> It could also be that undercutting that 36% rate does not make you competitive (instead of profitable) against less scrupulous actors (they can advertise more and lobby more; convincing society that they are necessary).
This is still consistent with profitability. If you're not competitive, you can't earn customers. Businesses are thought to set prices at the level where the margin cost of acquiring a new customer is 0.
However, if you could find a more efficient way to deliver value, reduce costs, etc. you could do so and flourish at a price lower than your competition.
> Also, it is a kind of business that has a very very high barriers to entry (enormous amounts of capital, regulatory, etc.).
Part of the barriers to entry are exactly the regulatory hurdles in place, which are totally unnecessary in my opinion.
Two parties could draft a contract and sign it voluntarily, without government oversight, and petition the courts if any grievances occurr. Keeps government out and lowers costs, likely lowering the necessary apr charged.
> Competition alone can not solve profitable abuse (particularly on those with no options).
This completely violates the idea of a market economy. There are laws against collusion to fix prices. Such laws exist precisely because competition is the mechanism to prevent abuse.
> The only limit is that fine-tuned equilibrium of casinos: only constrained to the point that allows the larger proportions of your customers just get by earning & spending.
While true, this is still not a problem. People are voluntarily transacting at the casino. It's not for a 3rd party to determine if they can or cannot give it a shot to get under the bus.