Perhaps someone can explain something to me - why doesn't anti-trust legislation apply to unions? If monopolies are bad for companies, why are they actually encouraged, sometimes even legally protected, for labor unions?
With competition, unions could still protect their members and negotiate higher wages, benefits, more safety, etc. A union that wanted higher wages would have to offer something in exchange - more skilled workers, more reliable workers, more flexibility in terms of job description or overtime/holidays or whatever - but surely that's a good thing, isn't it?
Competition would encourage workers to offer more, but they could negotiate on what and how. Some unions might choose to focus more on seniority and higher pensions/medical benefits, while others might try for higher wages now, more time off for workers raising families, more worker training and education, or whatever. Workers would still be protected but would have more choice, to join a union that matched their own priorities. Unions would be forced to offer something to workers, because they'd be facing competition.
I can see why union leaders might not want to compete. But doesn't this benefit pretty much everyone else?
Here is my theory: Many families were budgeting thousands for home heating oil this winter, and they (until recently) were resigned to spending 50-75 a tank for gas. With the collapse of oil prices they are spending some of that money on Christmas.
Retail Sales up 7% this weekend vs. last year. How is that possible?
There's absolutely no way to have accurate numbers published on Sunday for the entire weekend. It's not enough time for just Friday, much less the whole weekend. The numbers were also released by the National Retail Federation, hardly an unbiased source. Last year the numbers were revised downwards, but that's done on page A28, not the front page. Let's just say I'm skeptical.
Actually there is absolutely a way to have accurate numbers published on Sunday. (define accurate, define what the number is, how it is used, what it refers to etc).
But this is no way to prevent people from taking those numbers and misinterpreting them or using them incorrectly.
I will say that there is no way someone could say all retail sales in the US were up 7%. But if they measured performance at 500 stores last year as of Sunday and night and did the same thing this year as of Sunday night at those same 500 (or similar) stores. Well you'd have a pretty accurate number.
Of course, it depends on what the accuracy was referring to wouldn't it ;)
You could be right - but they say that the fall in oil prices represents a $300 billion economic stimulus that specially targets low and middle income families.
I have a friend with a 400 gallon oil tank who, during the summer, was expecting to pay $2,000 to fill it - he can now do it for less than $1,000.
My limited understanding of NE heating practices is that there's some potential for hedging/locking in heating oil prices. How are people being affected by those contracts?
Perhaps someone can explain something to me - why doesn't anti-trust legislation apply to unions? If monopolies are bad for companies, why are they actually encouraged, sometimes even legally protected, for labor unions?
The Clayton Act of 1914 specifically prohibits antitrust actions against unions. It does this because the first real use of the Sherman Antitrust Act was against unions - the 1893 Pullman strike, for example, was declared an illegal "combination in constraint of trade."
At the time, this seemed like a reasonable decision, because the balance of power was so strongly against the unions. The arguments at the time about unionization are fascinating - you should consult, if you can find it, the lengthy debate between George Baer of the Reading Company and Clarence Darrow. Baer knew he had the law on his side, and appealed to it; Darrow appealed to emotion. One man's goal was to uphold the law; the other wished to amend it.
Of course, it depends on what the accuracy was referring to wouldn't it ;)
The Sunday numbers were estimated, by taking the number of people who said they were going to go shopping Sunday.
Shoppers spent an average of $372.57 this weekend*, up 7.2 percent over last year’s $347.55. Total spending reached an estimated $41.0 billion.
I'm saying that this number may not be accurate, considering the source. They are trying to estimate the dollar amount of sales, based on their poll. Accuracy is how close the measured/calculated number is to the true number, in this case how accurate is $41.0B? They did not look at receipts from X stores, it was done by interviewing 3370 people. What I'm saying is that considering the source, they may not have published the material had it not been all that favorable. It's like looking at polls released by a campaign. The methodology of the poll may be fine, but since they only release favorable results there is a selection bias in what data is released to the public.
Hey Megan, when you're done unpacking, I'd like to hear what you think about eHarmony settling its discrimination lawsuit by agreeing to add a matchmaking website for gays. To me, this seems to be an outrageous infringement on a private company's liberty. It's these kinds of things that make people who are sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage oppose it.
I have a friend who just bought his first house. He paid 250k. The house last sold in 2004 for 299k and at its peak it was likely north of 350k. By buying now, he has an extra $630 a month in disposable income. He could save $200, $200 to get the Lexus instead of the Camry, and 200 to save for a nice 7 day cruise.
