The Economy...What if?
Discussion
....Instead of bailing out bankrupt banks, the Government gave every tax payer a rebate and allowed them to decide what they did with the money?
There are certain options:
a) Put it in the bank (Increasing the banks deposits)
b) Buy something with it (Keeping business going)
c) Put it under then bed (which would end up devaluing it anyway)
Ultimately, the likes of RBS would have to borrow money from the banks that still had some money (due to [a] or had cash deposited due to [b] ) and the real world would continue.
Why the feck does the one eyed spazwazzock think he can do better than a free market economy?
Unless, that is, you remember that RBS and BOS are scottish, which so is he.
There are certain options:
a) Put it in the bank (Increasing the banks deposits)
b) Buy something with it (Keeping business going)
c) Put it under then bed (which would end up devaluing it anyway)
Ultimately, the likes of RBS would have to borrow money from the banks that still had some money (due to [a] or had cash deposited due to [b] ) and the real world would continue.
Why the feck does the one eyed spazwazzock think he can do better than a free market economy?
Unless, that is, you remember that RBS and BOS are scottish, which so is he.
Plotloss said:
I read somewhere, it may have been on here that for the money dumped in by the US government so far, they could have given every single person in the US a 12 month income tax holiday.
Just a guess but that might possibly have got the economy moving, just a little bit.
And the money wasted by Gordo wouldn't have given us that opportunity either?Just a guess but that might possibly have got the economy moving, just a little bit.
The problem with all Governments is that they feel this overwhelming desire to control everything. If people were just allowed to keep more of their own money, they would spend it on things they deemed of value. This would direct income to sustainable business's and those which couldn't attract buyers to spend their own money on, would fail – ie: a market economy. The likelihood is Labour will cherry pick recipients of Government funds, which strangely enough, will be in labour's heartland or in marginal seats. What a shower of losers.
Plotloss said:
I read somewhere, it may have been on here that for the money dumped in by the US government so far, they could have given every single person in the US a 12 month income tax holiday.
Just a guess but that might possibly have got the economy moving, just a little bit.
Whilst that may be true, you won't get an economy functioning properly without a healthy banking system.Just a guess but that might possibly have got the economy moving, just a little bit.
They are doing something similar here in Aus.
If you earned under AU$80,000 and paid some tax in the 07-08 tax year you get a AU$900 lump of cash deposited in the bank. The idea is people will use it to have work done at home or buy things and thus support the economy a bit.
Its part of a AU$42 billion government stimulus package including spending on roads, schools, hospitals and the like and lower income earners get stuff like free house insulation.
Personally I am not convinced its going to really help the economy, the AU$42 billion is going to be borrowed and I hear its going to cost the tax payer AU$200 billion in repayments over 10 years.
If you earned under AU$80,000 and paid some tax in the 07-08 tax year you get a AU$900 lump of cash deposited in the bank. The idea is people will use it to have work done at home or buy things and thus support the economy a bit.
Its part of a AU$42 billion government stimulus package including spending on roads, schools, hospitals and the like and lower income earners get stuff like free house insulation.
Personally I am not convinced its going to really help the economy, the AU$42 billion is going to be borrowed and I hear its going to cost the tax payer AU$200 billion in repayments over 10 years.
Tipping all this cash into the black hole that is bank bad debts to-date is simply not going to get them lending it out at reasonable rates. They will hoard it to provision for future losses and who wants to lend money in a deep recession anyway? Businesses going bust, homeowners defaulting on mortgages because they have no income; it's a risky time to lend = harsh but true.
Should the one-eyed snot-gobbler and his Chancellor-monkey fully nationalise some banks and direct them to lend or should they let some of the weaker ones go down?
One thing's for sure; History will pillory this shower of shyte, and rightly so.
Should the one-eyed snot-gobbler and his Chancellor-monkey fully nationalise some banks and direct them to lend or should they let some of the weaker ones go down?
One thing's for sure; History will pillory this shower of shyte, and rightly so.
