loans to invest. You use them to get money when you need it and cannot get it from any other source. So yes, they absolutely provide a benefit.
On June 10 2019 07:58 JimmiC wrote: Payday loads are awful, they provide no benefit. Same with these "rent to own" places that basically just super over charge and repo stuff.
It is not like you can use a payday loan to invest, no investment will ever make up the interest.
You don't use payday loans to invest. You use them to get money when you need it and cannot get it from any other source. So yes, they absolutely provide a benefit.
No they don't, you might be pushing it forward slightly, but you are simply in a worse situation then before you pushed it forward.
What do you not understand about the situation of "I need money now, and I have no other option to get it?" That's what these loans are for.
On June 10 2019 08:36 JimmiC wrote: But that is not the only people who use it. And often those people are worse off after then if they didn't just get it. It is more often impatient financially illiterate people who basically get hooked because now next pay check they are worse because they had whatever they did before plus lost 30% of their pay.
And who's problem is this? Educate them better. Don't take the service away.
On June 08 2019 12:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Expand Worker Ownership, Wall Street Speculation Tax, End Predatory Lending, Public Education Bernie's got ideas out for all of them and they aren't entirely terrible. Yang's one of the few candidates that also has ideas, but much worse ones.
You realize that "ending predatory lending" roughly equates to "ending lending for poor people," right? It's a dumb policy because it is going to make it much harder for many people to get access to any kind of capital when they need it. Things like payday loans have high interest rates because they are inherently risky loans. High interests rates are necessary to compensate for the large number of such loans that turn into bad debt. If you don't let lenders charge those market rates for those types of loans, they simply won't offer those loans any more. How does that help the poor person who needs immediate access to money for something? This "ending predatory lending" policy is a perfect example of how the road to hell is paved over with good, socialist intentions.
You're arguing against a 'dumb policy' that doesn't exist, which is your specialty.
What you are arguing against: end predatory small loans by making high risk small loans unavailable
What people are trying to do: end predatory small loans by making high risk small loans available through non-predatory means, in Sanders' case through the postal service
The main reasons being (1) the phantasmagoric interest rates do not match the risk as you will see below and (2) the companies doing this do nothing else and have a very limited number of customers each.
The average payday loan customer borrows $375 over five months of the year and pays $520 in fees, while banks and credit unions could profitably offer that same $375 over five months for less than $100
This is because:
Payday lenders’ products are so expensive because they operate retail storefronts that serve an average of only 500 unique borrowers a year and cover their overhead selling few financial products to a small number of customers. Two-thirds of revenue goes to handle operating expenses, such as paying employees and rent, while one-sixth of revenue covers losses.
and
Yet while 81 percent of payday loan customers would prefer to borrow from their bank or credit union if small- dollar installment loans were available to them there, banks and credit unions do not offer such loans at scale today primarily because regulators have not issued guidance or granted specific regulatory approvals for how banks and credit unions should offer the loans.
On June 08 2019 12:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Expand Worker Ownership, Wall Street Speculation Tax, End Predatory Lending, Public Education Bernie's got ideas out for all of them and they aren't entirely terrible. Yang's one of the few candidates that also has ideas, but much worse ones.
You realize that "ending predatory lending" roughly equates to "ending lending for poor people," right? It's a dumb policy because it is going to make it much harder for many people to get access to any kind of capital when they need it. Things like payday loans have high interest rates because they are inherently risky loans. High interests rates are necessary to compensate for the large number of such loans that turn into bad debt. If you don't let lenders charge those market rates for those types of loans, they simply won't offer those loans any more. How does that help the poor person who needs immediate access to money for something? This "ending predatory lending" policy is a perfect example of how the road to hell is paved over with good, socialist intentions.
You're arguing against a 'dumb policy' that doesn't exist, which is your specialty.
What you are arguing against: end predatory small loans by making high risk small loans unavailable
What people are trying to do: end predatory small loans by making high risk small loans available through non-predatory means, in Sanders' case through the postal service
The main reasons being (1) the phantasmagoric interest rates do not match the risk as you will see below and (2) the companies doing this do nothing else and have a very limited number of customers each.
