However, these loans are not the only predatory practices targeting those who can least afford it. Other examples include check cashing places that extort exorbitant fees for cashing institution-issued checks (and thus involving minimal risk), or pawn shops that lend money on usury interest. Still other type of institutions is slum-lording i.e. renting substandard dwelling for the government-guaranteed market rent (under Section 8) to poor tenants (again, hefty profit at a minimal risk). Baltimore - and I presume most other cities - are infested with these kinds of predatory businesses.
Although this kind of unscrupulous predatory behavior targeting the poor is ethically repugnant - it is at least "rational" i.e. it can be rationally explained by self-interest of individuals engaged in these practices. What I find puzzling is the virtual absence of defense against these forms of predation in this country.
Informal credit associations - in which communities pool resources to provide short term loans to individuals - are widely spread in poor developing countries, especially in Africa. Ditto for housing cooperatives. What is more, this country already has the material and legal infrastructure to establish and operate similar institutions i.e. credit unions and coops.
Yet the only community-based credit union I have ever seen in this country was in Santa Cruz, CA - while other poor communities that I experienced in this country use check cashing or tax refund places, and pawn shops for their banking needs. Housing coops are also scarce.
This makes one wonder why? Why is that people who are mercilessly exploited by two-bit capitalists do not use legally available to them means to protect their interest? Who or what stops them?
Similar questions occurred to me when I read the _Nickel-and-dimed_ by Barbara Ehrenreich. Why do people work for scurvy little spiders who sell their work to rich home owners, instead of establishing their own house cleaning cooperatives?
This is not a radical, high-cost venture. Most people can do by pooling even meager resources. All that is needed is a telephone line, cleaning supplies, and ads - which can be purchased with savings resulting from, say, dropping cable TV subscriptions and switching from brand-name to generic clothing. A know-how help can be obtained, I am sure, on a pro-bono basis by unions and progressive lawyers (cf. NLG) and business professionals (cf. the Dollars & Sense Collective).
This is an important question to answer, especially by the self-styled revolutionaries waiting for people to rise and shatter their fetters. If they cannot or will not do anything to protect their interest in a relatively low cost and legal manner, what makes one think that they will be willing or able to engage in a much riskier and costly fetter shattering adventure?
I have a few ideas about possible answers to this question, but I would like to hear from the list first.
Wojtek