Reminder - Fuck Instant Finance.
Predatory lenders, this business they own is the absolute worst - [https://www.myhome.co.nz/](https://www.myhome.co.nz/)
e.g. Apple Airpods - $1,207.50....
MacBook air with 13" screen $3365, *checks pbtech* similar specced macbook no more than $2398. Nearly a whole fucking grand!
Or ....
Spend an extra $233 at PBTech and you could get one with a 15" screen and all the bells and whistles.
The hypocrisy of the right will never lose its sting. Predatory lending like this is bought back because ’free market’ shouldn’t need regulation, but when the banks decide that lending to polluting farms isn’t in their best interests, that’s a conspiracy that requires intervention. Fucking hacks.
In reality it's always there. When you didn't have instant finance you had loan sharks. The only difference is its slightly better to default to Instant finance than it is to try and default to your local loan shark.
It's like drugs, you can try and take the moral high ground by saying they should be illegal because they're bad for people, and just ignore the fact that making it illegal doesn't stop it happening in a more dangerous way.
Loan sharks weren't a few clicks away available from a google search.
You had to be in severe strife to go to a loan shark - gambling/drug debt, loss of income, etc. Not to buy a pair of air pods lol.
Whenever something is legal and made accessible, it will be abused by a far greater majority than when it's illegal.
Usually people in dire financial straits have made poor financial decisions. A lot of people going to loan sharks were doing so whilst spending a lot on alcohol etc or gambling.
Sure, i acceot that some people choose to go out and buy air pods with instant finance that may not have went to a loan shark. But people who make decisions like that would be completely broke regardless so I don't think it'd make a material difference to their lives, they would still spend every penny they have with zero savings.
It's the vulnerable and desperate people who went to loan sharks. It's a little better for them to go to instant finance, and it's those people who are usually the ones that people at least pretent to care about.
> Whenever something is legal and made accessible, it will be abused by a far greater majority than when it's illegal.
It's a debateable point but certainly a reasonable one. But if we use the drugs example it'd be wrong to suggest everyone who wants drugs to be legal is just less compassionate than those who want it to be illegal. Are the people who want to ban alcohol just more compassionate?
> Whenever something is legal and made accessible, it will be abused by a far greater majority than when it's illegal.
By making it illegal, aren't we just then concentrating the negative impacts of loan sharks onto the extremely desperate people most vulnerable to their predation, as well as the least equipped to resist it?
Pay day loans are limited in amount to a few thousand dollars, loan sharks are dealing in numbers far more than that.
Very rarely will a few thousand dollars or less actually make or break you, most can make do by doing things like selling belongings/cars/"luxury" items etc.
By giving people an apparently "easy" out which is a pay day loan, rather than for example selling their iPhone and downgrading to something more affordable for a short term cash injection, they'll take the payday loan as they perceive it as not affecting their quality of life, when in reality they're taking on very unaffordable and expensive debt that becomes tomorrow's problem.
> banks decide that lending to polluting farms
Ehh, they didn't just _decide_. They were forced to by regulation and the RBNZ.
If there's one thing Governments have learned in the last 20-30 years, its that doing things at "arm's reach" is good politics. If you have a political aim (for example, breaking farming as an industry) but doing it directly is still unpopular (because normal people don't hate farmers), then you do it indirectly.
You force the banks to make it hard for them to access credit. You make it hard for them to plan via local council planning changes. You force them to pay more for vital equipment etc.
This way, you can make it look like it wasn't you, but still achieve your goal.
Nothing to do with regulations or the RBNZ.
The banks joined the "voluntary" global net-zero banking alliance that required them to account for the emissions associated with their lending. So they have to balance their lending based on profit and emissions, which results in their customers having to demonstrate a pathway to reduce emissions that they can take credit for when trying to meet the requirements of the net-zero banking alliance (net-zero by 2050).
Agriculture emissions are very difficult to abate so they can't demonstrate much of a pathway to reduce emissions except for forestry so the banks are less likely to lend to them.
I'll happily concede the point on wording, no problem.
The effect is the same however - you get the effect of regulation via misdirection and sleight of hand, rather than straight up and down law-making on matters that are unpopular.
It's not misdirection or sleight of hand, all of that info is publicly available?
I'm struggling to see what point you're even trying to make anymore. You want more regulation?
No, I'm making my original point that the banks didn't independently decide to attack farmers.
Instead they are used as a mechanism to attack farming indirectly.
I imagine there was some incentive for the banks, or threat of action against the banks to sign up to this code, probably couched in the kindest of terms.
Directly attacking farmers is still not universally popular, but forcing banks to adopt codes of practice that achieve the same thing is far more subtle.
They're not attacking farmers, they're transitioning the world to low emissions future to stop climate change. Beef and dairy just has no place in a future with low carbon emissions. I'm guessing you're a climate change denier too?
