The government lends money to the states,,we should charge the state that needs fund the maximum interest rate that they allow corporations to charge that states citizens,,the USA needs the money and most states are not good credit risk. Simply treat the states as they treat there citizens. If the good people of tennessee require funds from the feds then they get charged 300% interest,,as they allow there citizens to be charged. They could simply refuse to take money from the feds or tax themselves to pay for there own needs without bothering the rest of America to help fund them through there own incompetence.
Unless they pray on the weak, poor and desperate. Most states have usury laws that prevent long term loans with such rates. http://www.usurylaw.com/state/
Without question, the most ignorant and asinine thing that you have posted yet. I only wish we had free, unregulated markets. No government backstops, no get out of jail free cards. If that were the case, almost none of these asset bubbles we've seen in the last 15 years would have occurred. Maybe one time, banks and brokerages blown out and that would be it.
Sounds good in theory doesn't it? Maybe a few states with semi-rational leaders would get the message and take on the unions and their financial burden. On the other hand, all that such an action would do is encourage the states to jack up the state tax rates to obscene levels to make up the difference. Same thing with banks and any other large enough entity that can get away with it. The bottomline is that it takes political leaders with a clue and the courage to reduce the size and scope of a state's government and the influence of the unions on that government. The media will never, ever, ever speak about this financial burden, hence almost nobody understands why some of the biggest states are in such fiscal trouble. Take away those entitlements and things really don't look as dire. Sooner or later, this will happen.
Awwww, my friend, where have you been? I really do wish you could stick arnd, so that you and I could have a discussion. I will take your review of my intentionally provocative comment as a compliment. Suppose we have free, unregulated mkts, just as you describe? So no govt backstops, no SEC, no FDIC, no nuthin' like that... Would you then be happy to have operations like CashCall charge the sorts of rates described in the original post?
Well, that's precisely my point... Doesn't protecting the weak, poor and desperate in this manner constitute mkt manipulation, regulation, etc and as such makes mkts not free. If we believe that usury laws are actually good, does that mean that some regulation, mkt manipulation and govt interference is good, while some is bad?
Well, my point beyond that is that a) we clearly like our mkts free, but not too free; b) a natural question arises: who's going to determine which regulation/govt interference is good and which isn't?
That's what our representatives and their committies and gov. departments are supposed to do. They get it wrong a lot and listen to the lobbieists way too much.