What I'm saying is that it's hard to tell if the usary limits actually provide a benefit to the borrowers. And I'm discussing the topics related to figuring out if they do or don't.
And what you appear to be saying is that we need those limits because we've always had those limits, and because limits are good. And that the limits don't limit people because secured credit cards exist. Which doesn't really speak to the question I was trying to raise... of whether or not those usary limits provide the benefits they are supposed to.
Why? Because they've done a lot of research, and there was lead up, there were issues, that caused those laws to exist. Study that, before we ponder is what I say.
Yes, I understand and agree with the concept of Chesterton's Fence. And examining that context and the logic for those laws is precisely what I'm trying to do here.
And sometime the corporate body needs externally deroved guardrails.
That said, secured credit cards exist. No one need be given credit, to have a credit card. And secured can lead to unsecured in time.
Companies have this as a patch already. And they want to lend, so market forces work here.
And there already is a limit under ursary laws, and yet magically, we still have sub prime credit. So to both sides of this discussion I say, ursary doesn't solve having subprime, because there is always a subprime.
Remove existing subprime clients, and the next tier becomes the new subprime. It's merely a label for the "riskiest people we lend to".
Chase that label, and eventually no one will be lent to. At all.