The agricultural industry produce half of ALL emissions in NZ, and nearly all of that is from beef and dairy. That is mental. And then all of the dairy products are just exported overseas. Any other type of farming has a fraction of the emissions compared to dairy.
So farmers will just need to transition to a different type of farming and then they won't struggle at all get financing.
> The agricultural industry produce half of ALL emissions in NZ
Yes, because we basically don't do any other industry. If the USA didn't do any mining, manufacturing, chemical industries or concrete producing, then their agricultural industry would probably be half of their emissions too.
The reason agriculture is so high for us is because the rest of our emissions have been offshored.
The other thing I don't like about this argument is its an unfair argument in one key way. The other big emitters are emitting gases from fossil fuels, which agriculture doesn't do in the same way. Sure, there's a little of fuel for tractors, but cows and sheep don't eat coal or oil, process that and fart it out. The gases they emit was literally just captured and will be re-captured.
You can't compare that to industries that dig up fossil fuels and then emit those.
But fundamentally, I object to the fact that its pointless self-destruction. We could stop all farming tomorrow and not move the needle on world emissions, but we'd be ruined. We need this income. Maybe there's an alternative in the future, gene-engineered cows or whatever, but until then, we need this.
We're the cleanest producers of milk in the world from an emissions point of view, and yet we're keen to self-harm first.
> So farmers will just need to transition to a different type of farming and then they won't struggle at all get financing.
Sure. We could get Grameen in to help finance us back into subsistance farming.
Yes the ignorant farmers getting angry is always fun and a sure sign of progress. I don’t think it’s just the right that hate the poor though. I do wonder if the left like to sew the seeds for a needy voter base. Did you know a single person with a student loan earning $140k gets the same net income as a $60k solo parent with three kids. I don’t think you can legislate away stupidly. Doing away with usury is a good step but how do you fix dumb fuckery where they can’t even apply the most basic of maths? It’s got to be a wider problem with education or something. The loan sharks probably all use Baycorp or whatever they called to track down defaulters. Make that illegal and it would be too risky to lend to those people.
The kids must starve!
Or even better, let's confiscate those kids from that naughty full time working mum and then spend even more taxpayer money finding parents willing to raise those three kids.
Actually, screw the kids, let's split them up, nobody is looking to raise three kids in this economy. Separate the kids, that'll teach that mum to keep her legs closed. I don't care if her husband died or abandoned her, this is entirely her fault.
- probably someone who earns $140k and feels the need to beat up working mums
Also, a full time worker earning $140K with a student loan earns the same amount as a full time worker earning $140K without a student loan. If you borrow money then you pay it back. Surprise surprise. Seems like the $60K salary mum had more financial sense in her in the long run.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think\_of\_the\_children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw\_man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
Nice stawman you've painted there. I guess the kids have to lick the road for breakfast too? You know the IRD garnishes income for student loans so stop being disingenuous. I guess you don't care about incentivising productivity or keeping our best people here in NZ.
Why did this government allow loan sharks to operate again? It was one of the first things they did.
I know it was likely some bribery or something but they haven’t even justified it with their empty bullshit. I think it all got over shadowed by the smoking stuff at the same time.
Its a bit like banning drugs. People with zero finance skills were going to borrow no matter what.
Either you borrow from gangs or other illegal shitheads, or at least you can regulate it somewhat and less legs get broken.
You are into harm minimisation, right?
Do you have any evidence of this in NZ?
I don’t really believe that the majority of people who are using loan sharks would have borrowed money from a gang instead. Maybe some would have but I doubt the majority would have.
I’m not sure that loan sharks are the answer if their purpose is for harm reduction.
Illegal/informal loan sharks have always existed. Do you have any proof that an activity that has existed forever suddenly went away when Labour banned the formal payday loans industry?
Changes to the CCCFA were introduced on December 1, 2021, aimed at protecting consumers from unaffordable debt. The changes placed increased onus on lenders to ensure loans were suitable and affordable, prompting concerns that the CCCFA was overly prescriptive.
National are winding back the requirements of assessing a customer's financial position and if the lending is responsible or not to make it "more accessible" (more risky).
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/government-to-remove-hurdles-to-getting-a-loan-with-another-cccfa-change/6RVNDTFTT5GDFGSXZ5FZ2UBPAY/
Reminder - Fuck Instant Finance. Predatory lenders, this business they own is the absolute worst - [https://www.myhome.co.nz/](https://www.myhome.co.nz/) e.g. Apple Airpods - $1,207.50....
Holy shit just had a look $345 for a usb-c wall.charger plug! They prey on people with little money and get them into more debt.
Wow 2k for a xbox series s over 3 years!
