Reporting on one of the most absurd studies conceived, Volokh Conspiracy supports the bright side of Usury.  Yes, usury, the charging of unlawful rates of interest for lending money.  On our side of the fence, we call this loan-sharking, but in the Wall Street Journal, it's simply sound business practice, and the usurers become "poverty alleviation charities."

It sounds so much better when it comes from the WSJ, doesn't it?

So what was this study?  There were two groups in South Africa, one receiving payday loans with a 200% interest rate and the others getting squat.  Long story short, the ones who received the usurious loans were happier, healthier and better off than the ones who got squat were dead from starvation less happy.

And this study, according to the WSJ and Volokh, prove that usurious loans are really a good thing for the poor.  And not so bad for the lender, either.

Rarely does one hear of such a ridiculous theory that fails, in almost every respect, to account for the phenomenon that it's better to be gouged and fed then to not be fed at all.  Of course, the argument is that since no one will loan money to the poor unless they receive 200% interest, and since the poor are better off receiving a loan than receiving nothing, usury provides a better result than the alternative of no money and certain misery.

There are few things more pleasant than an approach that justifies and legitimizes taking advantage of the misery of others for fun and profit.  But then again, what is the Wall Street Journal if not a record of acts of great humanitarianism.  Now, if only the mob had thought of conducting a study.