If you think 27% interest is acceptable when these F’rs are getting money to loan at 0%....you’re insane.
The consumer will never recover with crap like that going on. They got bailed out by taxpayers and now they are raping and gouging their customers who are the same taxpayers they took initially.
You should tone down unsupported characterizations. They only invite a question as to whether the one speaking lacks sanity.
Suppose you have capital of $100 and need not borrow at all (that's equivalent to your 0% point. You have a customer that defaults with probability 1/4 (three to one odds that you'll get your money back). Instead of lending, you can buy a safe bond that yields 5%. At what rate of interest should you make a loan to break even?
Answer: 40%. If the borrower does not default, you get back $40. If he does default, you lose $100. You expect therefore
$40 (3) - 100 (1)
-------------------- = 5, the amount you'd get from the bond.
4
(the numbers in parantheses are odd, 3:1). If the government were to limit loan in this example to 30%, say, risky borrowers would never get any loans at all: you'd be buying bonds instead of lending to them.
The moral of the story is that the high interest is fully explained by the riskiness of the customers.
The profit derived from 30% loans to risky customers is low --- similar to what you'd get elsewhere.
As I said many times before, people like you have no clue of the facts and yet rave against the banks --- just what the NYTimes commies want you to do.
How hard is it to make a simple computation above?
Now, who is insane here?
"The consumer will never recover with crap like that going on."
Perhaps you should first understand that which you call c--p. Ask questions if you don't.