Like almost everything it's a matter of degree, the question is where you draw the line. Almost every reasonable person who's grounded in reality can agree on the most egregious examples, things like outright scamming people or blatantly predatory actions like truck systems and high double digit (or triple digit) mafia style "payday" loans.
It's close to the normal side of things you start running into problems. Particularly where you have misleading but not outright fraudulent systems, like multi-layered student loans that to a non-accountant seem like you're paying off but in reality you're just paying interest and never any principal.
A lot of this could be solved by regulating the "informed consent" side of things rather than trying to regulate every new insane financial instrument people come up with. If you require lenders to make the terms clear in plain fucking english with clear examples of all contingencies then you'll see a lot less people getting ripped off or making stupid decisions. One of the founding principles of capitalism is that people are making informed decisions with full information. A system where you need a week with two lawyers and an accountant to understand what the fuck is going on for every freaking transaction isn't a healthy free market, it's one filled with rent seekers and deliberate distortions by bad actors.
It isn't as much of a degree as people think. I'm perfectly fine with a triple digit payday loan. (Operation Choke Point is evil)
For example. If you NEED my $10 right the fuck now, but I also need my $10 right now, but slightly less. I might ask you for $20 back because of how much I need the money right now. If you need $10 to make $50 additional dollars, then this is perfectly reasonable. Whatever I need my $10 for, I can stall and then spend it with the extra $10 I made from loaning you money as part of my needs getting filled.
If you want $10 from me just because you want to fuck off with it, and you still promise $20 back right now, I'm going to be pissed at you, and rightfully.
There is nothing immoral about charging even 100% interest. The issue is whether or not the borrower actually understands that. And that's where you get into the 'informed consent' side of things.
There's plenty immoral with that when you've got a rigged system where people are trapped relying on payday loan places because their paychecks and bills don't line up.
Just like there's plenty immoral with situations like when McDonalds was paying people on cards that charged them outrageous fees just to check the balance, or when the only way someone can cash their paycheck (since they're too poor to open a bank account) is from someplace that takes some exorbitant percentage.
You're using words you don't remotely understand. International tariffs have no bearing on McRonalds paying people on a card system that fucks them over just for trying to check their own balance.
Yes, informed consent is a big thing. I'm still struggling to imagine how it could be corrected, because I believe a lot of the obfuscation is directly tied to beaurocratic bloat.
I've been thinking recently, that even for the libertarian ideal, it's essential to maximise 'informed consent'. The ideal of the contract, I'd say, is founded upon maximal understanding of the terms/conditions by all concerned parties. If no one understands the terms, the contract is useless. If only one person understands the contract, it's likely a scam. If all but one person understands the contract, it's predatory.
Having a system set up to demand translators (lawyers) is a big warning sign. Needing professionals to translate jargon is the same.
The tipping point for me here was EULAs. What a load of shit these are. "By clicking agree, you agree to this 40 page document of fine print", with the subtext always being that you may not use the product without clicking agree. We could do without this, at the least. It should not be possible to sign away your rights without understanding that you're doing so AND it should not be a respected contract when you're effectively coerced into it.
I'm still struggling to imagine how it could be corrected, because I believe a lot of the obfuscation is directly tied to beaurocratic bloat.
"Fuck you, I'm not paying until you make it clear."
Part of the beauty of a voluntary system is to make sure the consumer is maximally empowered to save and spend their money only at their choosing. It's actually why protectionism is harmful for the consumer. The consumer must be skeptical, and maybe even downright confrontational with their money and time.
The tipping point for me here was EULAs. What a load of shit these are.
Agreed, but remember that the reason they are there is because the government is expansive enough to use it's bureaucratic bloat to protect these companies in every conceivable way that only a team of lawyers can possibly understand.
Strip them of that protection and make them rely only on the consumer's kindness, and you'll see an entirely different business.
Like almost everything it's a matter of degree, the question is where you draw the line. Almost every reasonable person who's grounded in reality can agree on the most egregious examples, things like outright scamming people or blatantly predatory actions like truck systems and high double digit (or triple digit) mafia style "payday" loans.
It's close to the normal side of things you start running into problems. Particularly where you have misleading but not outright fraudulent systems, like multi-layered student loans that to a non-accountant seem like you're paying off but in reality you're just paying interest and never any principal.
A lot of this could be solved by regulating the "informed consent" side of things rather than trying to regulate every new insane financial instrument people come up with. If you require lenders to make the terms clear in plain fucking english with clear examples of all contingencies then you'll see a lot less people getting ripped off or making stupid decisions. One of the founding principles of capitalism is that people are making informed decisions with full information. A system where you need a week with two lawyers and an accountant to understand what the fuck is going on for every freaking transaction isn't a healthy free market, it's one filled with rent seekers and deliberate distortions by bad actors.
It isn't as much of a degree as people think. I'm perfectly fine with a triple digit payday loan. (Operation Choke Point is evil)
For example. If you NEED my $10 right the fuck now, but I also need my $10 right now, but slightly less. I might ask you for $20 back because of how much I need the money right now. If you need $10 to make $50 additional dollars, then this is perfectly reasonable. Whatever I need my $10 for, I can stall and then spend it with the extra $10 I made from loaning you money as part of my needs getting filled.
If you want $10 from me just because you want to fuck off with it, and you still promise $20 back right now, I'm going to be pissed at you, and rightfully.
There is nothing immoral about charging even 100% interest. The issue is whether or not the borrower actually understands that. And that's where you get into the 'informed consent' side of things.
There's plenty immoral with that when you've got a rigged system where people are trapped relying on payday loan places because their paychecks and bills don't line up.
Just like there's plenty immoral with situations like when McDonalds was paying people on cards that charged them outrageous fees just to check the balance, or when the only way someone can cash their paycheck (since they're too poor to open a bank account) is from someplace that takes some exorbitant percentage.
The answer to those things is not protectionism, but to make it easier for those businesses to be competed against.
You're using words you don't remotely understand. International tariffs have no bearing on McRonalds paying people on a card system that fucks them over just for trying to check their own balance.
Yes, informed consent is a big thing. I'm still struggling to imagine how it could be corrected, because I believe a lot of the obfuscation is directly tied to beaurocratic bloat.
I've been thinking recently, that even for the libertarian ideal, it's essential to maximise 'informed consent'. The ideal of the contract, I'd say, is founded upon maximal understanding of the terms/conditions by all concerned parties. If no one understands the terms, the contract is useless. If only one person understands the contract, it's likely a scam. If all but one person understands the contract, it's predatory.
Having a system set up to demand translators (lawyers) is a big warning sign. Needing professionals to translate jargon is the same.
The tipping point for me here was EULAs. What a load of shit these are. "By clicking agree, you agree to this 40 page document of fine print", with the subtext always being that you may not use the product without clicking agree. We could do without this, at the least. It should not be possible to sign away your rights without understanding that you're doing so AND it should not be a respected contract when you're effectively coerced into it.
"Fuck you, I'm not paying until you make it clear."
Part of the beauty of a voluntary system is to make sure the consumer is maximally empowered to save and spend their money only at their choosing. It's actually why protectionism is harmful for the consumer. The consumer must be skeptical, and maybe even downright confrontational with their money and time.
Agreed, but remember that the reason they are there is because the government is expansive enough to use it's bureaucratic bloat to protect these companies in every conceivable way that only a team of lawyers can possibly understand.
Strip them of that protection and make them rely only on the consumer's kindness, and you'll see an entirely different business.