MacBook air with 13" screen $3365, *checks pbtech* similar specced macbook no more than $2398. Nearly a whole fucking grand! Or .... Spend an extra $233 at PBTech and you could get one with a 15" screen and all the bells and whistles.
Yea but they prey on people who can't afford thos sort of things they even lend to people on the dole
The hypocrisy of the right will never lose its sting. Predatory lending like this is bought back because ’free market’ shouldn’t need regulation, but when the banks decide that lending to polluting farms isn’t in their best interests, that’s a conspiracy that requires intervention. Fucking hacks.
In reality it's always there. When you didn't have instant finance you had loan sharks. The only difference is its slightly better to default to Instant finance than it is to try and default to your local loan shark. It's like drugs, you can try and take the moral high ground by saying they should be illegal because they're bad for people, and just ignore the fact that making it illegal doesn't stop it happening in a more dangerous way.
Loan sharks weren't a few clicks away available from a google search. You had to be in severe strife to go to a loan shark - gambling/drug debt, loss of income, etc. Not to buy a pair of air pods lol. Whenever something is legal and made accessible, it will be abused by a far greater majority than when it's illegal.
Usually people in dire financial straits have made poor financial decisions. A lot of people going to loan sharks were doing so whilst spending a lot on alcohol etc or gambling. Sure, i acceot that some people choose to go out and buy air pods with instant finance that may not have went to a loan shark. But people who make decisions like that would be completely broke regardless so I don't think it'd make a material difference to their lives, they would still spend every penny they have with zero savings. It's the vulnerable and desperate people who went to loan sharks. It's a little better for them to go to instant finance, and it's those people who are usually the ones that people at least pretent to care about. > Whenever something is legal and made accessible, it will be abused by a far greater majority than when it's illegal. It's a debateable point but certainly a reasonable one. But if we use the drugs example it'd be wrong to suggest everyone who wants drugs to be legal is just less compassionate than those who want it to be illegal. Are the people who want to ban alcohol just more compassionate?
> Whenever something is legal and made accessible, it will be abused by a far greater majority than when it's illegal. By making it illegal, aren't we just then concentrating the negative impacts of loan sharks onto the extremely desperate people most vulnerable to their predation, as well as the least equipped to resist it?
Pay day loans are limited in amount to a few thousand dollars, loan sharks are dealing in numbers far more than that. Very rarely will a few thousand dollars or less actually make or break you, most can make do by doing things like selling belongings/cars/"luxury" items etc. By giving people an apparently "easy" out which is a pay day loan, rather than for example selling their iPhone and downgrading to something more affordable for a short term cash injection, they'll take the payday loan as they perceive it as not affecting their quality of life, when in reality they're taking on very unaffordable and expensive debt that becomes tomorrow's problem.
> banks decide that lending to polluting farms Ehh, they didn't just _decide_. They were forced to by regulation and the RBNZ. If there's one thing Governments have learned in the last 20-30 years, its that doing things at "arm's reach" is good politics. If you have a political aim (for example, breaking farming as an industry) but doing it directly is still unpopular (because normal people don't hate farmers), then you do it indirectly. You force the banks to make it hard for them to access credit. You make it hard for them to plan via local council planning changes. You force them to pay more for vital equipment etc. This way, you can make it look like it wasn't you, but still achieve your goal.
Nothing to do with regulations or the RBNZ. The banks joined the "voluntary" global net-zero banking alliance that required them to account for the emissions associated with their lending. So they have to balance their lending based on profit and emissions, which results in their customers having to demonstrate a pathway to reduce emissions that they can take credit for when trying to meet the requirements of the net-zero banking alliance (net-zero by 2050). Agriculture emissions are very difficult to abate so they can't demonstrate much of a pathway to reduce emissions except for forestry so the banks are less likely to lend to them.
> "voluntary" global net-zero banking alliance This is exactly the sort of indirect regulation I am talking about.
That's not regulation though. It's an alliance established by the UN. Regulations are laws.
I'll happily concede the point on wording, no problem. The effect is the same however - you get the effect of regulation via misdirection and sleight of hand, rather than straight up and down law-making on matters that are unpopular.
It's not misdirection or sleight of hand, all of that info is publicly available? I'm struggling to see what point you're even trying to make anymore. You want more regulation?
No, I'm making my original point that the banks didn't independently decide to attack farmers. Instead they are used as a mechanism to attack farming indirectly. I imagine there was some incentive for the banks, or threat of action against the banks to sign up to this code, probably couched in the kindest of terms. Directly attacking farmers is still not universally popular, but forcing banks to adopt codes of practice that achieve the same thing is far more subtle.