Edited by bluetone on Friday 6th March 05:50
ShadownINja said:
While I understand it would be foolish for anyone to suggest that Clown destroyed the economy, one this is certain: he's making it worse.
Fair enough. He is a bit like the captain of the titanic - he didn't sink it (an iceberg did), but he was the captain, it was his responsibility and he was going too fast.
They could always give the taxpayer a break by doing a bit of pruning... http://ferretfancier.blogspot.com/2009/02/pct-list...
2something said:
ShadownINja said:
While I understand it would be foolish for anyone to suggest that Clown destroyed the economy, one this is certain: he's making it worse.
Fair enough. He is a bit like the captain of the titanic - he didn't sink it (an iceberg did), but he was the captain, it was his responsibility and he was going too fast.ShadownINja said:
2something said:
ShadownINja said:
While I understand it would be foolish for anyone to suggest that Clown destroyed the economy, one this is certain: he's making it worse.
Fair enough. He is a bit like the captain of the titanic - he didn't sink it (an iceberg did), but he was the captain, it was his responsibility and he was going too fast.NoelWatson said:
ShadownINja said:
2something said:
ShadownINja said:
While I understand it would be foolish for anyone to suggest that Clown destroyed the economy, one this is certain: he's making it worse.
Fair enough. He is a bit like the captain of the titanic - he didn't sink it (an iceberg did), but he was the captain, it was his responsibility and he was going too fast.NoelWatson said:
ShadownINja said:
2something said:
ShadownINja said:
While I understand it would be foolish for anyone to suggest that Clown destroyed the economy, one this is certain: he's making it worse.
Fair enough. He is a bit like the captain of the titanic - he didn't sink it (an iceberg did), but he was the captain, it was his responsibility and he was going too fast.Why isn't Blair implicated in this mess?
He was at the bridge (treasury) proclaiming there are no more icebergs (boom and bust) and told his minions to go full speed (spend) ahead.
Sure it's not his fault per se that the icebergs are there, but closing your eyes and going full speed ahead is a long way from being mr prudence ....
Sure it's not his fault per se that the icebergs are there, but closing your eyes and going full speed ahead is a long way from being mr prudence ....
Here's an idea for the governemnt....
rather than giving everyone a cash rebate that will probably end up in a savings account (and thus do nothing for the economy), why not issue every household a load of vouchers.
£800 DIY store voucher
£300 voucher for services (such as plumber/builder/electricians etc)
£200 for high street
£200 liesure activities
?
rather than giving everyone a cash rebate that will probably end up in a savings account (and thus do nothing for the economy), why not issue every household a load of vouchers.
£800 DIY store voucher
£300 voucher for services (such as plumber/builder/electricians etc)
£200 for high street
£200 liesure activities
?
TeamD said:
....Instead of bailing out bankrupt banks, the Government gave every tax payer a rebate and allowed them to decide what they did with the money?
There are certain options:
a) Put it in the bank (Increasing the banks deposits)
b) Buy something with it (Keeping business going)
c) Put it under then bed (which would end up devaluing it anyway)
Ultimately, the likes of RBS would have to borrow money from the banks that still had some money (due to [a] or had cash deposited due to [b] ) and the real world would continue.
Why the feck does the one eyed spazwazzock think he can do better than a free market economy?
Unless, that is, you remember that RBS and BOS are scottish, which so is he.
This strikes me as the most sensible idea I have heard in a long time. I think you should be Chancellor TeamD, though you probably wouldn't want the job... Personally I want to be the head honcho at RBS - then I can run up £billions of losses and retire on £700K a year - how hard can that be?There are certain options:
a) Put it in the bank (Increasing the banks deposits)
b) Buy something with it (Keeping business going)
c) Put it under then bed (which would end up devaluing it anyway)
Ultimately, the likes of RBS would have to borrow money from the banks that still had some money (due to [a] or had cash deposited due to [b] ) and the real world would continue.
Why the feck does the one eyed spazwazzock think he can do better than a free market economy?
Unless, that is, you remember that RBS and BOS are scottish, which so is he.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff