Assorted links


It seems to me that it is more misleading for people to focus on the annualized interest rate for a two week loan. The borrowers know exactly what they are paying - $15 for a $100 loan. The annualized interest only becomes relevant if they roll the loan over pay cycle to pay cycle for an entire year.

Great comment from the topless article:

Interesting that nobody has commented on the fact that the picture of [Brigitte Bardot sunbathing in a 'monokini' in 1960] clearly shows that she is smoking. But then I don't suppose too many people were looking at her hands.

I find the reasoning in the payday loans article a little troubling. It seems to go:

1) Let's set up a controlled experiment to see if disclosing financing costs will change people's use of payday loans.

2) Having done that, it looks like 10% refuse the loans (actually, they take fewer loans in subsequent months), while 90% still take them.

3) That can't be right. They must not have understood our numbers. Redesign the experiment to give them a bigger "nudge" and run it again.

Somebody needs to explain to them that this is exactly the opposite of how science works.

... I'm guessing it's mostly men commenting here today. Did anybody get past the topless article to "K-12 Entrepreneurship"? Fascinating and thought-provoking.

The USA is ready for the Freedomkini!

WRT public photography, here we don't call those problems, but challenges and opportunities.

And yes, I read some of the K-12 and saved it for later.

I find it revealing that these articles and studies about payday loans fail to look into the cost structure for the businesses.

The article does present that as a defense. As I recall, charity groups have tried to set up alternative payday loans and have found that they have to charge similar rates.

But I suppose they could be saying that people getting the loans would be better off without loans at all.

On the K-12 article, which was very interesting: I think these guys may have grasped the wrong end of the stick. If they have products that save teachers' time, they should sell those directly to the teachers and have them pay out of their own pockets (or use an advertising support model if that's practical). Lots of teachers already spring for all sorts of incidental materials and something that makes their lives easier is likely to be a winner. Once lots of teachers are using the tool, they can pressure their districts from the bottom up (even engaging their unions where applicable) to get the stuff officially adopted and paid for by the school district. This model bypasses most of the difficulties they describe in their paper. (Direct sales to parents is the other obvious avenue.)

Comments for this post are closed