Post by Maria Post by Mel Rowing
It is the task of government to help business as a whole (if that be
possible) If we have reached the stage where every individual business
falling on hard times can turn to government, then we have inaugurated
a sort of commercial welfare state and we shall be in this mess for
ever. The weak must fall by the wayside so that the strong may
I agree with that - my whole objection is based on the premise that we
should not have bailed out banks in the first place.
This widely used term "bailing out" seems to leave some in a state of
misunderstanding. I will bet you that the shareholders of these banks
don't feel very "bailed out" They have all but been wiped out and it
will be years before the recover these losses. What the government
has done is effectively and in some cases actually taken a stake in
these banks. This stake will become more valuable in the years to come
when once more it will be returned to the private sector.
If this does not happen, then that means that the banking system is
never going to recover and that the "bailout money" would not be worth
the paper it is printed on and that we are all doomed to a very
uncertain old age.
That view of course discounts the short term consequences of a
collapse of the banking system.
Post by Maria
It is because we
have that I am cross that they are now acting like this.
It is alleged that banks got into the position they are now in because
they behaved irresponsibility. If this is the case, then bailout could
only be considered provided the banks mended their ways and began to
operate as banks not so long ago did operate - responsibly.
We must resist the temptation of seeing today's state sponsored banks
as social funds. They are businesses and should be operated as such
and better than they have been operated of late.
Post by Maria
When I discussed it with you lot, the answer was that it was necessary to bail
them out to protect jobs and companies from collapse - you wanted to
save Jaguar which is *not* a viable company, but which has now been
given a £27m grant.
Please make up your minds - do you want to save banks - for what
purpose? Do you want to save businesses - for what purpose, and which ones?
If you have ever placed a piece of plastic in an ATM you should
understand why. What would you do if it gave you the card back
without any money and the door of the building was very firmly bolted?
What would you as the shops ran out of stock because solvent or not
they couldn't pay their suppliers who couldn't pay their hauliers who
couldn't pay for their fuel and so on.
Where would your employer (if you still had a job) obtain the cash to
pay you if it were locked up in a failed bank?
Money is the lifeblood of commerce and it is the banking system that
pumps it round.
Those who say the banks should have been allowed to fail just do not
understand what they are suggesting. In face some banks have failed an
the shareholder owners of those businesses have paid the price as they
should. If society allowed these banks also to fail to function then
it would be cutting off its nose to spite its face.
Post by Maria
What about our market place?!
It is no part of RBS's function to facilitate the provision of a
market place. If these projects are as lucrative as implied and there
is enough profit in the jobs to pay off RBS including interest charges
as well as all other creditors who it would appear were also hovering
then there should be no difficulty in these straitened times of
getting an alternative contractor on a more secure financial base to
complete the work probably under rather than over budget.
Many companies would be delighted to take this work if only to tide
them over to better times.