Loan

Loaded Loans: UK cracks down on payday lenders, but 'damage already done' | Jabar Post Indonesia

Loaded Loans: UK cracks down on payday lenders, but 'damage already done' | Jabar Post Indonesia/a> – This time JabarPost.Net will discuss about Loan.

The following is Loaded Loans: UK cracks down on payday lenders, but 'damage already done'. And for those of you who want to find a similar explanation, you can search in the Loan category

Read Also

Loaded Loans: UK cracks down on payday lenders, but 'damage already done' | Jabar Post Indonesia

In finance, a loan is the lending of money by one or more individuals, organizations, or other entities to other individuals, organizations etc. The recipient (i.e. the borrower) incurs a debt, and is usually liable to pay interest on that debt until it is repaid, and also to repay the principal amount borrowed.

The document evidencing the debt, e.g. a promissory note, will normally specify, among other things, the principal amount of money borrowed, the interest rate the lender is charging, and date of repayment. A loan entails the reallocation of the subject asset(s) for a period of time, between the lender and the borrower.

The interest provides an incentive for the lender to engage in the loan. In a legal loan, each of these obligations and restrictions is enforced by contract, which can also place the borrower under additional restrictions known as loan covenants. Although this article focuses on monetary loans, in practice any material object might be lent.

Acting as a provider of loans is one of the main activities of financial institutions such as banks and credit card companies. For other institutions, issuing of debt contracts such as bonds is a typical source of funding.



Average household debt in the UK has risen by over forty per cent in the past year and it’s the payday loan firms who are making a killing on people’s meager finances. Some even charge exorbitant interest at over five thousand per cent. The government’s trying to crack down on the creditors, over what it calls ‘widespread irresponsible lending’. But, as Polly Boiko reports, they’re still a last resort for low-income families.

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaToday

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT

RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.

That is the information About Loaded Loans: UK cracks down on payday lenders, but 'damage already done' | Jabar Post Indonesia

Such are some brief explanations about Loaded Loans: UK cracks down on payday lenders, but 'damage already done'.>

Show More

Related Articles

50 Comments

  1. What you have described is being a parasite to society. Taking while not contributing anything of equal value. An amount of welfare is necessary in our times, but it should not encourage people to mooch off the state for long or indefinite periods of time while other people actually work and pay for that. How would that be fair? If it goes exactly like you describe, the incentive to work is greatly reduced. Indeed, why work?

  2. A strong welfare state makes people dependent on the government and perpetually fuels a rise in government spending and size. Guess who has a gigantic influence in the government and always profits from increases in government size? You guessed it, the rich.

  3. I don't get it. I always try to engage in polite debate to settle issues that evidently trouble people, but before I even start I have to endure some sort of cruel jab or ridicule while never having thrown one myself. Is this because all you want is to vent frustration as opposed to having a civil discussion? Or do you just enjoy insulting groups of people?

  4. Free market means not choosing favourites between employers and employees. If you think inaction equates to "us worms" working for "the boss's", then you are mistaken. Freedom is the absence of coercion. Freedom isn't using force to take from one person to give to another because you have some moral theory that makes that okay, freedom, generally, isn't using force to make people act in the way you consider moral. That's actually the opposite of freedom. It's coercion.

  5. A more accurate statement is to say that governments always corrupt capitalism. Without government intervention, in a free market, companies have no way to efficiently hold monopolies, form cartels or initiate force against citizens. Once the government enters the picture however they can lobby it for bailouts, favourable tariffs (that are unfavourable for consumers), legislation that erects barriers to entry and reduces competition – they can legislate their opponents out of existence!

  6. There is little way to engineer a government that will not ally itself with wealthy elites. However, if the government did not have certain powers in the first place, if it was illegal for the government to do the things corporations want it to do, then the problem would not exist. The current crony capitalism and corrupt government is the result of the idea that giving the government more power to regulate the economy will lead to reducing the abuses of companies. It has only multiplied them.

  7. I said if it worked like you said. Which you apparently didn't pay attention to. I never accused people of welfare of being moochers. Welfare does a very poor job of transferring wealth. Only a very small portion of the money put into the welfare state actually gets to needy recipients. That sounds like an argument against it, doesn't it?