For those who can't make their $3500 a month McMansion payments and get forclosed and end up in a $1,000 a month apartment - that's an extra 2k a month in disposable income.
Wouldn't it be better for most people to buy a house for 250k and have an extra 600 a month, vs. buying at 350k and having it go to 450k? You might say if the house went from 350 to 450 those gains would be taxed as capital gains. But, most people didn't realize the gains in their home by selling, they use a HELOC. And a HELOC may give you 50k, but it means you are stuck paying $300 a month for the next 30 years.
Here's a question: What so bad about debtor's prison? Seriously.
I steal from the store, I'm a thief who deserves jail time. I put it on credit card and refuse to pay my bill, I'm a victim. Can someone explain this discrepancy to me?
Thanks for telling me about the change in 1914. As you said, it seemed to make sense at the time not to apply anti-trust to unions, because the balance of power was so much against them. But why haven't we revisited the issue since then? The unions have acted just as we'd expect monopolies to act - high prices, low quality, sadly inefficient and resistant both to innovation and to the needs of the customer.
"B.S. Sidhu, head of the Railway Protection Force for the Mumbai region, says that while some officers tried to fight back, there was little his force could do. Most police officers at the station -- as they are throughout India -- were unarmed or carried only bamboo sticks known as lathis."
Sara: Here's a question: What so bad about debtor's prison? Seriously.
That depends largely on whether you're the one in it, wouldn't you say?
But seriously (more or less)...
I steal from the store, I'm a thief who deserves jail time. I put it on credit card and refuse to pay my bill, I'm a victim. Can someone explain this discrepancy to me?
The credit card user might have intended to pay the bill, but his circumstances changed and he couldn't. Intent makes a difference, at least when you're trying to decide who's a bad guy and who isn't. If you don't care about that, then maybe there's some kind of economic growth maximizing correct answer, but it sounds to me like moral judgements are your game.
Credit cards are kind of a bad example anyway. The credit card companies WANT you to be in debt, it's how they actually make their money. The person who pays them in full every month isn't doing them nearly as much good as the person who doesn't. So...it's not that they want you to pay them back, really, it's that they don't want you to get into a position where you have nothing left to pay them with. Who's the bad guy there?
The credit card companies compensate for being an unsecured creditor by charging high interest rates.
When you sign up for a credit card, the company agrees to lend you money while being fully aware that, if you are unable or unwilling to pay them back, they have limited legal recourse against you.
ostqp = woops - that's what I meant - that should have read "wouldn't be taxed".
I think the point is the only way most people were able to access the "wealth effect" of rising home ownership was to borrow money. If I bought 100 shares of GOOG at the IPO and I want to buy a plasma TV or go on vacation I can just sell 10 shares. But, if I had $20,000 in real estate gains the only way to access that money - in most instances - is to borrow.
Now, one might say - but if you borrow you still have the house and can benifit from further price apprecaition. While that's true what it really means is, when your house goes from 250k to 350k and you take out a 50k HELOC - when you move you pay off the 50k HELOC but are now in a market where you can't afford a home as nice as the one you left.
for Klug: Yes, there are several ways of hedging heating oil prices. The most common are pre-purchases and budget plans.
In pre-purchases, the customer buys a large quantity of oil for future delivery. (In reality, they're usually buying oil futures with the delivery company as an intermediary, although in some cases they actually buy oil which is stored for them.) Budget plans estimate costs for the year, and charge a prorated amount per month. You usually sign up for either plan in the summer. Most plans offer a price cap, so that if prices rise, you don't pay full market price.
Needless to say, people who pre-bought in July paid about 40%-50% more than the current going rate for heating oil. Some plans offer downside protection, and participants in these plans are not paying the July price, although they are usually paying more than the current market rate. (Some delivery companies are also eating part of the difference in price as a goodwill gesture....price fluctuations come and go, but the memory of being forced to pay $4.60/gal for heating oil when on-road diesel is $3 is a lasting one.)
We use oil heat, and we chose not to pre-buy this year, because I had a gut instinct that prices would drop....fortunately, that wager paid off. For now, anyway.
