Issues & Insights

If Sanders, AOC Prick Us With New Usury Laws, Will We Not Bleed?

C-SPAN

Fair Credit and Loan Shark Prevention Acts Will Hurt the People They’re Supposed to Help

Economies have an equilibrium, where the market sets a price for a product based on the demand for its supply. When the supply is too high, the price goes down; when it’s too low, the price goes up. This is the most basic rule of economics, so simple that it shouldn’t even need to be explained.

And yet. We live in a world of ascendant Democratic Socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are so “morally right” they don’t need to be “factually correct.”

Willfully obtuse about basic economics, Sanders, AOC, and their terrifyingly large group of fellow ideologues are behind two legislative proposals – HR 5050 (the Veterans and Consumers Fair Credit Act) and HR 2930 (the Loan Shark Prevention Act) – that would hurt the people they’re supposed to help.

HR 5050 would set a national “all-in” rate cap on credit card interest rates while restricting the ability of lenders to export interest rates across state lines, which could expose large swaths of consumers to lose credit access in several states. Meanwhile, HR 2930 proposes an even more stringent cap that would spur even greater losses of credit access among those who need it most.

See, there’s a slightly more advanced concept in economics called inelastic demand. So, if some activist in the government decides that prices are too highe, and enforces price controls on something, the result is shortages, long waits, price gouging, and black markets. There’s price elasticity only when there are substitutes for the product in question.

This isn’t just theory: before a unanimous 1978 Supreme Court decision deregulated credit card interest rates, illegal loan sharks preyed on the urban working class who suffered under a usury ceiling. The Obama administration tried to reinstate a similar ceiling and failed – the only options for many in need of credit is liquidating their assets at pawn shops or the mafia, as the good people at Freakonomics pointed out.

Bernie and AOC aren’t going to pay attention to facts, but some new research out of Chile might turn them around. Stanford economist José Ignacio Cuesta and Chilean regulator Alberto Sepúlveda have examined a period in Chile, from 2013 to 2015, where regulators instituted a 36% interest rate cap on small, unsecured consumer loans. Their research finds that such caps decrease access to credit and harm vulnerable consumers.

Enacted in hopes of protecting some consumers from high short-term borrowing costs, interest rate caps end up harming the very consumers they’re supposed to help by reducing their access to credit.

The rate caps in Chile hurt almost everyone: 82% of consumers were worse off under the rate cap, facing major financial setbacks, while just 16% benefited. Consumers who benefited saved only 32 cents per month in lower interest rates, while those harmed lost around $100 per month. Those who lost credit access were also more likely to reduce spending or fall behind on education, healthcare, housing, and other essentials.

Interest rates are typically set higher for borrowers with below-average credit histories because of the increased risk of lending to them. So, when rates are forcibly limited, credit card issuers may – instead of taking the risk – just tell them no. In this instance in Chile, loans to higher-risk borrowers declined 24%.

Other studies confirm Cuesta and Sepúlveda’s findings, one in 2018 and another in 2019, examined the same period in Chile and concluded that this kind of government coercion most hurt the youngest, poorest, and least-educated families. Back here in the U.S., a 2010 study analyzing the effect on consumers of a regulatory change in Oregon found that rate caps damaged household financial conditions, while a 2008 study of U.S. consumer credit found that rate caps warp credit markets and damage consumer welfare.

The research is clear: interest rate caps are bad for consumers — particularly lower-income consumers.

When authoritarians roll the dice with social experimentation like this in a small Latin American country, the effects are bad, whether its interest rates in Chile or the disastrousness of Venezuelan socialism. But if this kind of thing takes root in the United States, the impact would be devastating. Tens of millions of subprime borrowers could lose access to credit cards entirely, freezing financial markets and sending the economy into a tailspin.

Unfortunately, given the rise of Bernie Sanders and AOC, the supply of economic stupidity appears to be unlimited. Let’s hope the demand runs out real soon.

Jared Whitley is a long-time Washington, D.C., politico, having worked in the U.S. Senate, the Bush White House, and the defense industry. He is a graduate of Hult International Business School in Dubai.


We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists from the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to use our decades of experience to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we think our approach to commentary is sorely lacking both in today’s mainstream media and on the internet. You can help us keep our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.

1 comment

  • I, for one, do not believe that AOC earned a Degree in Economics, or any other degree. When she first won she only possessed a B.A., or so I had read. She hasn’t clue one about how anything that has to do with anything financial. Her unqualified & totally assinine answers to questions & statements from her prove that. And Bernie? Bernie has proven he doesn’t understand basic business when he tried to argue that Gross Income & Net Income were the same, as well as a company, such as Disneyland with all they bring in can’t afford to pay it’s employees top $$ & needed subsidies. Giving these 2 people any type of control over anyone’s money is total disaster. Between the 2 of them there isn’t enough common sense to fill a Thimble & even less knowledge to know they’re wrong. Their total interest in having complete power & control.

  • [print-me target="#post-%ID%"]

Subscribe to Issues & Insights via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to I&I and you can receive notifications of new articles in your email. It’s simple, and free.

Join 3,088 other subscribers

Advertisements

Donations

If you like what you see, feel free to leave a donation. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Just click on the Tip Jar above. It will take you to a PayPal donations page. Your contributions will help us defray the cost of running this site. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is a new site formed by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: