Destructive to the organization making money off of the interest is not destructive "in general". If you make a loan, it comes with risk. End of story.
The thread I was replying to started with the claim that this law couldn't stand because it would utterly destroy the economy.
The response was that "law doesn't work that way"
If it is true that this judge's ruling implies the destruction of the economy (which is a claim whose truth value I am not offering an opinion here), then it is the case that Congress' powers exist specifically for the purpose of making "law work that way" -- that is, changing the law when it is discovered that the law is destructive
The law would be destructive only to the half who foolishly lent money. To the half who foolishly took it, it would be tremendously constructive. 50/50. The law shouldn't favor just one side, by definition.
It is destructive "in general" when the amount is a significant portion of GDP, federal budget, or total national assets. This qualifies.
This is like the sub-prime mortgage meltdown with the credit default swaps. This is like the automotive industry troubles that led to cash-for-clunkers, GM earning the moniker "Government Motors", Chrysler being sold to Fiat, and tax refunds for buying new cars. This is like the time back in the 1980s when we bailed out the savings-and-loan companies.
I disagree. For each loan, you have both sides. So if one side suffers, it doesn't qualify but if the other side suffer is does qualify?
Also, you can't gain from the interest, make all that money, and then expect the law to protect you from this risk side of the "risk/return" ratio because "too many" are in the same boat.
Law doesn't work that way.