We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Government Lending to house buyers: is it a good idea?
Comments
-
Teacher2301 wrote: »it's the banks fault, so should we have left them to fail - this is capitalism afterall isn't?
While it can certainly be argued that the banks were at fault, with elements of peer (and shareholder) pressure and soft regulation not helping matters, my opinion is that having a large number of banks fail would be far, far worse for the economy.
Even if deposits were safe, lending would have dropped to near nothing (much further than it has) - all those companies that use their lending facilities to pay invoices, wages, etc (and I suspect it's a significant proportion of the total) would have ended up insolvent too. Unemployment would have rocketed, tax receipts would have plummeted, anyone for civil disorder, looting?
There's also an element of needing to act in a similar way to other countries to avoid being at a disadvantage when things pick up.
While the government hasn't handled things the way I think I would (and I accept that I have the benefit of not having to live with my decisions, while they don't), I think much of what they have done has been necessary, because the consequences of inaction were really severe.
Certainly, the treasury's finances could and should have been better than they were after... however many consecutive quarters of growth it was Mr Brown liked to mention. But apparently, we didn't need to save for a rainy day. (Government's never do - there's no political gain to it).0 -
In otherwords anotherpaul - the trouble we are currently in, still lies at the feet of Gordon Brown (I, like you, tend to agree with this) but would another government had done any better, in 2005, the last general election we all felt financially savvy and were we not riding a financial tidal wave? perhaps we shouldn't let the politicians off scott free and re-elect the labour party back in to sort out this mess...i wager that history will repeast itself and we'll have a populous that will elect a conservative government (this won't be punishment for labour because they will not have to clear up the mess - anyhow!)'Proud To Be Dealing With My Debts' : Member number 632
Nerds rule! :cool:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards