The point that you should take from this is that people from across the political spectrum are not only NOT defending you, but are agreeing that, on the basis of what you post here, you're a waste of space.

Indeed. His posts no longer show for me. Makes my reading the sin bin a much happier event

How much of the particularly high youth unemployment figure, is actually down to young folk being reluctant to take jobs that they feel are 'below' them, or their qualifications?

My 19 year old daughter started her first 'proper' job in September, after 2 years at college, working part time in a shop....Now, if during those 2 years you had suggested to her that this was what she would be doing at this point in her life, I'm pretty sure she would have scoffed and said there was no chance of getting her to do a menial shop job.

However, a need for money, a little self respect and a dawning realisation that the 'perfect' job isn't going to drop in her lap, made her apply for many jobs , resulting in the one she presently has.....She is enjoying it, but obviously has ambitions to move on and improve herself at some point.

It does make me wonder though, how many people are refusing work on the basis that it is seen as 'below' them.....Those jobs that many narrow minded folk accuse Eastern Europeans of taking from the British youngsters, are often the ones that are initially refused by many of our unemployed youth?

I’ve had to endure the most insulting of insults from people who should know better. The only thing I’ll be taking from this is my dignity because I’ve remained civil throughout.

I don’t think that I’m a waste of space and it is my opinion that is the most important to me personally. The only way I’ll ever convince people that I’m not a waste of space on here is through action . That action takes time and I’ve got a lifetime to showcase that I’m not a waste of space. But for now I do voluntary work and if that’s not enough to sway peoples opinion of me then so be it.

You are not actually trying to argue that the Labour years in government were actually beneficial from an economic point of view are you?

The facts are that the world economy was on the up, largely due to the growth in China, the UK hung onto it's coat tails.

There was money flowing into the exchequer on account of this.

Despite the above the Labour government managed to sqaunder and overspend, the like of which this country has NEVER seen before.

The result, the country is now broke and faces years of pain to pay back the deficit. (It's like trying to stop an oil tanker, the deficit will take years to slow down, stop and (hopefully) eventually get paid back.

I'm not a fan of any politician, but the last Labour goverment (Blair/Brown) was the worst in living memory, at least from an economic perspective.

This country is a mess because people having been living on credit in so called good times. Our aggregate, private + public debt is enormous relative to our economy - and only just behind Japan's. It's way, way higher than the failed states of the Eurozone.

People need to start living within their means. Beyond that we need to save because that is the only way we will expand our manufacturing base. The financial institutions need stable long-term funds from savings in order to lend to business.

It's the people, not just the politicians, that have created the mess but sadly none of the slime balls will accept their indivuals responsibilities for the mess.

Pretty much agree with what you say there tbh.

I would say though that Labour completely mismanaged their budgets. If they had put money away in the "good times" for the rainy day that is here now, there wouldn't be as great a need to cut public spending and therefore many more people wouldn't have to lose their jobs.

Isn't one of the biggest jokes on young people sending so many of them into further education? Rather than subsidise so many kids to go to uni for 3 years and then discover their qualification is almost worthless, a large number would be far better off learning a trade (I'd bet the cost to the taxpayer would be similar), or simply starting to work at 16 or 18 and not even bother with any form of further education.

BTW on a number of other threads Damo has openly talked about not bothering to apply for some jobs etc because he didn't like them (assuming in advance how he'd would be treated, not liking the hours etc). Instead he openly prefers everybody else to support him via benefits - that's the bit that's annoying everybody, and the thing he just doesn't get at all, whilst cr*pping on about his dignity etc.

In the 1980s, the government of the day scrapped apprenticeships.

The Labour government re-introduced some level of apprenticeships, as did some individual councils.

[url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/0141047976/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327047391&sr=1-1This is very interesting[/url on a whole range of things that relate directly to the financial crisis of the last few years and the neo-liberal policies that have led us here.

Interestingly, the increase in tertiary education is not limited to the UK. Even Switzerland – a country that had done pretty well, even with a low level of university education – has gone down the same route of vastly increasing tertiary participation.

Absolutely have no problem in you getting or not getting job Damo. That is your call.

What I DO have a problem with, is giving you benefits in this situation.

If I was PM you would get nothing. If you were faced with starvation, I am sure the jobs in question would look that much more "appetising".

