• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. Pleads Guilty in Corruption Case | Main | The Morning Wrap »

February 20, 2013



Greedy profit driven lenders are not the most enlightened humanists, which alone is enough to explain why they could be more prone to discriminate. But the law doesn't care why they discriminate illegally, so we don't have to care why either.

I'd be happy to pay a higher but fair interest rate (though I would not be happy to be extorted unreasonably) to retain my 7th Amendment rights. It's buying insurance against an unlikely, undeserved liability.


Two questions:

Why would a greedy profit driven lender want to discriminate in the first place?

Would you be willing to pay a higher interest rate to eliminate an arbitration clause?

I'm just askin.


Sadly I don't know how you resolve this in a year (or years) - the amount of racism in this country, though not what it once was and still miles ahead of Europe, will ensure this treatment continues for some time if I had to guess. Curious to see what the CFPB study finds....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad