Unethical adverts

[eFestivals]

Back to my original post questioning Wonga's place as an advertiser on site, though there is a tenuous connection with Oxfam.

Sometimes we have a responsibility to help people reach informed decisions, sometimes we have a responsibility to help others who may not be in a position to help themselves - a couple of things Oxfam and other charities try to do, for example with victims of tsunamis and other natural disasters.

I feel we also have a responsibility to help others who may not be able to make informed decisions possibly through poor education, a lack of financial literacy etc. Wonga makes money out of people in such situations unlike credit unions who try to help people in financial difficulties.

While I agree with you to some extent, there's also the side of things where loans like these are very useful to people - and like I say, they're also cheaper than banks will lend money over the same time period.

There's an old saying about bank lending:- that they'll only lend to people to don't need to borrow - and that's very true. There needs to be another option for those who need to borrow and can manage the repayments.

In the past many of the sorts who nowadays will go to the likes of wonga used to borrow from loan sharks, who are far worse than regulated lenders such as wonga. If I were to deny people the knowledge that they could borrow from the likes of wonga, then I'd be forcing some of those into the arms of those loan sharks.

While I know that some people are not able to make that sensible decision, especially if they're feeling desperate, that idea could apply to just about anything .... and for the desperate a loan from wonga is a better idea than the alternatives that a desperate person would take if that were their only option.

My view overall is that these ads are fine and the responsibility for deciding to borrow from them is the borrower's and not mine - there has to be a line somewhere where people take responsibility for themselves. The main reason that some people look on these lenders in a poor light is the 'high' APR, but that's really just a consequence of the laws around lending that disallow service charges and require publication of the APR - laws that existed before these lenders did. Most banks charge a higher rate of APR for a similar loan, but no one ever complains about those banks.

[eFestivals]

A loan is a loan... As long as its properly regulated I don't see an issue from a ethical point of view. The loaning of money is pretty much unethical full stop really but our society has deemed it acceptable. Its basically turning one person into a slave for another...

PMSL - you wouldn't say the same thing about capitalism, and yet that's simply a loan that turns one person into the slave of another.

So I disagree with your take on things here.

What ultimately decides how I view this is how society views things. No matter what I think about society myself, it is how it is, and in the eyes of most people it's somewhere about right. I would only fail if i tried fighting against every aspect of society that I disagree with, and so I have to accept how it is and work within that. I can buck against it by so much but I can't buck against it all.

And as far as things go, of how society as a whole see things, these loans are far from being the worst aspect. If loans are only available to the already-rich than it's only the already-rich who get manipulate society to their advantage, and the poor are permanently disadvantaged.

[grumpyhack]

Interesting article here - http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz1rZsNalsb

Even the Financial Times describes Payday Loans as charging exorbitant interest rates and says charges can rapidly spiral if loans are not repaid on time.

I appreciate that Neil feels that he cannot change the world singlehandedly and has to pick his battles but how much out of pocket would he be by turning down adverts from loan sharks?

If appealing to his principles doesn't work maybe we should consider a whip round to compensate him for any loss of income.

Edited April 10, 2012 by grumpyhack

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Interesting article here - http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz1rZsNalsb

Even the Financial Times describes Payday Loans as charging exorbitant interest rates and says charges can rapidly spiral if loans are not repaid on time.

I appreciate that Neil feels that he cannot change the world singlehandedly and has to pick his battles but how much out of pocket would he be by turning down adverts from loan sharks?

If appealing to his principles doesn't work maybe we should consider a whip round to compensate him for any loss of income.

[russycarps]

If it came down to a vote, I would vote in favour of not banning these adverts.

They are no better or worse than any of the others in my eyes. Just another form of extracting money out of people. It was ever thus.

[eFestivals]

Interesting article here - http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz1rZsNalsb

Even the Financial Times describes Payday Loans as charging exorbitant interest rates and says charges can rapidly spiral if loans are not repaid on time.

I appreciate that Neil feels that he cannot change the world singlehandedly and has to pick his battles but how much out of pocket would he be by turning down adverts from loan sharks?

If appealing to his principles doesn't work maybe we should consider a whip round to compensate him for any loss of income.

Does the FT also have permanent articles about how the normal banks charge about twice as much as the pay-day loan companies? .... cos they do, but for some stupid reason no one ever applies the same ideas to those.

Anyone who expects someone to arrange a loan for them for a loss is stupid. The only reason that the "APR" is so high is because "arrangement fees" are illegal for loans. But if it was an arrangement fee and then a standard interest rate - which would cost the borrower not a penny more - then no one would bat an eyelid.

LloydsTSB, Barclays, RBS, and other banks charge more for the same loan than Wonga - are you campaigning for them to be shut down too?

Nothing about my attitude here is to do with money I might get via the ads, and is everything to do with consistency for all adverts, and respect for people to make their own choices.

If you are able to come up with reasoning that is consistent across all things then I'll reconsider the wonga ads. Being consistent in my approach is the consideration I'm making here.