Why isn't the effect of landlord/tenant act "protections" for tenants part of the discussion of rental housing costs and consequent homelessness? By requiring "habitable" housing, and slicing off the "slums" that used to house many of the homeless, we've made a policy decision that bad housing is worse than no housing at all. Just as increasing the minimum wage decreases available jobs for the low-skilled, increasing what is the minimum acceptable standard for housing, decreases available housing for those on the bottom. If we mandated that every rental unit had to have air conditioning, three bedrooms and a swimming pool, the outrage would be manifest. But by mandating that every rental unit must be water proof, weather protected, with plumbing and electrical to code, adequately heated,, clean and sanitary, with floors, walls and ceilings in good repair, safe from fire hazards with working locks on all doors and latches on all windows[to use Oregon, for example], we've made policy decisions that drive up rents and homelessness. Is no housing better than bad housing?
we've made policy decisions that drive up rents and homelessness.
Having basics of electrical and plumbing are public safety matters. Good plumbing is essential for sanitation. Poor electrical can cause major fires that spreads to other houses. Clean and sanitary is not something that the landlord has to provide, but most landlords require it so that they can kick filthy people out. A place that isn't weatherproof won't be standing all that long, and can breed toxic molds that infect the surrounding areas.
Let's face it the landlord requirements cost very little to provide. Homelessness isn't the result of the cost of rent, but because the people in question have troubles holding down a basic job. Most of the time it's because of drug use and/or mental illness. That's not to say that we shouldn't have programs designed to pull people out of homelessness, but I doubt the extra cost of providing a shelter that meets the current codes adds all that much to it.
I went to fla this past week. On the way home drove the minivan till it was almost empty before buying gas. I filled it up 18.8 gallons. It cost $30.64. I remeber putting $75.00 worth of gas in the same car last winter. We figured we could of had a decent meal out for the difference. Grilled Swordfish, Mahi Mahi, whatever.
Here's a question: What so bad about debtor's prison? Seriously.
I steal from the store, I'm a thief who deserves jail time. I put it on credit card and refuse to pay my bill, I'm a victim. Can someone explain this discrepancy to me?
Really?
No, really?
First of all, I assume you don't mean we should bring back "debtor's prison" so much as you're making a rhetorical argument about the moral equivalent of theft and failing to pay your debts, so you can't possibly mean your question "seriously." Second, nobody really thinks that anybody is a victim just because they failed to pay their debt. But some people with debt are the victims of fraudulent behavior on the part of creditors, as you are well aware if you have read the news even once in your life.
More generally, an equivalence between a thief and a person who fails to pay their debt is false. A thief takes that which doesn't belong to him. A debtor who doesn't pay his/her debt fails to live up to a contractual arrangement that a creditor freely made with that debtor. Are we now to being locking people up for the failure to fulfill their contractual obligations? Perhaps we should bring back indentured servitude, and require people to work off their debts? Since you are apparently a fan of 18th century legal regimes, you might approve.
Second, I tire of the notion that some people have that debtors get off "scot free" when they fail to pay their debts. In case you hadn't noticed, a debtor will remain legally obligated on a debt barring Ch. 7 bankruptcy. They will face repeated and sometimes harassing contact by none-too-friendly debt collectors, their credit score will be diminished or ruined depending on the amount or nature of the debt, and they may be sued on the debt and be forced to repay it whether they wish to or not. This will happen to them whether they chose not to pay the debt because they didn't want to, or didn't pay because they couldn't.
I'm also tired of the notion that to people such as yourself the only party who incurs some sort of moral obligation is the debtor. The creditor entered the transaction too; does he not have a moral obligation not to jack up interest rates unfairly, charge excess fees, treat the debtor poorly and otherwise behave badly? Oh, but they are only doing what the debtor agreed to be subject to when signing the contract you say? So, the debtor's obligation is moral, and the creditors is financial and contractual only?
Try reconciling these various irreconcilable viewpoints and let us know what you think, please.
Most failures to pay a debt are due to unanticipated changes in circumstances (loss of income or unexpected expenses that have to take priority). That would be equivalent to stealing only if shoplifters became such by failing to anticipate that an item would jump off the sales rack and land in their pocket.
Admittedly, many of the unexpected changes in circumstances are unexpected only to idiots, but we don't lock people up for being idiots. We can justly lock them up only for intentionally violating a law.
Perhaps someone can explain something to me - why doesn't anti-trust legislation apply to unions? If monopolies are bad for companies, why are they actually encouraged, sometimes even legally protected, for labor unions?