The average payday loan customer borrows $375 over five months of the year and pays $520 in fees, while banks and credit unions could profitably offer that same $375 over five months for less than $100
Payday lenders’ products are so expensive because they operate retail storefronts that serve an average of only 500 unique borrowers a year and cover their overhead selling few financial products to a small number of customers. Two-thirds of revenue goes to handle operating expenses, such as paying employees and rent, while one-sixth of revenue covers losses.
Yet while 81 percent of payday loan customers would prefer to borrow from their bank or credit union if small- dollar installment loans were available to them there, banks and credit unions do not offer such loans at scale today primarily because regulators have not issued guidance or granted specific regulatory approvals for how banks and credit unions should offer the loans.
You realize that that article proves my point even harder, right? First, it points out that the reason for the high interest rates is a function of the cost of operations and the credit risk of the lenders (albeit I presumed that the risk of the lenders was the bigger cost). But here's the really amusing thing: the article makes it clear that government intervention in the lending space is the real cause of the high interest rates. Banks and other institutions with lower capital and overhead costs who would be able to lend the money more cheaply can't do so because of federal regulations. Hence payday lenders filled the market void because there is a market demand for these loans (ie people need them). Put simply, the government is screwing over poor people by forcing them to use unregulated financial services that have higher capital costs.
And Sanders' solution to this is pure idiocy. Yes, let's fix a problem caused by government regulation by simply nationalizing the payday loan industry and running it through the post office, thereby having the taxpayer subsidize it. Everyone knows that the best solution to government problems is more government!
On June 10 2019 07:58 JimmiC wrote: Payday loads are awful, they provide no benefit. Same with these "rent to own" places that basically just super over charge and repo stuff.
It is not like you can use a payday loan to invest, no investment will ever make up the interest.
You don't use payday loans to invest. You use them to get money when you need it and cannot get it from any other source. So yes, they absolutely provide a benefit.
Not a common enough outcome though. Payday loans are not used as a means of last resort, they're used as a way to avoid what people really consider a last resort which is asking for money from bosses/friends/relatives or selling what they own.
Payday loans often result in debt traps because they are designed like one from the start. Which means the person still has to sell what they own or borrow from someone in order to just get out from under it.
Too many borrowers seeking a short-term cash fix are saddled with loans they cannot afford and sink into long-term debt. It’s much like getting into a taxi just to ride across town and finding yourself stuck in a ruinously expensive cross-country journey.
Payday loan companies don't advertise themselves as a last resort, they advertise was a way to avoid last resorts which they aren't for many. It's why payday loans have been a long target for regulation because of how they operate.
Over 80% of payday loans are rolled over or followed by another loan within 14 days (i.e., renewed). Same-day renewals are less frequent in states with mandated cooling-off periods, but 14-day renewal rates in states with cooling-off periods are nearly identical to states without these limitations. We define loan sequence as a series of loans taken out within 14 days of repayment of a prior loan.
While many loan sequences end quickly, 15% of new loans are followed by a loan sequence at least 10 loans long. Half of all loans are in a sequence at least 10 loans long.
Few borrowers amortize, or have reductions in principal amounts, between the first and last loan of a loan sequence. For more than 80% of the loan sequences that last for more than one loan, the last loan is the same size as or larger than the first loan in the sequence. Loan size is more likely to go up in longer loan sequences, and principal increases are associated with higher default rates.
Monthly borrowers are disproportionately likely to stay in debt for 11 months or longer. Among new borrowers (i.e., those who did not have a payday loan at the beginning the year covered by the data) 22% of borrowers paid monthly averaged at least one loan per pay period. The majority of monthly borrowers are government benefits recipients.
Most borrowing involves multiple renewals following an initial loan, rather than multiple distinct borrowing episodes separated by more than 14 days. Roughly half of new 5 CFPB DATA POINT: PAYDAY LENDING borrowers (48%) have one loan sequence during the year. Of borrowers who neither renewed nor defaulted during the year, 60% took out only one loan
On June 08 2019 12:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Expand Worker Ownership, Wall Street Speculation Tax, End Predatory Lending, Public Education Bernie's got ideas out for all of them and they aren't entirely terrible. Yang's one of the few candidates that also has ideas, but much worse ones.
