Are we reading the same comment?

>Instead of buying a 20-pack of $necessary_product that costs $20 and will last for months, the lower class buy a 2-pack that costs $5 and lasts a couple weeks because they need the $15 to pay rent.

That directly implies that if they could be lent the $15, they could get the long term cheaper option and save money, even if they had to pay it back plus a high APR.

Apparently we're not reading the same comment. In this example, the rich person pays cash for the 20-pack and probably earns interest on the savings. They have no need to pay interest on a loan. The poor person pays cash for the 2-pack and then pays again next month, and maybe takes out a payday loan to afford the rent after they have to call in sick, and there's your high APR. This is not a benefit. What am I misunderstanding?

The entire premise, where I suggested this was an easy mutually beneficial profit opportunity, for the rich person to lend to the poor person to make the bulk purchases? I'm not sure you're keeping up with the exchange here.

That was OP being sarcastic and stating no further point other than they don't have one.