...that when it ultimately fails will have bigger consequences than if the bank was just allowed to fail now?
2007-12-18 21:54:13 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Exactly. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for public money to be used to shore up a PLC. Labour created this monster, and now they're desperately trying to find a way out of it by throwing good money after bad.
How many other privately owned companies should the Government now be looking to help out? They didn't do it with Farepak, the didn't do it with Rover. So why Northern Rock? It should have been allowed to stand or fall on it's own trading. Of course, that would have had an impact on Labour's Northern heartlands so effectively they are once again trying to buy votes by looking after their own. It stinks to high hell!
2007-12-18 21:56:17 · answer #1 · answered by slıɐuǝoʇ 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The worst scenario you can have on the financial system is a complete lack of confidence. If everything starts to fail every single person in the country would be affected. I have no problem with the government helping to shore everything up. The money we are talking about in here is chicken feed to what the amount will be with a run of banks failing. Even those people with nothing will still be badly hit.
2007-12-19 01:02:26 · answer #2 · answered by soñador 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are between a Rock and hard place!
If they dont bail it out, loss of confidence in the banking system could be disastrous for all that's what they are worried about.
The Directors played fast and loose and took great risks, but now all the chickens are coming home to roost. There will be tears and innocent people will be caught in the firing line as usual.
I dont think they can save it though and it will have to go to the wall.
2007-12-18 23:28:15 · answer #3 · answered by shafter 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the implications of allowing Northern Rock to interrupt down could have been even worse. Banks are different, it is in comparison to a team of shoe shops remaining down. One economic business enterprise taking place can take others with it risking a crumple of the banking equipment, which Britain (the city of London) earns very a brilliant number of money from. As already pronounced through Stephen M, fantastically plenty a no win undertaking.
2016-12-11 09:08:56 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What in God's name are the government doing, why are we the taxpayers, via the government, shouldering the risks that this disgracefully badly run bank took on without having any of the benefits. The bloody bank should be nationised immediately with the shareholders and directors getting nowt.
2007-12-18 22:17:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This bank will not fail as it is,if not officially,and almost bar in name a Nationalised bank,the government has sunk that much money into it,we are now the owners.
2007-12-18 22:09:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They think it's a cheaper option than everyone in the country losing confidence in the banking system.
2007-12-18 21:59:44 · answer #7 · answered by Barbara Doll to you 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So much for the capitalist free market system. Companies should and must be allowed to go to the wall, otherwise the whole ideology of the free market is undermined.
2007-12-18 22:10:14 · answer #8 · answered by ketkonen 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This fiasco is risking £2000 for every tax payer in the country. Shame the lack of £13m is risking the safety of every tax payer in the country.
2007-12-18 22:46:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
throwing good money at bad dealing.
2007-12-18 21:59:24 · answer #10 · answered by country bumpkin [sheep nurse] 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