You realize that "ending predatory lending" roughly equates to "ending lending for poor people," right? It's a dumb policy because it is going to make it much harder for many people to get access to any kind of capital when they need it. Things like payday loans have high interest rates because they are inherently risky loans. High interests rates are necessary to compensate for the large number of such loans that turn into bad debt. If you don't let lenders charge those market rates for those types of loans, they simply won't offer those loans any more. How does that help the poor person who needs immediate access to money for something? This "ending predatory lending" policy is a perfect example of how the road to hell is paved over with good, socialist intentions.
You're arguing against a 'dumb policy' that doesn't exist, which is your specialty.
What you are arguing against: end predatory small loans by making high risk small loans unavailable
What people are trying to do: end predatory small loans by making high risk small loans available through non-predatory means, in Sanders' case through the postal service
The main reasons being (1) the phantasmagoric interest rates do not match the risk as you will see below and (2) the companies doing this do nothing else and have a very limited number of customers each.
The average payday loan customer borrows $375 over five months of the year and pays $520 in fees, while banks and credit unions could profitably offer that same $375 over five months for less than $100
This is because:
Payday lenders’ products are so expensive because they operate retail storefronts that serve an average of only 500 unique borrowers a year and cover their overhead selling few financial products to a small number of customers. Two-thirds of revenue goes to handle operating expenses, such as paying employees and rent, while one-sixth of revenue covers losses.
and
Yet while 81 percent of payday loan customers would prefer to borrow from their bank or credit union if small- dollar installment loans were available to them there, banks and credit unions do not offer such loans at scale today primarily because regulators have not issued guidance or granted specific regulatory approvals for how banks and credit unions should offer the loans.
You realize that that article proves my point even harder, right? First, it points out that the reason for the high interest rates is a function of the cost of operations and the credit risk of the lenders (albeit I presumed that the risk of the lenders was the bigger cost). But here's the really amusing thing: the article makes it clear that government intervention in the lending space is the real cause of the high interest rates. Banks and other institutions with lower capital and overhead costs who would be able to lend the money more cheaply can't do so because of federal regulations. Hence payday lenders filled the market void because there is a market demand for these loans (ie people need them). Put simply, the government is screwing over poor people by forcing them to use unregulated financial services that have higher capital costs.
And Sanders' solution to this is pure idiocy. Yes, let's fix a problem caused by government regulation by simply nationalizing the payday loan industry and running it through the post office, thereby having the taxpayer subsidize it. Everyone knows that the best solution to government problems is more government!
I do realize that you move to a different point every time you say something demonstrably wrong and claim that was it all along, in this case to something as feeble as 'government bad' which is not what was being discussed. First you argue against a non-existent plan to make small loans unavailable, now you argue against a non-existent plan to subsidize small loans. It's always a wild ride.
But I fail to see any arguments in your last paragraph for why Sanders' solution is idiocy, unless we're to count your suggestion that a problem created by an entity can not be fixed by the same entity. You throw words like dumb and idiocy way too much for how little you provide to show something is that way.
Clearly using the postal service would solve the issue of operating cost due to its ubiquitous presence. And as pointed out, the fees can be several times lower than what is currently available in the high risk small loan market without running at a loss or needing to be subsidized.
While that article shows for how little banks could offer those services as well, there's still the issue of would. Banks have their own predatory practices, why would they be content with lower margins than necessary for small loans if not for regulation? It would still be a net upgrade over the current situation of course, but determining which solution to pursue is not something to be done solely on how spooked you are about government.
On June 08 2019 12:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Expand Worker Ownership, Wall Street Speculation Tax, End Predatory Lending, Public Education Bernie's got ideas out for all of them and they aren't entirely terrible. Yang's one of the few candidates that also has ideas, but much worse ones.
You realize that "ending predatory lending" roughly equates to "ending lending for poor people," right? It's a dumb policy because it is going to make it much harder for many people to get access to any kind of capital when they need it. Things like payday loans have high interest rates because they are inherently risky loans. High interests rates are necessary to compensate for the large number of such loans that turn into bad debt. If you don't let lenders charge those market rates for those types of loans, they simply won't offer those loans any more. How does that help the poor person who needs immediate access to money for something? This "ending predatory lending" policy is a perfect example of how the road to hell is paved over with good, socialist intentions.