With competition, unions could still protect their members and negotiate higher wages, benefits, more safety, etc. A union that wanted higher wages would have to offer something in exchange - more skilled workers, more reliable workers, more flexibility in terms of job description or overtime/holidays or whatever - but surely that's a good thing, isn't it?
Competition would encourage workers to offer more, but they could negotiate on what and how. Some unions might choose to focus more on seniority and higher pensions/medical benefits, while others might try for higher wages now, more time off for workers raising families, more worker training and education, or whatever. Workers would still be protected but would have more choice, to join a union that matched their own priorities. Unions would be forced to offer something to workers, because they'd be facing competition.
I can see why union leaders might not want to compete. But doesn't this benefit pretty much everyone else?
Retail Sales up 7% this weekend vs. last year.
How is that possible?
Here is my theory: Many families were budgeting thousands for home heating oil this winter, and they (until recently) were resigned to spending 50-75 a tank for gas. With the collapse of oil prices they are spending some of that money on Christmas.
Retail Sales up 7% this weekend vs. last year. How is that possible?
There's absolutely no way to have accurate numbers published on Sunday for the entire weekend. It's not enough time for just Friday, much less the whole weekend. The numbers were also released by the National Retail Federation, hardly an unbiased source. Last year the numbers were revised downwards, but that's done on page A28, not the front page. Let's just say I'm skeptical.
JordanT,
Actually there is absolutely a way to have accurate numbers published on Sunday. (define accurate, define what the number is, how it is used, what it refers to etc).
But this is no way to prevent people from taking those numbers and misinterpreting them or using them incorrectly.
I will say that there is no way someone could say all retail sales in the US were up 7%. But if they measured performance at 500 stores last year as of Sunday and night and did the same thing this year as of Sunday night at those same 500 (or similar) stores. Well you'd have a pretty accurate number.
Of course, it depends on what the accuracy was referring to wouldn't it ;)
JordanT,
You could be right - but they say that the fall in oil prices represents a $300 billion economic stimulus that specially targets low and middle income families.
I have a friend with a 400 gallon oil tank who, during the summer, was expecting to pay $2,000 to fill it - he can now do it for less than $1,000.
It's having a big impact on many families...
My limited understanding of NE heating practices is that there's some potential for hedging/locking in heating oil prices. How are people being affected by those contracts?
Perhaps someone can explain something to me - why doesn't anti-trust legislation apply to unions? If monopolies are bad for companies, why are they actually encouraged, sometimes even legally protected, for labor unions?
The Clayton Act of 1914 specifically prohibits antitrust actions against unions. It does this because the first real use of the Sherman Antitrust Act was against unions - the 1893 Pullman strike, for example, was declared an illegal "combination in constraint of trade."
At the time, this seemed like a reasonable decision, because the balance of power was so strongly against the unions. The arguments at the time about unionization are fascinating - you should consult, if you can find it, the lengthy debate between George Baer of the Reading Company and Clarence Darrow. Baer knew he had the law on his side, and appealed to it; Darrow appealed to emotion. One man's goal was to uphold the law; the other wished to amend it.
Of course, it depends on what the accuracy was referring to wouldn't it ;)
The Sunday numbers were estimated, by taking the number of people who said they were going to go shopping Sunday.
Shoppers spent an average of $372.57 this weekend*, up 7.2 percent over last year’s $347.55. Total spending reached an estimated $41.0 billion.
I'm saying that this number may not be accurate, considering the source. They are trying to estimate the dollar amount of sales, based on their poll. Accuracy is how close the measured/calculated number is to the true number, in this case how accurate is $41.0B? They did not look at receipts from X stores, it was done by interviewing 3370 people. What I'm saying is that considering the source, they may not have published the material had it not been all that favorable. It's like looking at polls released by a campaign. The methodology of the poll may be fine, but since they only release favorable results there is a selection bias in what data is released to the public.
Hey Megan, when you're done unpacking, I'd like to hear what you think about eHarmony settling its discrimination lawsuit by agreeing to add a matchmaking website for gays. To me, this seems to be an outrageous infringement on a private company's liberty. It's these kinds of things that make people who are sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage oppose it.
Two other questions:
I have a friend who just bought his first house. He paid 250k. The house last sold in 2004 for 299k and at its peak it was likely north of 350k. By buying now, he has an extra $630 a month in disposable income. He could save $200, $200 to get the Lexus instead of the Camry, and 200 to save for a nice 7 day cruise.
For those who can't make their $3500 a month McMansion payments and get forclosed and end up in a $1,000 a month apartment - that's an extra 2k a month in disposable income.
