|
16 August 2018
I used to publish an article to call for crackdown on usury. The Chinese government did act positively and cancelled the usury. However, I participated in a client meeting of a financial management company today. The boss told us that the state prohibited violent collection when cancelling the usury and said that it was underworld behavior. This generates a problem that is to protect deadbeats.
In this society, a large number of clients of debt companies maliciously don’t repay. The company I invest in now also has the problem. The arrival rate of the accounts receivable greatly declines. It poses a serious threat to the financial security of the clients.
Surely it is contradictive. Usury must inevitably require violent collection.
Without violent collection, there would be no usury. But dealing with deadbeats also requires violent collection, and without violent collection, it will inevitably support deadbeats.
Does the usury need to be hit? Of course, it needs to be hit. Does a deadbeat need to be hit? Of course, it also needs to be hit. So is there a need for violent collection? I think that violent collection is required for deadbeats, but there must be no violent collection for usury. And it is necessary to ban the usury. I think that it is most reasonable to go to the county magistrate to sue in ancient times, and deadbeats not caused by usury must be beaten with a board. They must repay.
In the event of arrears caused by usury, the debt should be declared invalid.
There is no need to pay back. Loaners of usury should be beaten with a board.
And the debtor-creditor relationship caused by usury should be announced to be invalid. Loaners of usury should be beheaded when a person dies because of it.
But in modern society, why do police only enforce the law like a robot? The superior said that allowing usury is turning a blind eye to violent collection.
The superior said that cracking down usury and cracking down violent collection are protecting deadbeats and supporting deadbeats. This is because the police cannot properly handle things and do not know what to do? Or are the police in the policy taking advantage of the policy, deliberately picking a fight?