>> When I was at Capital One, I wanted to understand if it was possible to keep loans as an option for the people who have exhausted all their better alternatives—without also causing suffering for those who would be better off forgoing purchases or borrowing money from friends and family. After five years, I concluded it was more or less possible to achieve that goal—to do the good loans without doing the bad loans.

>But I can't see why she thinks that.

The answer, which is this clearly the author's position, is self-evident if one moves from assessing the situation from the profit-motive lens: a stop to the practice of predatory lending.

Earlier, the argument was "Isn't this consistent with poor people needing loans": they don't need loans, they need a livable wage (which I know is a whole different story so won't go into that), but since they can't don't have a livable wage, they need financial support to tide them from non-livable paycheck to non-livable paycheck, that does not cost an arm or a leg, as they make sacrificial decisions as to what to make do with/without.

The argument that people are being given more choice is a lie - there is literally no choice here.

The lending is literary predatory as it is i) from a lender of last resort and ii) comes with interest and fees that would be intolerable to anyone with options.

Non-predatory lending is just one part of what the writer describes as ".. do the good loans without doing the bad loans."