Get ready with £1,250 a year to pay for bank bail-outs

[Zod]

s2art said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

would it have been better to let the banks fail then?

RBS? Yes IMHO. The Yanks let Lehmans go. RBS was just too expensive to save. It would have been broken up, bits sold on to LLoyds, Barclays, HSBC etc.

Lehman was much smaller and not significantly in the consumer market. It would have been insane to let RBS go, just as the Americans wouldn't have let Citi or Wachovia go down.

[s2art]

Zod said:

s2art said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

would it have been better to let the banks fail then?

RBS? Yes IMHO. The Yanks let Lehmans go. RBS was just too expensive to save. It would have been broken up, bits sold on to LLoyds, Barclays, HSBC etc.

Lehman was much smaller and not significantly in the consumer market. It would have been insane to let RBS go, just as the Americans wouldn't have let Citi or Wachovia go down.

Insane? I doubt it. Take a read of Redwoods approach, makes sense to me.