  8. Well insulting me will only make me question your motives and emotional wellbeing. But you're in luck – I don't judge arguments based on the person making them. I also heard all of the conservative, socialist, statist, centrist, anti-capitalist, keynesian and everything arguments. If you think you're the only one tired of hearing the same thing again and again, you're wrong.

  9. How is it the situation of the USA considering how big the US government is? Are you making an argument for small efficient governments then as opposed to the large inefficient US government? I am sympathetic to those kind of concerns, otherwise, I don't get why you would use the US as an example. It seems like a perfect example of people trying to "save people from wild capitalism" and in the end just exacerbating the problem.

  10. If all you think of my argument is "bla bla bla" and "i have no time", then why should I invest a lot more time in reading a book in order to find out your arguments which I probably already have heard a million times when you have zero respect for my side of the debate? You keep spouting that reverse psychology bullshit but you apparently have no notion of reciprocity.

  11. "I am giving US as the example because it is the heartland of this poison"
    Imo the "ism" is not the poison, but merely a distraction and justification for people to act out their greed and egoism…

  12. So you don't believe that that is a government or that it isn't big? Either way you have to make some pretty big arguments to show that. I agree that they are tools of corporations, which is why I don't want a government with additional powers. The intentions will be corrupted and the tools of government will be used for evil and not for good. And I also agree that the US is the heartland of a poison, I just call it differently and have different conceptions on what the poison exactly is.

  13. Specifically I don't believe that companies would have anywhere near the power that they have if the government wouldn't protect them and always give them goodies. The Federal Reserve for example is nothing more than a banking cartel given special privileges by the government. That kind of institution could not exist if he government did not have the power to give out such privileges.

  14. And yes, I do consider a government who spends 30-40% of the GDP to be big. If you don't want to call it a government – fine, I don't care what you call it. I am against its expansion and for its reduction.

  15. You would have to give me YOUR definitions of freedom and justice to create such a dichotomy. My definition does not put justice in conflict with freedom. My definition of justice REQUIRES freedom. Taking away freedom without a very good reason is unjust. What preserves freedom is just. "Freedom" here generally has the sense of Negative liberty.

  16. As a result it is just to prevent a person from initiating force or fraud against another person, because it is an action taken for the preservation of freedom in society.

  17. Since humanity isn't made out of saints there will always be SOME coercion. How much coercion? Debatable. But that doesn't mean just because we cannot reach a level of zero coercion that we should give up. Increasingly closer approximations of a free market can be reached. And generally people don't mean a purely free market or anarcho-capitalism when they say "free market", neither do I. It isn't synonymous with freedom. A free market is a necessary condition for freedom, NOT a sufficient one.

  18. The term "Loan Shark" is applied subjectively. 4% can be considered loan sharking if 1-2% is the norm.
    So no, loan sharking is not illegal. All you have to do is open a payday loan business and you can charge literally as much as you want (I've seen as high as 4000%). So yes, it is free market this way. Hurray for Von Hayek.

  19. I don't see how that follows. I can say that we can look at USSR to see what central planning and 'strong'/big governments do and how bad it can get but that example wouldn't show anything, just like your doesn't – because having a "big" government isn't the focal point of your political desires, and neither is having a "small" government the focal point of my desires. If it was small and did all the wrong things would it matter?

  20. Funny you mention 1930 considering that the Great Depression was fuelled by government mismanagement of monetary issues. Nobody would be crying 'no more austerity' if the government did not break their legs and gave them a crutch. As for progress, you provide no argument as to why those laws needed a gigantic rise in government size in order to be enforced.

  21. It's true that the military industrial complex is a major drain, but in the end defence spending is only ~19%. Unless you believe that they have cooked the financial records in order to appear as if they are spending less on this – which is possible. Even with the MIC, that doesn't account for such a huge spending.

    wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg

  22. If the person obtained 99% of the wealth through illegitimate means it is no breach of freedom to take away his wealth in order to help other people. He has relinquished his claim to freedom when he used either fraud or coercion against other people. Punishing him isn't a blow to freedom, it is protection of freedom. Obtaining 99% of the wealth available through legitimate means however, only voluntary transactions and hard work, is impossible in a free market.