You're arguing against a 'dumb policy' that doesn't exist, which is your specialty.
What you are arguing against: end predatory small loans by making high risk small loans unavailable
What people are trying to do: end predatory small loans by making high risk small loans available through non-predatory means, in Sanders' case through the postal service
The main reasons being (1) the phantasmagoric interest rates do not match the risk as you will see below and (2) the companies doing this do nothing else and have a very limited number of customers each.
The average payday loan customer borrows $375 over five months of the year and pays $520 in fees, while banks and credit unions could profitably offer that same $375 over five months for less than $100
This is because:
Payday lenders’ products are so expensive because they operate retail storefronts that serve an average of only 500 unique borrowers a year and cover their overhead selling few financial products to a small number of customers. Two-thirds of revenue goes to handle operating expenses, such as paying employees and rent, while one-sixth of revenue covers losses.
and
Yet while 81 percent of payday loan customers would prefer to borrow from their bank or credit union if small- dollar installment loans were available to them there, banks and credit unions do not offer such loans at scale today primarily because regulators have not issued guidance or granted specific regulatory approvals for how banks and credit unions should offer the loans.
You realize that that article proves my point even harder, right? First, it points out that the reason for the high interest rates is a function of the cost of operations and the credit risk of the lenders (albeit I presumed that the risk of the lenders was the bigger cost). But here's the really amusing thing: the article makes it clear that government intervention in the lending space is the real cause of the high interest rates. Banks and other institutions with lower capital and overhead costs who would be able to lend the money more cheaply can't do so because of federal regulations. Hence payday lenders filled the market void because there is a market demand for these loans (ie people need them). Put simply, the government is screwing over poor people by forcing them to use unregulated financial services that have higher capital costs.
And Sanders' solution to this is pure idiocy. Yes, let's fix a problem caused by government regulation by simply nationalizing the payday loan industry and running it through the post office, thereby having the taxpayer subsidize it. Everyone knows that the best solution to government problems is more government!
I do realize that you move to a different point every time you say something demonstrably wrong and claim that was it all along, in this case to something as feeble as 'government bad' which is not what was being discussed. First you argue against a non-existent plan to make small loans unavailable, now you argue against a non-existent plan to subsidize small loans. It's always a wild ride.
But I fail to see any arguments in your last paragraph for why Sanders' solution is idiocy, unless we're to count your suggestion that a problem created by an entity can not be fixed by the same entity. You throw words like dumb and idiocy way too much for how little you provide to show something is that way.
Clearly using the postal service would solve the issue of operating cost due to its ubiquitous presence. And as pointed out, the fees can be several times lower than what is currently available in the high risk small loan market without running at a loss or needing to be subsidized.
While that article shows for how little banks could offer those services as well, there's still the issue of would. Banks have their own predatory practices, why would they be content with lower margins than necessary for small loans if not for regulation? It would still be a net upgrade over the current situation of course, but determining which solution to pursue is not something to be done solely on how spooked you are about government.
I haven't moved the goal posts at all. The problem is that y'all are coming at my original post from multiple, disparate angles that don't even fully capture what Bernie means by "ending predatory lending." Here's a hint: he's not just talking about payday loans. He wants to cap interest on all other consumer debt at 15%. Accordingly, I 100% stand by my original statement of:
You realize that "ending predatory lending" roughly equates to "ending lending for poor people," right? It's a dumb policy because it is going to make it much harder for many people to get access to any kind of capital when they need it.
On June 08 2019 12:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Expand Worker Ownership, Wall Street Speculation Tax, End Predatory Lending, Public Education Bernie's got ideas out for all of them and they aren't entirely terrible. Yang's one of the few candidates that also has ideas, but much worse ones.
