And if the bank did go under, the savers would be protected, but thetim..... said:But that's new money that is lost.
If the Banks just "went bankrupt" HMG would have to immediately pay
(assuming it keeps its promise) everyone who saved with that bank, their
Keeping the Bank alive means that the e.g. 100 billion pounds of money on
deposit, is backed by the 100 billion pounds of lending that the bank has
made, some of which will go bad.
The bail out represents the amount that's gone/going bad.
I would be mighty pissed off if they came up with a scheme that took my
money just so that they can avoid paying whatshisname's pension. Yes, I
am going to have to pay a share of that pension anyway, but funding it
through a rise in taxes seems much fairer than funding it by confiscating
savings from the people who did no wrong, whilst letting the reckless
borrowers off scott free, IMHO.
The problem isn't about profit, it's about liabilities and assets. The
numbers are too large for HMG to handle if the Bank is wound up.
Where are these resources coming from after you have paid out the "savings
I agree that we should dispose of the personnel, but much of that has
This is irrelevant to the discussion on Banks
administrators would either have to call in all the mortgages or sell them
on. Not all mortgagees are toxic, so why should they suffer?