Wouldn't it be better for most people to buy a house for 250k and have an extra 600 a month, vs. buying at 350k and having it go to 450k? You might say if the house went from 350 to 450 those gains would be taxed as capital gains. But, most people didn't realize the gains in their home by selling, they use a HELOC. And a HELOC may give you 50k, but it means you are stuck paying $300 a month for the next 30 years.
Here's a question: What so bad about debtor's prison? Seriously.
I steal from the store, I'm a thief who deserves jail time. I put it on credit card and refuse to pay my bill, I'm a victim. Can someone explain this discrepancy to me?
Nanonymous -
Thanks for telling me about the change in 1914. As you said, it seemed to make sense at the time not to apply anti-trust to unions, because the balance of power was so much against them. But why haven't we revisited the issue since then? The unions have acted just as we'd expect monopolies to act - high prices, low quality, sadly inefficient and resistant both to innovation and to the needs of the customer.
Something else to think about: from the WSJ
"B.S. Sidhu, head of the Railway Protection Force for the Mumbai region, says that while some officers tried to fight back, there was little his force could do. Most police officers at the station -- as they are throughout India -- were unarmed or carried only bamboo sticks known as lathis."
Sara:
Here's a question: What so bad about debtor's prison? Seriously.
That depends largely on whether you're the one in it, wouldn't you say?
But seriously (more or less)...
I steal from the store, I'm a thief who deserves jail time. I put it on credit card and refuse to pay my bill, I'm a victim. Can someone explain this discrepancy to me?
The credit card user might have intended to pay the bill, but his circumstances changed and he couldn't. Intent makes a difference, at least when you're trying to decide who's a bad guy and who isn't. If you don't care about that, then maybe there's some kind of economic growth maximizing correct answer, but it sounds to me like moral judgements are your game.
Credit cards are kind of a bad example anyway. The credit card companies WANT you to be in debt, it's how they actually make their money. The person who pays them in full every month isn't doing them nearly as much good as the person who doesn't. So...it's not that they want you to pay them back, really, it's that they don't want you to get into a position where you have nothing left to pay them with. Who's the bad guy there?
Comfort the comfortable. Afflict the afflicted. How is moving day different from any other day?
Oh yeah, 50% less posts than usual.
Sara,
The credit card companies compensate for being an unsecured creditor by charging high interest rates.
When you sign up for a credit card, the company agrees to lend you money while being fully aware that, if you are unable or unwilling to pay them back, they have limited legal recourse against you.
"You might say if the house went from 350 to 450 those gains would be taxed as capital gains"
If you said that, you would be wrong. The federal taxes owed on those gains = $0.00.
ostqp = woops - that's what I meant - that should have read "wouldn't be taxed".
I think the point is the only way most people were able to access the "wealth effect" of rising home ownership was to borrow money. If I bought 100 shares of GOOG at the IPO and I want to buy a plasma TV or go on vacation I can just sell 10 shares. But, if I had $20,000 in real estate gains the only way to access that money - in most instances - is to borrow.
Now, one might say - but if you borrow you still have the house and can benifit from further price apprecaition. While that's true what it really means is, when your house goes from 250k to 350k and you take out a 50k HELOC - when you move you pay off the 50k HELOC but are now in a market where you can't afford a home as nice as the one you left.
for Klug: Yes, there are several ways of hedging heating oil prices. The most common are pre-purchases and budget plans.
In pre-purchases, the customer buys a large quantity of oil for future delivery. (In reality, they're usually buying oil futures with the delivery company as an intermediary, although in some cases they actually buy oil which is stored for them.) Budget plans estimate costs for the year, and charge a prorated amount per month. You usually sign up for either plan in the summer. Most plans offer a price cap, so that if prices rise, you don't pay full market price.
Needless to say, people who pre-bought in July paid about 40%-50% more than the current going rate for heating oil. Some plans offer downside protection, and participants in these plans are not paying the July price, although they are usually paying more than the current market rate. (Some delivery companies are also eating part of the difference in price as a goodwill gesture....price fluctuations come and go, but the memory of being forced to pay $4.60/gal for heating oil when on-road diesel is $3 is a lasting one.)
We use oil heat, and we chose not to pre-buy this year, because I had a gut instinct that prices would drop....fortunately, that wager paid off. For now, anyway.
@dicty: Congratulations on your wise choice and thanks for the interesting comment.
