Some would argue, perhaps correctly, that Tucker is touching on a sizably immense, fleetingly rare and yet almost entirely unexplored, common ground. His entire commentary, and the questions he raises, are fair, albeit highly uncomfortable. Maybe they should be. The video, and an article from Vox on it, are linked and quoted, here:
While Tucker may not agree with some of the things I agree with (universal healthcare for instance), he at least seems to have his eye on the ball. Thank you for sharing this, Tenny.
I think Payday loans get an unfair rep, and are wrongly singled out. They are designed to be a short term loan (generally a couple weeks). If someone uses them outside their intended purposes (i.e. I'm going to pay this loan off over 2 years), that's not the fault of the loan instrument. It'd be like me saying Toyota shouldn't be allowed to sell Corollas because every time I take one off road it gets stuck in the mud. I think he's right to an extent on distribution of income, if we can't figure out a fair way to address it the AOC's and the fringe left's solutions will be disastrous.
Yes, but you have Toyota dealerships saying "Hell yeah, take that Corolla off-road, it will handle it just fine!" EDIT: But more than that, he is saying it is also the lender's duty to protect people from their own stupidity, otherwise it is an untenable situation. You don't keep letting them borrow money that you KNOW they cannot pay back, even if, in the long run, it makes you more money off their interest. It is the moral imperative of our time.
I see that as a problem with unscrupulous business practices. Not a problem with Pay Day Loans. A Pay Day Loan is a Pay Day Loan. A Corolla is a Corolla. Not liking how some businesses conduct their practice is shit reasoning for killing an instrument. Pass and enforce regulations that requires whatever necessary transparency and truthfulness, the instrument is benign; neither good nor evil, maybe chaotic neutral. But if I'm hell bent on taking that Corolla mud riding the ultimate responsibility is mine.
It's a unsecured loan. It's risky as hell for the lender. By increasing the burden on the lender, you're going to really hurt poor people having access to quick cash.
How can a lender protect people from their own stupidity when they are dealing indirectly with the people, and regulations prohibit certain types of information from being sent as part of the loan? Your furniture, cars, electronics and appliances, and even some pay day loans are indirect, meaning the money you are borrowing is from a lender that is not sitting in front of you. If the person in front of you rips you off by inflating your interest rate, terms, warranty and protections, how does that become the duty of the lender?
