Because the system fails, we each have to pay the banks £2000.
Bastards.
(, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 7:37, Reply)
www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1007083aig1.html
(, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 7:40, Reply)
And financial workers wonder why no one's crying over their current situation
(, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 9:09, Reply)
All this talk about a 700 billion investment is bollocks, the taxpayers will just foot the bill and pay higher taxes.
(, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 8:02, Reply)
Wouldn't it be better to just give £2000 to each person.
By my reckoning half would spend it, thus putting it back into the economy, and the other half would stick it in the bank, thus helping them out.
Now all the finance whizzes can tell me why this is a bad idea...
(, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 9:00, Reply)
My understanding is that the problem's not with solvency but liquidity. That is: it's not that there's less money to slosh about, just that it's not doing any sloshing.
Or something.
Possibly.
(, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 10:00, Reply)
The world is not really any poorer than it was yesterday, or the day before. There's still the same amount of "stuff" owned.
Problem is, everyone's sitting on what they've got, rather than merrily selling and buying and lending it to each other.
When this happens, we're all out of a job, and have to grow cress on our windowledges for food.
I can't start my new exciting business that will provide professional kitten-shopping services unless the banks will lend me some money, and people feel happy enough about the future that a kitten-shop today seems like a better option than saving that money to buy canned food, shacks in the woods and weaponry.
Here ends the very poorly informed economics lesson.
(, Wed 8 Oct 2008, 11:09, Reply)