8 ms·
You're assuming two things here: (1) The country would have been better off financially not to bail the banks out and let them burn (2) The nationalised banks
by whyleyc 15y ago
You're assuming two things here:
(1) The country would have been better off financially not to bail the banks out and let them burn
(2) The nationalised banks won't end up turning a profit for taxpayers in the long run anyway
Both of which could be considered shaky assumptions. See Robert Peston's analysis on this very topic for more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/03/can_taxpayers_profit_from_nort.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/03...
- ThomPete 15y agoThe day that the banks choose to bail out it's customers I might consider changing my opinioin about the value the provide to society. (not saying that they don't provide any)
- wazzles 15y agoRobert Peston is generally a waste of space. UK GDP is around 1.5 trillion. Therefore we spent the equivalent of ONE WHOLE YEAR OF OUTPUT FOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY on bailing out the banks. You do not solve a debt crisis with more debt. You do not solve a financial crisis by supporting the financial institutions that caused it in the first place. Northern Rock has no assets other than a bunch of shit 125% mortgages and repo'd Barrats buy to let flats worth cents on the dollar. The idea this could turn a profit is absurd.
- whyleyc 15y agoNot a great example to support your argument I'm afraid since Northern Rock was already back in profit over 8 months ago - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10848374 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10848374
- anamax 15y ago> You do not solve a debt crisis with more debt. You must be new here. We solve everything with more debt.