david dissadent
New Member
Perhaps, there are many who hold that view, but I dont. I think something needed to be done, real nationalisation should have been done IMO, but other than that I can really see the reason for preventing the banks from failing.Makes one wonder whether the apparently great idea of bailing out the banks for shares in them was really such a great idea. Would letting them fail and just guaranteeing all deposits would have been cheaper, as well as having the pleasure of allowing the banks that too many risks to go down the pan - sold off and broken up. The assets would have sold and life would have continued.
Instead we indebted ourselves to the hilt just coz our government didn't have the bottle.
In the face off between the banks and the government - the government blinked first and the banks won. The fact that it was a bluff on their behalf just makes it that much galling. The government was too concerned with being popular to notice that they needed to do nothing apart from just guarantee the deposits, keep a tally of the money paid out and wait for the market to stabilise.
The banks shareholders includes peoples pensions (huge amounts of the money people put into pensions goes into companies like banks) so they would have been wiped out for starters. Then there is the issue of the CDS's. These are unregulated and poor underwritten forms of insurance. As each bank failed huge volumes of CDSs would have been triggered, as happened with Lehamans. When Lehmans collapsed created a huge wave of CDS movement that in many cases simply meant emptying money into one 'counterparty' but getting it again from another. The problem is these counterparties are often banks themselves so many companies like insurers and so on would have been paying out billions in what they owed but their counterparties would have gone bust (as happened with AIG causing the US government to step in and dish out hundreds of billions of dollars to cover the CDSs it had written to prevent a worldwide market collapse.) The results could have seen banks and other financial companies scrambling to meet debts and having to sell assets very cheaply, rapidly exhausting their disposable capital and being unable to meet their immidiate needs, even things like cash deposits and withdrawls. Panic running round the worlds markets and people trying to turn electronic bank accounts into cash would have been other huge drains of banks cash. As peoples pensions and savings lost huge amounts of money they would have been forced to hold back on all but essential purchases. Those purchases are other peoples jobs. Unemployed people leads to waves of bankruptcies.
1929 redux.
I will state that many people disagree with this assesment but if people do, can you please clarify why they disagree.