Michael Meacher on the banks

It all sounds very good but he´s missing something.

Instead of propping up the banks we should have just nationalised them. This would have been cheaper.

Well, yes, except that if we´d nationalised them then we´d still have had to pay the losses they had incurred. We. the taxpayer, would be on the hook for all of their losses everywhere.

Now I agree, this might have been cheaper….and of course it might not have been. But to not even recognise this point when trying to work out whether it would or it wouldn´t is rather, umm, Meacheresque.

One comment on “Michael Meacher on the banks

  1. I’m not sure whether it would have been cheaper or not, but the one “plus” of stopping short of full nationalisation is that it maintains a free (and active) market in the shares. Consequently, should things ever return to somewhere approaching normal, it should be much easier for HMG to start recovering the money it has spent by quietly selling its holding into the market rather than having to go through a “privatisation” process – which could be both messy and expensive.

    Doubtless, with Brown’s excellent track record in dealing, they’ll anounce in advance that they’re going to sell a billion shares in a week’s time and the price will plummet…

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.