Let the banks fail...

chucknorris

ILW wrote: »

Even if it will take thousands of other businesses and millions of jobs with it?

Oh you mean we have to think things through before making such rash decisions? How novel (for some).

Loughton_Monkey

We should not let banks fail.

Governments should bail out the banks.

However, more importantly, governments and countries should be allowed to fail and get taken over by a more solvent country.

I have started learning Mandarin.

ChiefGrasscutter

ILW wrote: »

Even if it will take thousands of other businesses and millions of jobs with it?

Along with suppliers to supermarkets, fuel stations etc, so that would mean supplies of food/fuel would start to run out with days if not hours.......at which point I'd venture most people might realize letting banks go bust and cease trading might not have been a good idea after all.

moneyinmypocket

Banks should all be nationalised and Profits made should be pumped back into the economy

2010

The banks should be split immediately with the savings arm ring fenced protected.
The investment arm should then either sink or swim.

I doubt if any government at present would let any bank fail because of the worldwide damage it would do to confidence in our markets.

Generali

2010 wrote: »

The banks should be split immediately with the savings arm ring fenced protected.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

wymondham

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

Banks should all be nationalised and Profits made should be pumped back into the economy

The 'modern' way of doing things is when banks are doing well they are private beacons of success and investors get nice rewards etc, but when in trouble they seem to be majically state owned as they can't fail and the tax payer pumps money in regardless of the health of the private company or it's viability. It's the modern way!

wymondham

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

We should not let banks fail.

Governments should bail out the banks.

Why?

If you ran a business that you know can't fail (ie a bank), do you think you'd run it as well or be inclined to make sensible, cautious decisions?

ILW

wymondham wrote: »

The 'modern' way of doing things is when banks are doing well they are private beacons of success and investors get nice rewards etc, but when in trouble they seem to be majically state owned as they can't fail and the tax payer pumps money in regardless of the health of the private company or it's viability. It's the modern way!

The investors (shareholders) have been virtually wiped out.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Didn't this happen in Iceland? I guess you could compare their response to ours and see how they turned out, but bare in mind that Iceland has a much smaller population and even in its boom years it had a much smaller and much less diverse economy.

I can't imagine the devestation that would have been wrought to UK industry if the banks were allowed to fail. Remember that most companies, even the huge ones survive via a line of credit from their banks. They do this because the tax system is set up to penalise those who retain capital.