I meant in general, not in the specific case of predatory lenders and rent-to-own places.
There are plenty of opportunities and ways for people to do stupid things.
I think this is a fair summation of the difference in how folks are viewing this. Yes, I value principles. Freedom to succeed also means freedom to fail. I completely disagree with an outcome based approach because it allows variations in treatment based on that outcome - that’s inherently not fair. There will always be more optimal choices that individuals can make. Each person derives a different level of utility from the behavior they engage in. Some will maximize that utility in the short term, the long term, or a balance - each based on their individual choices.
If we support foreclosing some choices because it is sub optimal, there is no limit of things that can be prohibited because some group of folks deem them to be not the best choice that can be made. In principle, you can control all aspects of the economy and an individual’s choices in this way. So yes, in principle, businesses like this should be free to operate and people are free to not engage them.
Some people will use these rent to own places and be just fine - acquiring items they may not otherwise have been able to and still be able to make the payments. Others will make the attempt and fail. Others still will not do business there. All of these are fine.
It has nothing to do with punishing the stupid or lower income - and everything to do with not punishing the individual trying to make a living.
Yes, limiting this one type of business does not necessarily lead to the scenario you describe above. In principle it can. And I care about principles.
That’s all fine, until you disagree with the other liberals about what exact “results” you’re actually after.
Conservatives care about principles because they know that, in a country of 350 million people, we won’t always all agree on what “less shitty” means, and on how to achieve the desired results (or even on what the desired results are). And so the best option is to rely on principles: I’ll live my life, and you’ll live yours, and we’re both free to make whatever decisions we want as long as we’re not harming anyone else.
Sanger wanted a less shitty society too. So she promoted sterilization. Her heart was pure. She valued results over principles.
I don’t trust your view of “less shitty.” I believe in results too: the result of allowing “results over principle” are too risky for me. I think the best chance we have for a less shitty society is to adopt principles and agree on them, and then work within them. Allowing “results” to trump principles is simply a receipe to end up with crappy results from a fervent believer that’s wrong.
Margaret Sanger fucking changed our world, Bricker. While she had some views unfortunately of her time, and while you’re right to condemn her for those views, I am happy to take her on as emblematic of what happens when you value results over principles: the results she achieved are incredible results. As for the eugenics, I’m perfectly happy to criticize those policies based on their results.
Now, you gave your best shot with someone who promoted results over principles. So allow me to respond with some folks who valued principles over results: Stalin. Mao Tse-Tung. Pol Pot.
The problem with your principles-first approach is that it becomes far too easy to ignore actual suffering under it.
Do you really not notice how, in criticizing my approach of emphasizing results over principles, you go back to “in principle”? Yes, in principle you can make everyone wear tuxedoes and talk Esperanto all day–but I’m not advocating an “in-principle” approach.
If controlling all aspects of the economy is a bad thing, it’ll be a bad thing because it has bad results. Tell me the bad results, and we’ll talk.
Similarly, if banning rent-to-own businesses is a bad thing, it’ll be a bad thing because it has bad results. Tell me the bad results, and we’ll talk.
This makes no sense. Do you think somehow that we can’t agree on what results we’re after, but we have an easier time agreeing on what principles we’ll follow?
As for your libertarian coda there, folks who make that sort of argument usually embed an implicit “private property is sacred” approach in there, which is a totally flawed approach. Do you have that implication in what you say? If not, how do we deal with the situation in which what you decide with your life means I go hungry?
And the problem with yours is that it allows evil under the guise of seeking the right result.
And Stalin’s approach was not about principles. He was all about results: the preferred result being Stalin remains in power.
A leftist, in other words.
For context, anyone anxious to see more evidence of Bricker’s stalwart commitment to, and reverence of, principles over results will find it on full display here.
Warning: a strong antiemetic is recommended.
Of course I noticed - I highlighted it in the first two sentences of my response. You explained some of your position describing the ‘results’ based approach. I did the same with the ‘principle’ based approach. I did not attempt to convince you based on the results, because that’s not an approach I adopt. If I were to take a results based approach, you could simply dismiss those results as either acceptable or unacceptable, and then where would we be? This is one of the flaws of a results based approach.
But let’s try. The bad results of curtailing this type of business is that:
[ul]
[li]The business owner has reduced utility.[/li][li]People with poor credit would be otherwise unable to engage in certain types of commerce.[/li][li]Overall liberty is reduced.[/li][li]Increased paternalistic environment.[/li][li]Increased push towards less desireable credit facilities (e.g. loan sharks)[/li][/ul]
All of these are bad.
Ahh, good old Bricker. Just when you think he might possibly be more than a dumbass political hack, he pulls this kind of crap.
A person’s lack of impulse control, need for instant gratification, greed, lack of vision or planning are not things that should be mandated via legislation. If we are going to insist,perhaps a mandatory waiting period or cooling off period that takes away the instant gratification coupled with a mandatory economic class before delivery. Put the onus on the poor uneducated prey.
That’s fine.
But credit- and that is in essence what that is- absolutely should be regulated.
Legislating bad credit or any other bad human behavior is a Sisyphian task, not to mention not really your (in the general sense of your) business to legislate
Well, that’s kind one opinion, but it is an extremist one. Most people appreciate having a well managed financial system.
LHoD, i agree with some of the positions you’re taking in this thread, but i don’t agree with your rhetorical strategy of giving up “principles” to the conservatives and leaving liberals with nothing but “results” as the basis for our policies.
I have principles, and those principles inform my beliefs about the proper role of government. Similarly, while Bricker has principles, those principles are also clearly informed by the results they produce.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that, in some ways, the principles of liberals and conservatives might even be said to match up in one important area. With the exception of a very few radical anarchists and libertarians on the one hand, and a very few autocrats or fascists on the other, the vast majority of Americans adhere to the principle that there are areas of our social and economic life life where government has a positive role to play, and where it is appropriate for government to interfere with the workings of the invisible hand. A key difference is exactly where to draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate government involvement.
