“The Center for Responsible Lending and other so-called consumer advocacy groups rely on shoddy research in stirring gender, racial and class sensitivities to make the case against payday loans, as they did during their successful crusades in Georgia and North Carolina to run payday shops out of business. Though they claimed that the elimination of payday loans saved Georgia residents approximately $154 million per year, that claim was refuted by a Federal Reserve report (pdf) indicating that consumers ended up paying more through overdraft bank charges and late fees. Critics of payday loans are content to ignore that the mass of payday borrowers are middle-income, educated consumers.”

Terri goes on to oppose “big brother” restrictions on payday lending. 

Despite high fees, people continue to use payday lenders with some frequency. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me eight or nine times, and clearly something else is up. It might be easy to accuse the firms of taking advantage of people and earning unfairly high profits, but if profits are so high, why hasn’t there been a mad rush by the very competitive banking industry to provide these services in underserved neighborhoods? Given my personal financial institution’s predilection for hidden fees and what would seem to be unfair charges for even simple services, I wouldn’t chalk it up to an ethics issue. 

He goes on to advocate competition as the best answer to payday lending.  That’s something the industry has said for years.  Competition drives prices down and serves consumers best.