Hacker News Reader

Comment by escherize | Hacker News Reader

> He's deliberately targeting people at a highly emotional point, to rope them into a exploitative contract.

I assume you mean it's exploitative on the customer? If two parties voluntarily enter an exchange, who are you to say that it's exploitative? I'm genuinely curious.

View on HN

If one party leaves the store not realizing they'd signed a lease agreement, then two parties have not voluntarily entered an exchange.

If one party has to make monthly payments, then what else do they think it is? And how can adults in this world not understand how interest rates work.

A loan. That's that standard way you'd get a loan. And a loan would make more sense too since it's (theoretically) a good you keep forever.

Sorry, my bad. For some reason I thought these were loans and not actually renting.

And what kind of adult doesn't read a contract before they sign? Isn't that just common knowledge now?

One party is at the pet store buying a dog. The puppy is so cute!

The other party has a team of lawyers drafting 20 page contracts and working out how skirt laws on predatory lending (i.e, structure it as a lease).

It's basically "ambush finance".

I can think of a few voluntary exchanges that are exploitative. For instance, if I offer someone a life-saving drug if they give me their house - they can voluntarily enter the agreement, or not.

I think we can safely say that in at least in some cases we can clearly judge that a voluntary exchange is exploitative. Do you feel like this is not one of those cases? Why?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com