About Me

Name: Josh Todd
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

What to Do About Payday Lenders

Are payday lenders loan sharks? Yes. Is it predatory lending? Perhaps based on some definitions. Should states regulate them further to the point of fixing the profits they can earn? Absolutely not.

But that is what the State of Ohio is considering. Governor Ted Strickland has teamed up with a good, bipartisan portion of his State Assembly to craft a bill that will cap the interest payday lenders can earn on loans. As usual, government’s heavy hand will be played and, again as usual, it will be too much. Even more usual, the market already has solutions for this problem.

Background: I currently work in the financial services industry, both as a banker and a licensed investment broker. Furthermore, I have worked for one of the giant banks as well as for a local credit union. And for the record, I hold a strong disliking for payday lenders. Many of my clients, past and present, have found themselves caught in a seemingly endless cycle.

Anyway, here is how it works. A consumer, short on cash, visits a payday lender, writes them a check for a particular amount plus interest, and post-dates the check for his or her next payday. In turn, the payday lender issues cash, which is collected by cashing the borrower’s check on or after payday.

The problem develops when borrowers don’t curb spending to the point that they must return to payday lenders on a regular basis. Consequently, borrowers end up paying ludicrous interest and, effectively, wasting money. One client comes to mind: an elderly lady who loaned money all of the time. She often resorted to payday lenders, which always caused her account to be overdrawn.

While payday lenders do lend to these consumers, and at high rates, they typically offer counseling to break their customers of the vicious cycle. It is not in the payday lenders’ best interests to have such a low reputation, so the market fosters the counseling aspect. One co-worker—a member of management—once managed a payday lender branch and he told several stories about counseling customers and offering them alternative products that promoted savings.

Likewise, payday lenders are simply responding to a market opportunity (hence the loan shark label). In many cases, payday borrowers have poor financial habits to begin with; thus, their respective predicaments are their own doing. The doldrums that the vicious cycle can cause serve as a market function to deter certain folks from their poor bookkeeping and spending habits.

Now to regulation of profits: The regulation of profits—that is, limiting the interest a payday lender may charge—will eliminate or severely reduce those profits. Two consequences will result: more responsible borrowers will have one less option for periodic help and lenders will become nearly insolvent to the point of cutting jobs and even closing shop for good (Perhaps this should occur per karma, but it should occur on a voluntary, market basis).

The latter is occurring in North Carolina, where hefty regulations have already caused job losses and store closures. In a stalling economy, measures to protect people from themselves will only do more harm, as unemployment rolls will rise and competition for existing jobs will increase.

But alas, there is a market alternative available to many payday borrowers. Credit unions typically offer a revolving loan similar to a payday loan with some key differences. First, the interest rates are lower, making it less expensive for borrowers to borrow. Second, there is the credit union’s service ethos, which will always encourage savings and free counseling programs. Furthermore, most credit unions offer “second chance” accounts with restrictions and mandatory counseling for consumers who have had troubles in the past.

Thus, let the market solve the problem. Making it easier for financial basket cases to borrow will only encourage more borrowing. What they need is incentive to save and change their ways, and, unfortunately, they often have to hit the bottom before bouncing back up. Ohio’s “solution” is no solution at all: it will encourage the continuation of the vicious cycle and cost jobs at the same time. But at least the government wanted to help.

Source(s): http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051004/NEWSREC0101/510040308/1001/NEWSREC0201; http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/04/29/ddn042908paydayweb.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Mockery XVI: G-D America

Sometimes one forgets to post a potentially polemic post. The following is, obviously, somewhat delayed, but still applicable, especially since Rev. Jeremiah Wright spoke out again in an interview with Bill Moyers. It is Rev. Wright's rendition--if he wrote songs--of "God Bless America."