  23. Suppose it somehow happens – the rich person obtained his wealth legitimately and that person is starving due to no fault of his own. If it is moral to force the rich person to feed the starving one, this leads to the conclusion that it is moral to force rich people to feed starving people all the time if you have any moral consistency. This leads to a situation where if people refuse to work in order to feed themselves, the rich person is legally forced to perpetually give them money.

  24. How is that moral? You are forcing a person at gunpoint to give his wealth away to a person who did nothing to deserve it and you are also taking away the rich person's possibility to be moral. Good or evil exists only in the context of choice. Forcing him to do what you want means no morality can be applied to his action any more, since it is not his own. Plus it promotes a society where hard work is literally punished and doing nothing is rewarded.

  25. Saying that the free market has been proven not to work with no real argument to back that up is intellectual laziness not to mention a completely worthless statement. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Did you make it along with the Somalia troll comment just to be cute and make me get angry so you look better in a debate? Sorry. You'll have to try harder, my friend.

  26. I'm glad we finally find something to agree on. Quantitative easing is little more than a specific way of printing money – a variation of inflation. It benefits the people who get the newly printed money early at the expense of the people who get it late. It could be construed as a hidden tax that affects those with low purchasing power, aka the poor, most. It can be effective in certain situations, but it is essentially benefits for a few at the cost of the many.

  27. Government intervention in the economy has a tendency to benefit the most politically influential groups, not those that need it most. I don't understand how this isn't apparent.

  28. I don't believe you can hold back special interest groups from controlling the government without either severely impacting prosperity or economic freedom, which is why I believe reducing the powers and size of the government is the primary way to minimize damage. If corporations did not exist, some other type of group would want power for their benefit. It's not just corporations, everyone wants a piece of the pie.

  29. Bastiat said that "Those who want to live at the expense of the state forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone." Today, some influential people have realized that while the state lives at the expense of everyone, the expense is not equally distributed. And they can distribute the expense and the benefits in their favour. This is why government will tend to be a tool for harm more than good in my eyes.

  30. I don't think forcefully expropriating rich individuals is moral unless you can trace their wealth to some illegitimate activity (and yes, this would still mean quite a few). However if workers and managers agree to do things like Mondragon did, then I see nothing wrong with that. If they are a more efficient model they will eventually win out and I have nothing against that. They should be free to do whatever they want in this regard, and the government unable to hamper them.

  31. "Who said anything about "taking anything by force" ?"

    "We tax the rich"

    You just did. As long as everyone is paying for government, the rich have to pay too. But taxation is by definition 'taking by force'. I don't understand there is this double standard on taxation. Taxation is not voluntary.

  32. "make it illegal to put your profits and money out of the country"

    I think you underestimate how ridiculously hard that kind of legislation is to implement. You'd have to severely cut international trade in order to do so. The economic implications would be severe enough to hurt everyone significantly. Not to mention the morality of the issue. It would mean that people do not own the fruits of their labour, that they are not really free to leave the nation.

  33. This isn't really 'freedom of choice'. It's like saying "okay, we enact government legislation to smash x type of organization for the benefit of y type of organization. Then we let the market decide." That's not letting the market decide. That's rigging the game. I know other people rigged the game before, but two wrong don't make a right.

  34. I'm sorry that we can't reach an agreement, but I simply do not compromise on principles of private property and freedom of movement. However, I think it would be sufficient to simply take away the special privileges corporations have to see which type of organization is better. Capitalism defeated feudalism, despite feudalism being very well established. If cooperatives are superior, they will win regardless, as long as corporate privileges are withdrawn.

  35. Firstly, Socrates would disagree.
    Secondly, if it's true, then you should know that acting like a douche on the Internet instantly makes you lose your comment fights.

  36. 12 month loans is the greatest option when you involve urgent cash and your payday with long tern periods without any backer or bad credit check via superb easy online process.yespaydayloansuk.co.uk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Close