Predatory Lending: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Spend some time with John Oliver, discussing just a few of the problems with predatory lending: [this video] Usury laws go back to Biblical times: [link] - there is plenty of literature to follow from this point. There are still prohibitions on drug use that most agree should still be upheld due to the serious harm they tend to cause (addiction -> crime, serious health decline) relative to their benefits: heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, crystal meth, etc. Go spend some time in some majority Black neighborhoods in the U.S. like deep East Oakland, Detroit, Philadelphia, etc. if you want to get a real sense of how bad the problems are and what the locals think about it. Or spend some time in poor white areas in Appalachia or the midwest U.S.

On point 2, HN flagging things that are critical of the US... I find surprising. On point 1, facts. I haven't found where to dispute the articles facts yet. Where the commenters dispute it's actually an issue of perception. - [1] Predetory Loan and banking services such as ACE that market to predominant poor neighborhoods has a negative impact that is documented in study and pop [2] - [3] the initial argument by power user tptacek is that the author didn't bother to check poor white parts of the country. If you assume this article was about something other than black poverty, okay I understand the argument. But it was about poverty effecting the black community. So I don't see the factual problem. 1. [link] 2. [this video] 3. [link]

fairness is a horrendous choice of words, but the one this article chose to use there are many unfair side effects of current economics look at taxes.. recently i read a major corporate entity paid 4k pounds in taxes in 2014(o). The top comment says: TIL our small UK startup pays 10-20x more corp tax .. Doing things honestly and by the book is expensive in both money terms and time terms (paying accountants) Big corps .. make me feel like a fool. though these corps are seen as equals in buraecratic lines, the expectations and avenues of utilising those regulations seems unfairly balanced or look at fines.. if i get a parking ticket(i) for 100$, i may be unable to pay it right away with my zero savings and my 12k/yr income, someone making 80k+ a year will just pay the 100$ grievance and be done with it i will have to start budgeting myself to make enough to pay the 100$ fine, but it will take time with bimonthly paychecks and in that time i will be punished with late fees only increasing the financial burden and time needed to accrue the funds even if trying to do the right thing people punished further simply for economic circumstance so though the two violators are seen as equal, the expectations and avenues of how to rectify the violations seems unfairly balanced people making less end up paying more for the same violation due to the bureaucracy maintaining the violations or i could use a payday loan(ii), another damning option these are only two examples of areas where a c

> Newspapers have been subsidised by advertising for years (the cost of the paper basically covers distribution costs). That never made them any less useful. Are you kidding? I can come up with better, but John Oliver is funny: [this video] > Yes, I understand "if you don't pay for it you are the product". I think that's bunk - or rather, I don't think that makes it any less useful. That's like saying smoking's long term carcinogenic effects don't make it any less enjoyable. By the way, advertising doesn't subsidize anything. Advertisers get their money from us. There is no free lunch. In fact, advertising gives us lunch that is less tasty, costs more, and gives us food poisoning: [link]