Monday, 16 February 2009

Why is "doing nothing" so bad then?

Comment by Labourite Northern Lights about David Cameron on Kerry "Expenses row? No Comment" McCarthy's blog:
It's interesting that when Do Nowt Dave was 'speaking out' about this on the BBC News website...


Ignoring how stupid this person sounds using the phrase even Gorgon has given up on, because he realised (too late) he was over-using it. But Labour don't seem to explain why doing nothing is bad.

As I understand it, we the tax payers, through no choice of our own, have now bailed the banks out twice to the tune of hundreds of billions. (On a side note, everyone is talking about billions and it's easy to lose a sense of perspective - a billion minutes ago, the Roman empire was flourishing). Yet what have we got for the billions of pounds that were essentially given to the banks? It seems absolutely fuck-all has changed - so much so that they needed a second bail-out. People are still losing their jobs. Companies are still folding. Banks still aren't lending - but they are considering paying their staff bonuses regardless.

So if we hadn't bailed out the banks, where would we be? People would still be losing their jobs, companies would still be folding - but we'd be a good few billion up. How much worse would the situation be if we hadn't bailed the banks out?

Fuck it, guarantee people's savings, and let the banks go to the wall.

2 comments:

it's either banned or compulsory said...

I find it hard to believe the bare faced cheek of failed bailed out bankers trying to justify bonuses " to keep the best staff" when they got us into this mess in the firdt place. Or have I missed something ?

Northern Lights said...

Dave just a couple of observations:

'Fuck it, guarantee people's savings, and let the banks go to the wall.'

In other words, do nothing - but what would be the consequence of this? Wouldn't MORE people lose their jobs in this situation?

And not just those in charge of the strategic direction of the banks, but the tens of thousands of cashiers working in the branches.

And more to the point, who guarantees the savings? The Government? A rather odd argument for a libertarian isn't it?

What about the knock-on effects of a this on the financial sector as a whole? If one bank goes to the wall it makes it harder for others to survive.

Even someone with a basic appreciation of economics should understand the negative effects that this would have not just on small businesses but the economic sector as a whole.

Also, where is the precedent for this approach?

I notice that Obama has just announced a huge stimulus package in America - and as far as I can work out most people argue that stimulus is required at the moment.