G-D America
Land that sold drugs
To the black man
To strap him
In the cell with a bubba up above
From the ghetto
To penitentary
To arraignment
Back to cuffs
G-D America
Land that sold drugs
G-D America
My G-D home

G-D America
Land of the dumb
Nine-eleven
They done it
With the Jews it was an inside job
From the White House
Down to Crawford
To Jerusalem
The Klan, they know...
G-D America
My G-D home
G-D America
My G-D home

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Light Socket

During my year in the 10th grade--I say "my year" because some folks like it so much they hang around for a few--I took an electricity class. Interesting, to be sure, but not just because of class content.
 
One day a friend of mine was suddenly thrown backward from his seat and onto the floor. He shook his head and returned to his feet.
 
Who had shoved my friend off his chair? He did, in a sense. My friend had placed a paper clip inside of an electrical socket, and the electrical current, well, shocked him and gave him a free ride he didn't want.
 
What should have happened, so the logic goes, is this: The teacher, Mr. Roby, should have given my poor friend rubber gloves to protect himself from the shock. In fact, all students should have been encouraged to wear rubber gloves in electricity class.
 
Students would still stick metal objects into hot light sockets, but they would safe, wouldn't they?
 
However, the World Bank, according to the Financial Times, will take a different approach to problems of this sort. Instead of providing protection, the World Bank will pay Tanzanians, a country plagued by AIDS like much of Africa, to refrain from unprotected sex.
 
While paying folks to change their behavior may be somewhat questionable, the World Bank may be on to something. Let's stop high school kids from shocking themselves by, well, telling them not to stick paper clips in the light sockets!
 
Perhaps most shocking is that it took so long for a major world organization to come up with the idea.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The County Eyesore

 About the time I was in the Sixth Grade, my Grandparents purchased a large plot of land in an area just outside of Dayton. It was a ghastly sight, to be frank.

Nowhere was there a lawn to speak of, at least compared to the perfect green patches in their former suburban neighborhood (that is, aside from the dry summer of 1988 when I literally killed the grass by playing far too much baseball). In fact, thigh-high grass and weeds were everywhere.

At the front of the lot was a dilapidated building that served as the former owner’s home. He was, I was told, a wildly intelligent man; organized in a military way within but in complete disarray without. Several other flimsy structures stood on the property as well. When these huts were demolished, many rats lost their homes.

As one worked one’s way back, more tall grass and weeds, along with their guests (mosquitoes, snakes, rabbits, etc.), hindered any advance. To the right was an old, tin roof barn. Beyond that was a creek and a tree line, leading to the back 2/3 of the property, which was covered in wild foliage.

In other words, the property was the County Eyesore.

Yet, my Grandparents slowly cleaned up the mess, enlisting, of course, my help during the summers. They also allowed the previous owner to live in his house for sometime after the closing.

Within a few short years, many of the old buildings were gone. One was refurbished into a garage, another into a small house, and a new barn was built. Persistent mowing, first with a bush hog, eventually created a vast green lawn. The County Eyesore had been transformed into Green Acres. Naturally, I visited often, and I continued to spend my summers with my Grandparents.

And during those hot summer days, they would often enlist my help with some task, typically simple duties I couldn’t botch: holding a board in place, raking leaves, etc. One bright day I stood at the mouth of the property with my Grandpa. I believe he was displaying a piece of farming equipment or the like with a For Sale sign.

I don’t recall the conversation, but I do remember his profundity for the day. The chat concerned money somehow, and I must have asked how folks got more of it. “I can always get money,” he said. Grandpa continued, saying that there was always something he could do to “earn” a little more cash.

And so here we are today. Tough times, we’re told, and they are in many ways. But that farm bore evidence of human capability. We are always able to turn rural ghettoes into placid pastures. And there is always a way to improve one’s situation, financially or otherwise.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Two Peas in a Pod

What are Democrats to make of Hillary Clinton? Now it looks apparent, even to Clinton loyalists, that Bill and Hillary are two peas in the same pod. After two weeks of media examination of two Senator Clinton stories, her credibility must be severely damaged.
 
First, Senator Clinton has spent the past few weeks deflecting attention away from her claims of combat experience. For several years now, Clinton has told a story about how she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. Thus, she knows how dangerous combat is for soldiers.
 
