[RCP] The Sanders-AOC Protection for Loan Sharks Act

Really my dude?

I don't need to do any homework to know that trying to equate economic liability as a negative of enacting child labor laws is definitely ignorant especially today.

Even in the article you posted it shows that child labor was on the way out, so how does that fit his unintended consequences argument?

So exactly how does this bolster his argument?

 

I'm not going to read the whole article, but I'm assuming it is arguing that limiting interest rates would lead to more people going to illegitimate lending options (actual loan sharks). I think that is definitely true, but I don't believe just allowing unlimited interest rates is the option (which they basically do through fees anyway). I hate predatory lending. Reality is nobody should be borrowing money at those percentages, because they keep you poor. You can't get ahead that way. I think 24% should be the limit.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish here.

What does timeline have to do with anything?

He was ignorant by trying to equate child labor laws with the economic liability of kids present day.

His causation is totally off and the fact that you are trying to give him cover is comical.

 

Do you know any loan sharks?

How are people going to find these loan sharks?

 

Not the illegal kind, but they are more common in urban areas.

 

OK.

 

Much applause just for this sentence alone.

 

Payday loans for instance are predatory - they by far hurt more people than they help. It's a myth that 1,000% interest rate loans serve a purpose. They are exploitation of the desperate.

 

If immigration is illegal, all it does is create a black market for predatory coyotes and smugglers. Government shouldn't regulate immigration...

The logic is portable and totally checks out. I'm sold.

True story - Fred Koch was mad at the Civil War because he thought people should be able to sell themselves into slavery, so long as they did so knowingly.

What's a little predatory lending between friends next to selling yourself into permanent bondage?

 

...LOVE those free-market-social-engineering solutions!

...We sure as corn-shucks CAN Make America Great Again!

 

I was thinking -- is this really a federal issue though? It seems like an issue the states should decide for themselves. But, if it is such that the states' power to regulate lenders has been undermined, then yes we'd need federal action.

Are you really not familiar with where academia blurs into lobbying? Or are you counting on other people not knowing? Professors don't peddle their influence campaigns in secret. They put it in their CVs and on their bios. I have a couple now on my CV, and I'm not even a professor or a lobbyist. You can look at Dr. Whaples CV and see he's a straight-up academic -- he teaches classes, writes books, and publishes in peer-reviewed scholarly journals hardly anyone will read. Look at Dr. Zywicki's CV and you see he's a political animal. He does public policy by influencing legislators (with his congressional testimony), by influencing court decisions (with his expert witness testimony), by influencing the scholarship (with his research), and by influencing public opinion (with his radio, TV, print, and internet appearances). Maybe if he wants to make some real money, Dr. Whaples will some day get into the game too, but it doesn't look like he's there.

 

Correct, states have no ability to regulate credit card interest rates. That was undermined in a Supreme Court ruling in the 1970s that essentially destroyed the ability of state usury laws to apply to credit card issuers. The court ruled that current laws allowed issuers to offer interest rates based on the state laws where the credit card issuer is domiciled rather than the state where the consumer lives.

So at a minimum the feds need to reverse this and pass a law to restore the ability of states to apply usury laws to credit cards. States already have the ability to regulate payday loans but credit cards are essentially immune to usury laws.

 

Ofc libertardians (I made it up myself!) will claim national defense is a wholly separate issue.

So e-specially separate that it necessitates a military industrial complex!

 

As the Harry Truman speech partially quoted above the boogie man "socialism" has been used by our overlords to criticize minimum wage laws, social security etc and block progress. Apparently usuary laws are, too. I guess child labor laws, too. Making "socialism" a scary word has historically been used to keep liberals in line. Mild centrists like Obama have been denounced as socialist