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?

I don't disagree, but perhaps those APR rates exist as a threat, and as a reflection of the risk these lenders are taking.

If Charlie the Chav has blown his wage on City vs Arsenal and needs £100 to get through the month, he can go to a payday lender and borrow £100 for 7 days with a £25 charge. He knows he probably won't be able to pay it back and 50% APR on such a small amount is peanuts. He doesn't care. However, the threat of that small amount exploding massively in no time is the whip to ensure repayment in most cases - and of course it makes the lender a tidy sum if Charlie doesn't repay in time.

At least if someone finds themselves owing thousands to a payday lender due to horrible mismanagement of their money, or just plain fricking stupidity, there are debt management schemes around. A street lender wouldn't be so sympathetic.

But, using your example, if you don't buy your mate a pint the following week, he won't start adding pints until it reaches the stage where you have to keep him in beer for the rest of his life.

As I said, I don't have a problem with them making a decent amount on a short term loan. If they want to charge £50 for a one week loan of £200, fine. What I have a problem with is what happens if the loan isn't (for whatever reason) paid back on time. I don't think it's right or moral to keep piling interest on top at the same huge rate until a £200 loan becomes a crippling debt for the individual concerned.

I appreciate what you're saying about personal responsibility too, but not everyone has the intelligence or common sense to work out what the consequences might be if they don't manage to make the payment on time. And sometimes people are just desperate - is it morally right that companies should add to that desperation for the sake of a quick buck?

I note he hasn't expanded on that statement.

Damo's idea of 'voluntary work' probably differs to the rest of us. He probably sees getting out of bed as work on a voluntary basis.

I'm sure they do, I just think there should be a limit as to the level of that threat. The punishment has to fit the crime, so to speak.



Whilst 50% APR might be peanuts on a one-off basis, it might focus Charlie's attention for the next time he takes out such a loan. If he has two or three loans all accruing that rate of interest, it might not seem like peanuts. And from the lender's point of view, it won't be peanuts when added up over their entire customer base - particularly if they charge a one-off fee for the initial lending. There's also a case for saying that they're more likely to eventually receive payment if the APR is a little more reasonable. If the debt spirals too quickly, it becomes unmanageable almost immediately, giving them less chance of a positive outcome.



There is that option, but I don't think it's the case that everybody who finds themselves in financial difficulties falls into the category you've described.

Wait a minute. What if you said, you owe me a pint a week until you pay it back? Or something? Why - if you don't pay him back - should your mate be out of pocket for a prolonged period at no cost to you?


I understand the point you're trying to make, but the loan company is not adding to desperation, it is lending £200 for a week on your agreement to repay £250. To imply that in fact they are knowingly "adding to desperation" would be silly. Why would a business lend to someone who it knows or strongly suspects can't repay?

I agree that the APR calculations are irrelevant. In the example, I would presume the loan company has an accurate model of how mnay borrowers are likely to default, even if it can't predict which ones, and the idea would be to make sure that the £50 "takes" you DO get back come to enough to cover the cost of the loans you have to write off, plus whatever profit margin. The £50 is, to me, more of an insurance against the risk of defaults than true "interest". It is, on any view, high risk and totally unsecured lending.

i don't like it, but so popular are these sort of lenders that it must be plain wrong to assume that all the thousands who clearly use them are across the board all desperate people.

Companies like Wonga or Charlie the money lender?

He shouldn't. But equally, I don't believe he would/should add to the debt as significantly as these companies do.



They know that a percentage won't be able to repay within the agreed time scales, and it's what happens then that bothers me - not the £50 charge for the initial loan.



As I said, it's not the £50 that they make initially that bothers me - it's if the customer can't make the payment for whatever reason, the 4000% APR keeps accruing until they do. It then becomes very relevant.



I agree. Which is why I never made such an assumption. Some will inevitably be though, and probably a greater percentage than any other lender's customers.

Kick in the bo[ill[/iocks or poke in the eye?