All of these things involve costs. Every decision to regulate brings with it consequences for different groups in society. Sometimes the costs and consequences are worth the intervention; sometimes they aren’t.
Rent control creates artificial scarcity, which tends to drive up market-priced rents for those who are not fortunate enough to get rent-controlled housing. Rent control can also reduce the willingness of landlords to maintain and improve their properties because they can’t recoup the increased costs through higher rents. And rent control is a method of income redistribution that falls almost solely on a single group of wealthy people—landlords—without making similar demands of wealthy people who make their money in other areas.
None of this necessarily means that rent control is always a bad thing. We might, in some cases, conclude that the costs and consequences are worth it for the benefits that rent control brings. But whatever conclusion we come to, we should do it with the frank admission that there are costs.
Similarly, in cases like this, there are costs that we have to weigh against possible benefits. I’ll refrain from calling the costs “evil,” but they exist nonetheless. I think it is reasonable to say that outlawing these types of operations, or somehow preventing people from engaging in contracts like the ones that inspired this thread, constitutes a restriction on freedom, or at least a particular aspect of freedom. The question is whether the results justify that restriction, and an ancillary question we might ask is whether there is a way to undertake regulation while at least minimizing the impact on principles like freedom of contract.
As i said very early in the thread, i’m somewhat hesitant over stuff like this because, especially in cases where the payments and the total costs are spelled out clearly up front, i tend to believe that people should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding what to do with their money. On the other hand, i also support the principle of legislating against usurious interest rates. Even Adam Smith, the godfather of classical liberal economics, the man who invented the term “invisible hand,” advocated for legal limits on interest rates to encourage wise investment and keep money, as much as possible, out of the hands of what he called “prodigals and projectors.”
Of course, the consequences of this would be, in many cases, to close off all avenues of legal lending to the poor. It might also result in the rise of loan sharking and other unsavory extra-legal and illegal lending practices. I do think, however, that a reasonable medium is possible, a legal limit on interest rates that is high enough to take account of the increased risks associated with lending to poor people and still provide a profit, while also not being so high that those poor people end up paying four or five times as much for crappy goods as someone with better credit.
The exact place to draw the line would, of course, be a matter for debate, but just because shades of grey exist doesn’t mean that we can’t find an appropriate balance. The economy runs on important microeconomic principles like scarcity, supply and demand, marginal costs, equilibrium costs, etc., etc., but the economy is also a human institution. While there are risks and costs to interfering, it doesn’t mean that those costs are never worth paying.
One thing that i think liberals should do, in debates like this, is be more willing to admit that regulation does come with costs, in terms of freedom. I support a progressive income tax structure, even while conceding that handing over twenty-something percent of my income to the government is, in some important ways, a restriction on my freedom. That’s money that i earned, and that i can’t spend on myself. I’m fine with that, but the fact that i’m happy to live with the cost doesn’t mean that the cost is absent.
I also tend to believe in a definition of freedom that is not simply a negative one, that does not define freedom simply as freedom of contract and absence of coercion and absence of government intervention. I believe that we need to recognize the fact that, in a modern, technological, and inter-connected society, a fundamental condition of liberty is a certain level of economic well-being.
Without a minimum level of economic security and independence, any talk of freedom on a more abstract level is effectively pointless. And i believe that one role of government is to help create conditions that help people to attain that minimum level. It can and should do this with as little disruption as possible under the circumstances. Regulation should not be introduced on a whim or just to accrue more power to the government, and if a mode of regulation has outlived its usefulness, it should be abandoned. For all its problems, the price mechanism within a free market is a good barometer of human priorities and needs, and should be messed with only is the benefits to society as a whole outweigh the costs.
I guess all of this probably betrays me as a New Deal liberal, with a New Deal definition of freedom. I’ll live with that. I’m on board with the principles outlined by Franklin Roosevelt in his “fireside chat” of September 30, 1934:
There was a time when i took you seriously. Your main task on this board, of late, seems to be to make yourself as antagonistic and offensive as possible. You’ve always been a little bit of a self-righteous jackass, but there was a time when your contributions on a variety of issues would outweigh the jackassery. These days, it’s only on narrow issues of legal information that you provide any useful service at all around here.
…and those that don’t get their furniture at Rent a Center
If you must debate this civilly and with thoughtful responses, please take it to GD! 
At any rate, before we go an outlaw things, it would be nice to know:
- What is the problem we are trying to solve?
- What is the size and scope of this problem?
- What is the proposed solution?
- What negative consequences does the solution cause?
So far, I’m not seeing a lot of that in this thread. We have laws against anti-competitive behaviors by corporations, and it seems to me if there was a buck to be made by completing with these rent-to-own stores at lower rates, then someone would be doing it or someone will come along soon enough and do it. So, as long as these companies are not behaving in an anti-competitive way, I’m not seeing how they are “gouging” customers, but rather offering them the market rate for renting a product. As someone noted above, what if they presented themselves as “Rental Stores”, and then said that after 2 years of renting the product, they give it to you “for free”?
When a $500 loan balloons to $15,000, it goes far beyond consumer stupidity. Anyone participating in schemes like that should be put in prison. If laws don’t exist to prosecute them, laws should be passed. It is not just immoral, it should be criminal.
She took all of the actions. She did the footwork to take out the loans..doubled down on the stupid and took the action to get more loans .then decided stupid is her forte, went out and contacted an installment loan company and got an ever bigger loan. How can you NOT blame that on customer stupidity?
I disagree. I don’t think she should be put in prison for making stupid financial decisions.