Ehhh I agree in general but if you want to say that universally, then you’re painting with too broad a brush. Like, wasn’t Google started with servers bought by maxing out a credit card at similar interest rates?
> wasn’t Google started with servers bought by maxing out a credit card at similar interest rates?
This is some sort of fallacy, but I don't know the name of it.
Anyway, as a counter point, I'm here from an alternative reality where we instead instituted this law limiting APR a year before google started. Google still managed to buy servers despite the law (I think that story's apocryphal, but even if it's true, they just got them at lower interest rates or got like 2 fewer servers and google was slower for a few months).
However, in this alternate future, there's also another company that did a lot of really good things founded by someone who in this reality ended up the victim of a payday loan, penniless, and is still struggling with the after effects of declaring personal bankruptcy. His even-better-company didn't happen.
Do you sorta see what I'm trying to say here?
Maybe the fallacy is just a bias towards some specific vaguely related anecdotes over data? The sorta "I agree in general drunk driving is bad, but doesn't Steve Ballmer actually drives better while drunk so maybe it's too broad of a brush to outlaw it?"
It would be more like, “Drunk driving is absolutely never acceptable” including taking your critical-condition friend one mile to a hospital on empty roads while you’re .08.
Edit: also it seems like the fallacy would be in the other direction. Up through the Middle Ages, charging any interest at all was “usury”, because no one saw the difference between “non-exploitive business loans” vs preying on the desperate; the former was the bizarre special case, until the exception became the rule.