But the problem is that no military commander would have allowed such a dignitary to land under such conditions, which should have been obvious to all observers from day one. Then ground accounts contradicted her story, forcing Clinton to flee to the microphone to retell the story and, in one case, mock herself to minimize the perception that she had engaged in hyperbole.
 
Second, Clinton had told a horror story of a young pregnant woman without health care who had to flee to another county for treatment because she didn't have the money. Resulting from the runaround was the loss of her child. The mother died weeks later.
 
This story, designed to instill a sense of urgency for universal health care, did seem rather touching; however, there was one problem: it simply wasn't true. One of the hospitals in question completely contradicted Clinton's story, unmasking every claim from the woman's lack of health insurance to the cause of her death.
 
Thus, two weeks and two faux stories from the lady who would be President. We all knew Bill Clinton was a blantant liar. Now even Democrats know the same of Mrs. Clinton.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Economic Education

One may state the patently obvious in observing the low level of economic education, or understanding, that exists in the United States (or in the Western world as a whole, for that matter). Yet, just as we still need to hear our wives tell us they love us, we likewise need to reiterate the apparent.
 
A case study: AP "journalist" Anne Flaherty wrote a bit about the military's use of diesel fuel. The headline proclaimed that the "Military feels fuel-cost gouge in Iraq." Thus is the assumption that oil companies are engaged in price-gouging, even against the Army! Further evidence of such gouging can be found in this week's Congressional grilling, or perhaps drilling, of oil executives for high prices. Flaherty's first line: "Think you're being gouged by Big Oil?" So the "editor's headline" excuse is out.
 
Flaherty proceeds to cite the "Baghdad subsidies" that keep gasoline prices for Iraqis around $1.30/gallon. She then decries how the Pentagon purchases the military's fuel on the open market. To back up for a moment, Flaherty also tells, "US troops in Iraq are paying almost as much [for gas] as Americans back home."
 
Kuwait does, however, provide some fuel subsidies to the US military, but that amounts to "only 50 percent" of the military's consumption. That is, half of the fuel is free and the remaining half is purchased on the market.
 
In other words, the military pays half-price for its fuel. And this is not the only economically moronic assertion from Ms. Flaherty. In fact, her piece, while perhaps the dumbest piece I have read in quite some time, may be indicative of the public's general lack of economic knowledge.
 
To review Ms. Flaherty's column again: First of all, there is no gouging on the part of oil companies. Fuel prices have spiked for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: the millions and millions of new drivers demanding cars and fuel in India and China; instability in oil-producing regions; a weakening US dollar; constant demand in the US; a lack of fuel supplies; a lack of refining capacity. In fact, the biggest profiteer from the dollars you spend at the pump is the US government--the very people of many of us are begging to stop the "gouging." Well, they can: by cutting your gasoline taxes. Despite Congressional grandstanding, Big Oil takes home pennies of profit on the gallon while the US government takes in the second largest share behind the cost of oil itself (which is high, one might add).
 
Flaherty almost applauds Iraqi subsidies of gasoline, which keep prices low. But does anyone remember the 1970s? Iraqis may not, but they are experiencing them now. It is apparent that Flaherty has never visited Iraq, or she would know that Iraqis often sit in line for days to fill up. Furthermore, Iraq has proven inept at efficiently drilling for and moving its oil.
 
Next: US troops do not personally pay for their fuel.
 
If Kuwait gives the military free fuel, that's a good thing; and if they give the military half its fuel--no small figure, to be sure--then the military is getting its fuel on the cheap. Thus, the entire premise of Flaherty's piece is moronic.
 
Sadly, much of the public goes along with Flaherty's logic. She is highly-educated but wildly ignorant, particularly in economic affairs. Her line of thinking may lead to policies like price controls and consumption restrictions--the policies that caused so much misery during the decade of my birth.
 
Instead, perhaps it's time to admit that media and political economic arguments are not based on, well, economics, but rather on politics. And despite the potential damage, the public may go along.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »