DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Do we need "the plebeians are idiots" laws?

**Tilmbeinymn** · 01-02-2009, 02:47 PM

I would, however, make an exception for the predatory lenders you mention as an example here. If interest rates offered are 40, 60, 80%, and in fact interest rates are far lower, and there is no reason to offer the rates other than to cheat the ignorant, those loans ought to be invalidated.

That is exactly what they did.

A gray area is where moneylenders offer money to those whose credit rating does not enable them to raise capital anywhere else, but at a higher rate than normal. If, for example, a slum-dweller cannot find any market mechanism to finance his daughter's wedding - no bank will loan him the money. The moneylender comes in, and offers a rate not too much higher than market. For instance, if the market rate is 18%, he will offer 23%. This is, by the way, permissible.

This rate is, however, still too high for the man to ever be able to pay it off. He essentially becomes a debt slave to the moneylender and his collectors.

In this case, what do you suggest? Restricting either man's freedom is not an option - they are both engaging in an activity with mutual consent, with no coercion on either side. But the outcome still sits uneasy on our conscience.

What do you suggest we do?

01-02-2009, 02:47 PM	#1
Tilmbeinymn Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 433 Senior Member	Do we need "the plebeians are idiots" laws? I would, however, make an exception for the predatory lenders you mention as an example here. If interest rates offered are 40, 60, 80%, and in fact interest rates are far lower, and there is no reason to offer the rates other than to cheat the ignorant, those loans ought to be invalidated. That is exactly what they did. A gray area is where moneylenders offer money to those whose credit rating does not enable them to raise capital anywhere else, but at a higher rate than normal. If, for example, a slum-dweller cannot find any market mechanism to finance his daughter's wedding - no bank will loan him the money. The moneylender comes in, and offers a rate not too much higher than market. For instance, if the market rate is 18%, he will offer 23%. This is, by the way, permissible. This rate is, however, still too high for the man to ever be able to pay it off. He essentially becomes a debt slave to the moneylender and his collectors. In this case, what do you suggest? Restricting either man's freedom is not an option - they are both engaging in an activity with mutual consent, with no coercion on either side. But the outcome still sits uneasy on our conscience. What do you suggest we do?
	Quote