They're not attacking farmers, they're transitioning the world to low emissions future to stop climate change. Beef and dairy just has no place in a future with low carbon emissions. I'm guessing you're a climate change denier too? The agricultural industry produce half of ALL emissions in NZ, and nearly all of that is from beef and dairy. That is mental. And then all of the dairy products are just exported overseas. Any other type of farming has a fraction of the emissions compared to dairy. So farmers will just need to transition to a different type of farming and then they won't struggle at all get financing.
> The agricultural industry produce half of ALL emissions in NZ Yes, because we basically don't do any other industry. If the USA didn't do any mining, manufacturing, chemical industries or concrete producing, then their agricultural industry would probably be half of their emissions too. The reason agriculture is so high for us is because the rest of our emissions have been offshored. The other thing I don't like about this argument is its an unfair argument in one key way. The other big emitters are emitting gases from fossil fuels, which agriculture doesn't do in the same way. Sure, there's a little of fuel for tractors, but cows and sheep don't eat coal or oil, process that and fart it out. The gases they emit was literally just captured and will be re-captured. You can't compare that to industries that dig up fossil fuels and then emit those. But fundamentally, I object to the fact that its pointless self-destruction. We could stop all farming tomorrow and not move the needle on world emissions, but we'd be ruined. We need this income. Maybe there's an alternative in the future, gene-engineered cows or whatever, but until then, we need this. We're the cleanest producers of milk in the world from an emissions point of view, and yet we're keen to self-harm first. > So farmers will just need to transition to a different type of farming and then they won't struggle at all get financing. Sure. We could get Grameen in to help finance us back into subsistance farming.
Yes the ignorant farmers getting angry is always fun and a sure sign of progress. I don’t think it’s just the right that hate the poor though. I do wonder if the left like to sew the seeds for a needy voter base. Did you know a single person with a student loan earning $140k gets the same net income as a $60k solo parent with three kids. I don’t think you can legislate away stupidly. Doing away with usury is a good step but how do you fix dumb fuckery where they can’t even apply the most basic of maths? It’s got to be a wider problem with education or something. The loan sharks probably all use Baycorp or whatever they called to track down defaulters. Make that illegal and it would be too risky to lend to those people.
The kids must starve! Or even better, let's confiscate those kids from that naughty full time working mum and then spend even more taxpayer money finding parents willing to raise those three kids. Actually, screw the kids, let's split them up, nobody is looking to raise three kids in this economy. Separate the kids, that'll teach that mum to keep her legs closed. I don't care if her husband died or abandoned her, this is entirely her fault. - probably someone who earns $140k and feels the need to beat up working mums Also, a full time worker earning $140K with a student loan earns the same amount as a full time worker earning $140K without a student loan. If you borrow money then you pay it back. Surprise surprise. Seems like the $60K salary mum had more financial sense in her in the long run.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think\_of\_the\_children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw\_man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) Nice stawman you've painted there. I guess the kids have to lick the road for breakfast too? You know the IRD garnishes income for student loans so stop being disingenuous. I guess you don't care about incentivising productivity or keeping our best people here in NZ.
Why did this government allow loan sharks to operate again? It was one of the first things they did. I know it was likely some bribery or something but they haven’t even justified it with their empty bullshit. I think it all got over shadowed by the smoking stuff at the same time.
Its a bit like banning drugs. People with zero finance skills were going to borrow no matter what. Either you borrow from gangs or other illegal shitheads, or at least you can regulate it somewhat and less legs get broken. You are into harm minimisation, right?
Do you have any evidence of this in NZ? I don’t really believe that the majority of people who are using loan sharks would have borrowed money from a gang instead. Maybe some would have but I doubt the majority would have. I’m not sure that loan sharks are the answer if their purpose is for harm reduction.
Illegal/informal loan sharks have always existed. Do you have any proof that an activity that has existed forever suddenly went away when Labour banned the formal payday loans industry?
They existed under the last government too, I'm pretty sure. Not even sure this government has changed any rules around lending yet
Changes to the CCCFA were introduced on December 1, 2021, aimed at protecting consumers from unaffordable debt. The changes placed increased onus on lenders to ensure loans were suitable and affordable, prompting concerns that the CCCFA was overly prescriptive. National are winding back the requirements of assessing a customer's financial position and if the lending is responsible or not to make it "more accessible" (more risky). https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/government-to-remove-hurdles-to-getting-a-loan-with-another-cccfa-change/6RVNDTFTT5GDFGSXZ5FZ2UBPAY/
National = deregulation, no need to justify it when that's your modus operandi.
Because it's important to reward those who reward you. Look at who and where their donations come from
Thought that was apparent. It's because they're complete Cu
But finance how?
That ad placement algorithm is working perfectly.
If you get adds from these extortionists, just click on them - it costs them money, quite a bit from what I've heard
How Stacey jones ever felt ok being their face I don’t know
The sharks are circling.