Market forces at work

I'm pretty sure that's the reason for certain licensing is so things like that don't happen. When an institution extends credit of any kind they are taking a financial risk that they may not be repaid on time or at all, but generally for late payments they are reimbursed with extra fees and interest. Guess the only difference between big business and organized crime is their adherence to the law. Didn't know Hell's Angels had chapters in Australia either though. Best of luck with your gang wars.

I agree. I think we should have some way to extend the debt for longer period. Period of limitation is what is wrong. I mean why should a debt cease to be a debt after a certain period? That is what prompts people to try to recover monies at the earliest. At least in India. In the US they have home loans of 30 odd years. Which is good way to go about it, if you ask me. Instead of foreclosures and other ways. In fact, if the person is not able to pay in the interim, that is just fine interest should keep accumulating and the person should get a chance to clear other private debts in the meanwhile, and resume paying after becoming more capable of paying. The foreclosure matter should only come up if the person has not repaid the debts and is no more. It should then be up to the heirs to decide whether they want to take over the loans or forego the properties. And there should be ceiling on consumer loans. That way people should not be able to contract more than they can repay. Anybody who gives knowing this should not be able to enforce the debt under law. But silly thoughts - as usual.

It is bad that they have allowed criminals to legally collect debts that probably should never have been loaned in the first place. I wonder how long it will last? Until someone gets beaten up so badly they end up in hospital? I have a horror of debt and have avoided borrowing money as much as possible. De-regulation has no place in an area like this where good character is vital. I know that regulations can be constricting sometimes. Employers argue they are removing flexibility, while workers want regulation to protect jobs. There will always be someone who does not like the rules but that does not mean that rules should not exist. Without rules we will degenerate from a society to anarchy which would be disastrous.

If they've been anything like the ones in the UK, even the licensed and regulated ones have been (in the main) a bunch of crooks. I dread to imagine what they'd be like without that to temper them.

Actually, here in America the right advocates for rule of law and the enforcing of contract rights. We believe that the law should protect property rights and that includes when property (money being the equivalent) is loaned and not returned. It is really useless to compare the political parties of any two countries. I have found that even though the words are the same, the ideologies are often very different.