Loan sharks on TV ?

[Moodyman]

would you condone an off-licence that marketed primarily at alcoholics?

Might be morally reprehensible, but it's not unusual in a society that promotes business growth (aka profit).

 

[Corvette chic]

Most of the people who apply for these sort of loans need it now for whatever reason and as long as they pay it back within the time limit are usually ok (waiting for a cheque to clear that sort of crap) It's when they miss a payment the sh*t hit's the fan and they have very dodgy bailiffs that are barely legal representing them.

This is one of the reasons I've volunteered to set up a credit union in our local church hall cuts the sharks out...

 

[atbman]

The problem with quoting the APR in these adverts is that a recent survey showed that 75% of people don't understand percentages.

Which means that three quarters of you haven't understood a word I've just written.

 

[martint235]

I guess we will have to differ on that point then, because I do. It targets people who have financial problems, and has the general effect of making their problems worse a month later - would you condone an off-licence that marketed primarily at alcoholics?

I think condone is the wrong word. I'm neutral about it. What would you say if your other half worked for an establishment like that and was the main bread winner? Once you try to interfere with natural supply and demand, I think it just creates more problems. You only need to look at the drugs market, a lot of these substances are on the whole, less damaging than alcohol but the problems created by trying to cut supply rather than trying by whatever means to cut demand have led to a huge black market where only a few individuals benefit.

 

[taxing]

I once watched a programme about dodgy loan sharks, they were mainly speaking to the poor sods who had been beaten up by them. One guy had had his legs broken after he borrowed £500, with all of the interest and fees and whatever else the local hardcase felt like adding on he owed £3000 and couldn't pay.

What did he want the £500 for? A holiday.

I've got a lot of sympathy for people who find themselves in dire straits and can't get a loan from anywhere else, so they feel that they have no option but to borrow from these companies with ridiculous fees, or even from the really illegal loan sharks. But if you're borrowing £500 to go on holiday, or to clothe your kids entirely in Nike because they 'won't' wear anything else... no, no sympathy here.

 

[Dan B]

I think condone is the wrong word. I'm neutral about it. What would you say if your other half worked for an establishment like that and was the main bread winner? Once you try to interfere with natural supply and demand, I think it just creates more problems.

Most of the advertising industry is interference with "natural supply and demand" - it has the express aim of stimulating demand where there was none. Unless you're going to start by stamping that out (there are those who would claim that this does indeed create more problems, but despite their numbers including both J K Galbraith and NickM they're something of a minority) then I think that a bit of tampering with the market in order to protect people on their uppers is not unreasonable.

But the "it must be OK because it creates employment" line is demonstrably false. Can serial killers claim a moral justification for their acts because they sustain a demand for undertakers? No, so where do you draw the line?