Britain tops bank bail-outs with nearly 20% of GDP (The Guardian)

Wookster

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/07/uk-bank-bailouts

Alistair Darling has already spent almost a fifth of Britain's GDP on bailing out its shattered banking system - more than any other major economy, according to a grave assessment of the world financial crisis published yesterday by the International Monetary Fund.

With G20 finance ministers due to gather in Sussex next Friday for a two-day meeting before the London summit in April, the IMF has totted up the costs of financial bail-outs so far. It calculates that the UK has spent as much as 19.8% of its GDP, topping the table of G20 countries.

The US, where the investment bank Bear Stearns and the insurer AIG have both been rescued with public finds, has spent just 6.8% of its GDP. Only Norway has come close to the UK, spending 13.8%.

(the article continues)

I guess this is a direct result of "light touch" regulation.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Britain tops bank bail-outs with nearly 20% of GDP (The Guardian)
---



Thats 20% of the last set of figures. Wait until the new ones come in, its more likely to be 35-40% of GDP when the GDP decreases!

Really2

Get in. It's about time we were top at something.:D

worldtraveller

Last year I read an "interesting" report by the World Bank, which found that, on average, governments spent nearly 13% of GDP cleaning up their financial systems as a result of bail-out programs that they implemented. It was in a 2002 report and studied 30 years of systemic banking crises across 94 countries.

Managing the Real & Fiscal Effects of Banking Crises (pdf file)

Embarrassingly, I read the full report!

Unfortunately it seems, many Governments didn't! :rolleyes:

I feel, no, fear, that 20% of GDP is just a starting point.

I'm constantly reminded of the comment made back in February 2008 by Albert Edwards, global strategist for Soc. Gen., who, at that time, said that the U.K. was heading towards Banana Republic status with an “obscenely large” deficit and a “grotesquely huge household borrowing imbalance”. That was then!!

Interestingly, at that time the UK was assisting Liberia in poverty reduction by helping it clear the arrears on debt it owes. Our dear Chancellor, Alistair Darling, went on to boast about how great this was for Liberia, which he described as a "HIPC", a Heavily Indebted Poor Country. The 3 million inhabitants of Liberia have a government debt of $4.5 billion dollars, some £2.3 billion pounds or £767 per head.

Shocking! :eek:

baileysbattlebus

worldtraveller wrote: »

Last year I read an "interesting" report by the World Bank, which found that, on average, governments spent nearly 13% of GDP cleaning up their financial systems as a result of bail-out programs that they implemented. It was in a 2002 report and studied 30 years of systemic banking crises across 94 countries.

Managing the Real & Fiscal Effects of Banking Crises (pdf file)

Embarrassingly, I read the full report!

Unfortunately it seems, many Governments didn't! :rolleyes:

I feel, no, fear, that 20% of GDP is just a starting point.

I'm constantly reminded of the comment made back in February 2008 by Albert Edwards, global strategist for Soc. Gen., who, at that time, said that the U.K. was heading towards Banana Republic status with an “obscenely large” deficit and a “grotesquely huge household borrowing imbalance”. That was then!!

Interestingly, at that time the UK was assisting Liberia in poverty reduction by helping it clear the arrears on debt it owes. Our dear Chancellor, Alistair Darling, went on to boast about how great this was for Liberia, which he described as a "HIPC", a Heavily Indebted Poor Country. The 3 million inhabitants of Liberia have a government debt of $4.5 billion dollars, some £2.3 billion pounds or £767 per head.

Shocking! :eek:

GDP (purchasing power parity):

$1.741 billion (2008 est.)

GDP - per capita (PPP):

$500 (2008 est.)

Unemployment 85% (2003)

I know where I'd rather be. And it's not Liberia, but you can go and live there if you want. For all it's problems I'd rather be here.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/li.html

Graham_Devon

I'd love to hear Rochdales take on this.

Generali

Just to be clear, the UK Government (local and national) spends about 40% of GDP. So far the UK Government has spent 6 months worth of Government spending on bailing out the banks in, what is it, 18 months?

Generali

WFT? wrote: »

THIS division of labour, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.
Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to inquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one man gives him he purchases food. The old clothes which another bestows upon him he exchanges for other old clothes which suit him better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he can buy either food, clothes, or lodging, as he has occasion.

Hi WFT? and welcome to the board.


Any chance you could start using paragraphs? These massive slabs of text aren't friendly to the reader.

baileysbattlebus

WFT? wrote: »

THIS division of labour, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.
Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to inquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one man gives him he purchases food. The old clothes which another bestows upon him he exchanges for other old clothes which suit him better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he can buy either food, clothes, or lodging, as he has occasion.

I suppose if it's worked for over 2000 years maybe it will work for a bit longer.

brightonman123

is there a list of what %age bankj shares we own now? as govt has 65% of Looyds, about time they forced them to match rate cuts, and ease mortgage suffering at least..

extra spare income for joe bloggs will hopefully then get back into the high street..

Cannon_Fodder

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd love to hear Rochdales take on this.

It will all be Maggie's fault, no doubt.