You realize that "ending predatory lending" roughly equates to "ending lending for poor people," right? It's a dumb policy because it is going to make it much harder for many people to get access to any kind of capital when they need it. Things like payday loans have high interest rates because they are inherently risky loans. High interests rates are necessary to compensate for the large number of such loans that turn into bad debt. If you don't let lenders charge those market rates for those types of loans, they simply won't offer those loans any more. How does that help the poor person who needs immediate access to money for something? This "ending predatory lending" policy is a perfect example of how the road to hell is paved over with good, socialist intentions.
You're arguing against a 'dumb policy' that doesn't exist, which is your specialty.
What you are arguing against: end predatory small loans by making high risk small loans unavailable
What people are trying to do: end predatory small loans by making high risk small loans available through non-predatory means, in Sanders' case through the postal service
The main reasons being (1) the phantasmagoric interest rates do not match the risk as you will see below and (2) the companies doing this do nothing else and have a very limited number of customers each.
The average payday loan customer borrows $375 over five months of the year and pays $520 in fees, while banks and credit unions could profitably offer that same $375 over five months for less than $100
This is because:
Payday lenders’ products are so expensive because they operate retail storefronts that serve an average of only 500 unique borrowers a year and cover their overhead selling few financial products to a small number of customers. Two-thirds of revenue goes to handle operating expenses, such as paying employees and rent, while one-sixth of revenue covers losses.
and
Yet while 81 percent of payday loan customers would prefer to borrow from their bank or credit union if small- dollar installment loans were available to them there, banks and credit unions do not offer such loans at scale today primarily because regulators have not issued guidance or granted specific regulatory approvals for how banks and credit unions should offer the loans.
You realize that that article proves my point even harder, right? First, it points out that the reason for the high interest rates is a function of the cost of operations and the credit risk of the lenders (albeit I presumed that the risk of the lenders was the bigger cost). But here's the really amusing thing: the article makes it clear that government intervention in the lending space is the real cause of the high interest rates. Banks and other institutions with lower capital and overhead costs who would be able to lend the money more cheaply can't do so because of federal regulations. Hence payday lenders filled the market void because there is a market demand for these loans (ie people need them). Put simply, the government is screwing over poor people by forcing them to use unregulated financial services that have higher capital costs.
And Sanders' solution to this is pure idiocy. Yes, let's fix a problem caused by government regulation by simply nationalizing the payday loan industry and running it through the post office, thereby having the taxpayer subsidize it. Everyone knows that the best solution to government problems is more government!
I do realize that you move to a different point every time you say something demonstrably wrong and claim that was it all along, in this case to something as feeble as 'government bad' which is not what was being discussed. First you argue against a non-existent plan to make small loans unavailable, now you argue against a non-existent plan to subsidize small loans. It's always a wild ride.
But I fail to see any arguments in your last paragraph for why Sanders' solution is idiocy, unless we're to count your suggestion that a problem created by an entity can not be fixed by the same entity. You throw words like dumb and idiocy way too much for how little you provide to show something is that way.
Clearly using the postal service would solve the issue of operating cost due to its ubiquitous presence. And as pointed out, the fees can be several times lower than what is currently available in the high risk small loan market without running at a loss or needing to be subsidized.
While that article shows for how little banks could offer those services as well, there's still the issue of would. Banks have their own predatory practices, why would they be content with lower margins than necessary for small loans if not for regulation? It would still be a net upgrade over the current situation of course, but determining which solution to pursue is not something to be done solely on how spooked you are about government.
I haven't moved the goal posts at all. The problem is that y'all are coming at my original post from multiple, disparate angles that don't even fully capture what Bernie means by "ending predatory lending." Here's a hint: he's not just talking about payday loans. He wants to cap interest on all other consumer debt at 15%. Accordingly, I 100% stand by my original statement of:
You realize that "ending predatory lending" roughly equates to "ending lending for poor people," right? It's a dumb policy because it is going to make it much harder for many people to get access to any kind of capital when they need it.
What exactly is the problem with that? A loan with 15% interest annually might not yet qualify as "predatory", but it is already pretty close. I doubt that there are very many situations where taking a loan at 15% interest is actually a good idea. Very easy to get caught in a debt trap with that.
Payday loans, however, have interest rates in the 100s of percents. And if that is not predatory, i cannot see what is.
EPT
