首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Business Ethics >When and Why Usury Should be Prohibited
【24h】

When and Why Usury Should be Prohibited

机译:什么时候以及为什么应该禁止高利贷

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Usury ceilings seem indefensible. Their opponents insist these caps harm the consumers they are intended to help. Low ceilings are said to prevent the least advantaged agents from accessing legal credit and drive them into the black market, where prices are higher and collection methods are harsher. But in this paper, I challenge these arguments and show that the benefits of interest-rate limitations in the most expensive credit markets clearly outweigh the costs. The test case is payday lending. Deregulated pricing in this market produces negative externalities that justify usury restrictions. Unless prices are capped, the more solvent majority of borrowers is compelled to cross-subsidize the least solvent debtors, who have a high rate of default. Rationing the riskiest debtors out of this market by means of a moderate usury cap puts an end to this unfairness and produces fewer bad consequences than the advocates of deregulated pricing recognize. I argue that only an extreme principle like maximizing the minimum could justify a free market in payday credit.
机译:高利贷天花板似乎无可辩驳。他们的对手坚称,这些上限损害了他们打算帮助的消费者。最高限额据说可以防止最不利的代理人获得合法信贷,并将他们带入黑市,那里的价格更高,收款方法也更苛刻。但是在本文中,我对这些论点提出了挑战,并表明在最昂贵的信贷市场中限制利率的好处显然超过了成本。测试用例是发薪日贷款。在这个市场上放松管制的价格产生了负面的外部性,证明了高利贷限制的合理性。除非设定价格上限,否则大多数具有较高偿债能力的借款人将被迫对具有较高违约率的具有最低偿债能力的债务人进行交叉补贴。通过适度的高利贷上限,将风险最大的债务人从市场中分配出去,可以消除这种不公平现象,并且所产生的不良后果要少于放松价格管制的倡导者所认识到的。我认为,只有最大化最小值等极端原则才能证明自由市场的发薪日信贷是合理的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号