How bizarre is it that people who cannot afford to buy things have to pay three times more than the rest of us? That's what selling goods on credit means.To be fair to Lewis Stores, its furniture chains don't hide the fact that if you do buy a television or sofa on credit, you will end up paying three times the cash price. They don't make it terribly obvious, but they don't hide this important detail.Precisely how Lewis gets from the cash price (often more expensive than other retailers) to the hefty credit price is being scrutinised by the National Credit Regulator in a process that is likely to become increasingly uncomfortable for Lewis and its shareholders.story_article_left1A bit of disability insurance here, a bit of unemployment insurance there and a dollop of extended warranty everywhere; before you know it, you're looking at a whoppingly more expensive sofa. And that's before you have to pay R700 or R1000 to have it delivered.As for the affordability assessments, it's difficult to understand why Lewis would be so assertive about always implementing them when it's so easy for any member of the public to pop into one of its stores and discover it's not so.The past month's collapse in the share price to Friday's R66 will be discomforting for CEO John Enslin, who bought R1.7-million worth of shares early last month when they were trading at R99.But if management is able to fend off the regulator's assault and the share price bounces back, the short sellers who have borrowed a massive 21% of the shares will be trapped in something considerably more uncomfortable - a very tight bear squeeze.Of course, if the regulator retreats, there's then the possibility of a high court challenge. So the share is unlikely to be moving on to a sustained upward trajectory for the foreseeable future.How to sell disability insurance to the disabledJust when you thought you'd heard the worst of unsecured lending practices come stories of how JDG Trading (the furniture retailer formerly known as Joshua Doore Group) has plumbed new depths.This week, the regulator said it was referring JDG to the National Consumer Tribunal for selling retrenchment and occupational disability cover to pensioners and consumers receiving government social grants including old age, disability, foster-care and child-support grants.As if that wasn't enough, most of these consumers were also charged a fee for membership of a club that is essentially nothing more than a marketing channel for one or other of JDG's chains.Imagine selling disability insurance to a disabled pensioner - plus charging them R25 a month so that you can push more marketing guff their way.Amazingly, the regulator does not say any of this is illegal, it's just unreasonable.Mining in SA has never been more exhilaratingstory_article_right2It must be really exciting being a mining executive these days, never quite knowing where the next assault is going to come from. Another downward revision of China's growth prospects? Unions submitting more demands for a living wage? Or the government deciding to withdraw your operating licence?It's difficult to know which was the more surprising: Mineral Resources Minister Ngoako Ramatlhodi's decision to suspend Glencore's mining licence at its Optimum coal mine or his decision, a few days later, to lift that suspension.The Optimum suspension decision was taken rather brusquely on the grounds that Glencore had not followed proper procedures with its planned job cuts. By contrast, over at Lonmin the failure to follow proper procedures, relating to social and labour issues, has been tolerated for years.The uncertainty of government policy must be a bit nerve-wracking for decision-makers in the industry.Beer merger, cost boosterSurprise, surprise, it looks as though promises of post-merger price reductions might be overstated by merging parties. At least in the US.The latest edition of The Economist covers a very useful case study by US economists into what happened to beer prices in the US after Coors and Miller merged in 2008.The merger of the second- and third-largest beer groups in the US was allowed because the number one, Anheuser Busch, was even bigger than the merged entity and because of promises of price benefits from cost savings.The main source of cost savings was from reduced transport costs.The detailed research by the economists shows, no surprise, that the merger was followed by a slight increase in the price of the affected beer brands.The results will more than likely confirm the recent tougher stance by the US competition regulators...