Labour's problem wasn't too much spending, IMO. If you can't increase spending when the economy is growing, when can you? And whilst I'd agree that some of the money was 'squandered', a great deal of it wasn't. Public services improved greatly under Blair's government, and unemployment was relatively low. I don't like the man (and, as SC pointed out, his foreign policy left a lot to be desired), but, domestically, his government wasn't the disaster some are making it out to be. Also, it's easy to sit there with the benefit of hindsight and say he should have saved during the good times, but I didn't hear anyone saying that whilst the economy was actually growing. In fact, I seem to remember the Tories saying they would match Labour's spending plans before the sh*t hit the fan.

The main problem with the last Labour government, as with successive governments before and since, seems to have been their failure to regulate the banks and to close tax loopholes exploited by big business. What Dally says about individual responsibility is fine to some extent, but individuals having too much personal credit is nowhere near the primary cause of the global financial meltdown. Bringing the banks and the likes of Tesco into line would make a big difference to our financial future.

You continue to lay the blame at the foot of individual borrowers, without ever accepting that in order for anyone to borrow, there has to be someone willing to lend. The ultimate arbiter of responsible borrowing/lending lies with the lender and for many years people with money (banks etc) were only too willing to lend to any idiot that walked through the door.

If anyone wants to sample the continuation of irresponsible lending, try visiting some of the major stores in the run up to Christmas. They are under pressure to sell and will authorise store cards to anyone with a couple of utility bills. It wouldn't be too difficult to rack up £20k of credit in a single day. The one thing that drives irresponsible lending is GREED - all the stores/card providers can see is money being repaid at usurious rates. Rates that are set to cover the high level of defaults.

No wonder borrowers take advantage of them.

As for your assertion that we should be saving rather than spending, that's really the way to get the economy moving again isn't it?

I don't know much about Damo or his circumstances but it's apparent to me that he serves a valuable purpose on this site as a whipping boy to make many posters feel smug and superior.

Irony alert!

Have you seen some of the TV ads for quick loan, with 'representative' interest rates of 1,750 and up?

Perhaps, though he does actively (and quite deliberately, I would say) court the attention he receives. It's a bit of a Sin Bin game: Damo says the most outrageous thing he can think of to highlight his unwillingness to work, then the other participants race to be the first to call him a workshy to[iss[/ier.

Disgusting. The highest one I've seen is about 4000%. It really ought to be illegal to prey on people in this way.

It's a Catch 22 situation, the problem is too much debt yet the economy grinds to a halt if people stop spending money they haven't got!

Or, if we keep people in jobs and pay them enough to live on, they could spend money they [ihave[/i got.

Have you posted this on the correct thread.

From my experience, most savers save money they have got. In fact I can't think of one person who has borrowed money in order to save it

People say this, but look at it closely. The loads are all intended to be very short term (most ads of this type state this clearly) and the target market is generally high risk, low income. These loans are intended to be 'borrow £200, pay back £250 in a week', not 'borrow £200 and pay it back over the next 12 months at 2000% APR'.

Of course the rates will be sky high - they're exposing themselves to a potential high risk each time they lend and they're well within their rights to do so. It's easy to say they're 'preying' on people, but the facts & figures & repayment costs are almost being shouted from the websites and are very clearly stated. Yes, they're making money out of desperate people but the only real argument against it is a moral one. Would a street loan shark be better?

That said, if someone is in such a situation they desperately need £200 right now, the question has to be asked - can they actually afford to repay £250 next week or is this the start of a vicious spiral? As with any loans, a certain number of people will fail to manage their debt and end up in trouble - except the consequences are far more costly far more quickly at these rates.

I understand the principle behind it, but I think the rates are ridiculous - immoral, even. A 50% APR would allow for the high risk nature of the lending, and they could perhaps introduce a one-off fee to make it worth their while from a business perspective. So, for example, if you borrow £200 you have to pay £250 back, and if you don't pay it back in time, it starts accruing interest at 50% APR.

What they're doing is sucking desperate people in, knowing that a percentage won't pay it back in time and will have to pay 4000% APR until they do settle up. And it's ok saying that the terms and conditions are on the websites, but many people won't appreciate just how bad things will get if they don't pay, until it's too late.

The only difference between these companies and a street loan shark is baseball bats.

No they are not, what is ridiculous is converting short term loan rates into APR.

As an example, you are down the pub with your mate, you ask to lend £20 till next week, you repay him and buy him a pint, a fair deal? Try calculating that as an APR and it comes out as stupid amount.

There has to be some personal responsibility here too, people only get themselves into a mess because they take out the loans, not because firms like Wonga force money on them.

The only irony I see on this thread is so called lefties bemoaning the fact that Damo won't voluntarily become a wage slave. If he genuinely does volunteer work what makes that work less valuable to society then stacking shelves in a supermarket?