Why isn't the effect of landlord/tenant act "protections" for tenants part of the discussion of rental housing costs and consequent homelessness? By requiring "habitable" housing, and slicing off the "slums" that used to house many of the homeless, we've made a policy decision that bad housing is worse than no housing at all. Just as increasing the minimum wage decreases available jobs for the low-skilled, increasing what is the minimum acceptable standard for housing, decreases available housing for those on the bottom. If we mandated that every rental unit had to have air conditioning, three bedrooms and a swimming pool, the outrage would be manifest. But by mandating that every rental unit must be water proof, weather protected, with plumbing and electrical to code, adequately heated,, clean and sanitary, with floors, walls and ceilings in good repair, safe from fire hazards with working locks on all doors and latches on all windows[to use Oregon, for example], we've made policy decisions that drive up rents and homelessness. Is no housing better than bad housing?
we've made policy decisions that drive up rents and homelessness.
Having basics of electrical and plumbing are public safety matters. Good plumbing is essential for sanitation. Poor electrical can cause major fires that spreads to other houses. Clean and sanitary is not something that the landlord has to provide, but most landlords require it so that they can kick filthy people out. A place that isn't weatherproof won't be standing all that long, and can breed toxic molds that infect the surrounding areas.
Let's face it the landlord requirements cost very little to provide. Homelessness isn't the result of the cost of rent, but because the people in question have troubles holding down a basic job. Most of the time it's because of drug use and/or mental illness. That's not to say that we shouldn't have programs designed to pull people out of homelessness, but I doubt the extra cost of providing a shelter that meets the current codes adds all that much to it.
I went to fla this past week. On the way home drove the minivan till it was almost empty before buying gas. I filled it up 18.8 gallons. It cost $30.64. I remeber putting $75.00 worth of gas in the same car last winter. We figured we could of had a decent meal out for the difference. Grilled Swordfish, Mahi Mahi, whatever.
Ann Althouse-- even more annoying in comments than on her blog.
Here's a question: What so bad about debtor's prison? Seriously.
I steal from the store, I'm a thief who deserves jail time. I put it on credit card and refuse to pay my bill, I'm a victim. Can someone explain this discrepancy to me?
Really?
No, really?
First of all, I assume you don't mean we should bring back "debtor's prison" so much as you're making a rhetorical argument about the moral equivalent of theft and failing to pay your debts, so you can't possibly mean your question "seriously." Second, nobody really thinks that anybody is a victim just because they failed to pay their debt. But some people with debt are the victims of fraudulent behavior on the part of creditors, as you are well aware if you have read the news even once in your life.
More generally, an equivalence between a thief and a person who fails to pay their debt is false. A thief takes that which doesn't belong to him. A debtor who doesn't pay his/her debt fails to live up to a contractual arrangement that a creditor freely made with that debtor. Are we now to being locking people up for the failure to fulfill their contractual obligations? Perhaps we should bring back indentured servitude, and require people to work off their debts? Since you are apparently a fan of 18th century legal regimes, you might approve.
Second, I tire of the notion that some people have that debtors get off "scot free" when they fail to pay their debts. In case you hadn't noticed, a debtor will remain legally obligated on a debt barring Ch. 7 bankruptcy. They will face repeated and sometimes harassing contact by none-too-friendly debt collectors, their credit score will be diminished or ruined depending on the amount or nature of the debt, and they may be sued on the debt and be forced to repay it whether they wish to or not. This will happen to them whether they chose not to pay the debt because they didn't want to, or didn't pay because they couldn't.
I'm also tired of the notion that to people such as yourself the only party who incurs some sort of moral obligation is the debtor. The creditor entered the transaction too; does he not have a moral obligation not to jack up interest rates unfairly, charge excess fees, treat the debtor poorly and otherwise behave badly? Oh, but they are only doing what the debtor agreed to be subject to when signing the contract you say? So, the debtor's obligation is moral, and the creditors is financial and contractual only?
Try reconciling these various irreconcilable viewpoints and let us know what you think, please.
Most failures to pay a debt are due to unanticipated changes in circumstances (loss of income or unexpected expenses that have to take priority). That would be equivalent to stealing only if shoplifters became such by failing to anticipate that an item would jump off the sales rack and land in their pocket.
Admittedly, many of the unexpected changes in circumstances are unexpected only to idiots, but we don't lock people up for being idiots. We can justly lock them up only for intentionally violating a law.