Diddy
Inactive User
So david, according to your methodology, they did it (US and Germany etc) so naturally we do what others do? Sorry I don't buy that, when I used to sit on my uncles lap, he used to say, 'if they jumped off a cliff, would you...'
I assume you'll have no complaints when we're hit hard by tax increases, spending cuts and rising unemployment. You're also happy that for every pound you place in the bank you're getting back a mighty half a pence in interest. This seems like a great deal considering we kept them afloat. Just try borrowing some money at that same rate from the money that we gave to them. This is the type of behavior you support, these are the people you wanted to bail out.
A few have asked where is that money? Why won't the banks lend to us? I'd like to know where is that money?
Fecking heck, that's worse that The Day After Tomorrow type scenario. I don't scare that easy.
Nor do I propose propping up private insolvent financial institutions with my money, it's immoral, unethical and should be downright illegal.
I think I'm right in assuming that you're working on the too big to fail principle, I don't believe in any such thing. If you can not run a financial institution based on sound business fundamentals, you are not worthy of my support regardless of your size. You're rewarding failure which I am strongly against. Just imagine a society where failure is rewarded with bundles of cash, this is what you are actively promoting.
No mate you have me completely wrong. I think no one is too big to fail. I HATE the fact that we HAD to bail out the banks. But the way I see it is as quoted in your post. It may seem extreme but just a little thought and bang your there right in the middle. If the truth be told I really dont have the "perfect" answer to the situation that we were in (when the banks needed bailing out) But im 80% certain letting them fall would have led to big trouble for 50% + of this country. I can't really think off hand where a big bank has been allowed to fall so I am therefore unable to prove either way what would happen.
Maybe we need some sort of legislation that separates the types of banks ("I agree with Nick" lol) where on 1 hand you have a "High Street" bank which lends money and holds savings with minimal interests in "other" more risky activities. Then on the other hand you can have your other type of bank which involves itself in the riskier side of things.
Maybe that is too simple and we need 3 or even 4 "grades" of bank and then people who bank with each type can "Pay there money and take their chances" Only type 1 (the careful bank) would ever be eligible for government assistance in fact maybe even be part government owned.
But like I said Im no economist and don't pretend to be. I know about half a dozen guys down my local boozer who are all of a sudden economic "experts" self taught with help from the Sun and Sky news.....but im not up to their standards yet.
So to recap - It makes me physically sick that we HAD to bail the banks out - But I believe that in this instance it was the only way - But im quite happy for anyone to prove otherwise.