Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Boom Boom

The Stimulus Money Should Have Gone To The Public.

Recommended Posts

I do wonder how things would have worked out had the money used to prop up failing banks, had instead been distributed to the public. At least doing the latter would have guaranteed a massive upswing in economic activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder how things would have worked out had the money used to prop up failing banks, had instead been distributed to the public. At least doing the latter would have guaranteed a massive upswing in economic activity.

Remember that the Aussie government sent every taxpayer a stimulus cheque a few years ago. Studies must have been done as to the effect of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder how things would have worked out had the money used to prop up failing banks, had instead been distributed to the public. At least doing the latter would have guaranteed a massive upswing in economic activity.

YEAH, great for about a week...then Supply and demand means that inflation would have struck....back to square one.

been tried before...failed before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that the Aussie government sent every taxpayer a stimulus cheque a few years ago. Studies must have been done as to the effect of this.

steve keen has written about this. As expected, the results of giving money to households is better than giving it to banks or investors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder how things would have worked out had the money used to prop up failing banks, had instead been distributed to the public. At least doing the latter would have guaranteed a massive upswing in economic activity.

... another import-led consumer boom, exactly the thing to rebalance our economy ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about if you gave it under the proviso that if someone had debt, they had to use it to pay part of the debt down (unsecured debt first, followed by secured) whereas someone who didn't have debt could use it how they liked?

Otherwise, giving people stimulus money is not that different to cutting tax really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the reality is that you're all effectively arguing that the capital was better deployed in recapitalising criminal banks, than directly stimulating economic activity by distribution to the wider public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable

Haven't you third world peasants had a good riotious coup and put the ruling classes in camps yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about if you gave it under the proviso that if someone had debt, they had to use it to pay part of the debt down (unsecured debt first, followed by secured) whereas someone who didn't have debt could use it how they liked?

Otherwise, giving people stimulus money is not that different to cutting tax really.

Presumably those with debts would repay them

Edited by Boom Boom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it should have been used to buy out the PFI contracts. The money would still have gone to banks, we'd just have some of our slave contracts to them torn up. In fact, I think there is still a case for printing money specifically for this purpose. I think we'd still come out ahead even allowing for a dose of the inevitable.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it should have been used to buy out the PFI contracts. The money would still have gone to banks, we'd just have some of our slave contracts to them torn up.

No, the PFI contracts should be nullified, representing as they are a criminal stitch-up of the tax payer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the PFI contracts should be nullified, representing as they are a criminal stitch-up of the tax payer.

Thats not an argument and you really wouldn't want to live in a country where that was possible. It always begins with good and righteous intentions... If the contracts are fraudulent, fair enough, if they are merely immoral but legal, tough. As an aside, this is what the Daily Mailists miss when complaining about the latest legal outrage... thats the fair application of the law, however flawed, by the judiciary. And yes, I'm aware this means I have now publicly agreed with something Anne Widdicombe wrote in one of her columns once.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could give ourselves all one billions each and we'd all be rich!

article-0-017830BB00000578-518_233x381_popup.jpg

Worse than Mugabe, pretending it is to save the general population when all it was intended for was a bunch of gamblers and saving their bad bets.

Edited by OnlyMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not an argument and you really wouldn't want to live in a country where that was possible. It always begins with good and righteous intentions... If the contracts are fraudulent, fair enough, if they are merely immoral but legal, tough. As an aside, this is what the Daily Mailists miss when complaining about the latest legal outrage... thats the fair application of the law, however flawed, by the judiciary. And yes, I'm aware this means I have now publicly agreed with something Anne Widdicombe wrote in one of her columns once.

I believe they are illegal because the terms of the deal were misrepresented by vested interests

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which banks were recapitalised?

AFAIK, none, all they got was liquidity in exchange for failed capital assets...which they have had to keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised you missed it

http://www.bankofeng...ws/2008/066.htm

weasel words to disguise insolvency and pretend its a liquidity crisis. :

"The recapitalisation, further liquidity support from the Bank of England and the new guarantee scheme amount to a significant step forward in resolving the present crisis". words from 2008.

No money was "given" to banks...as capital...it was loaned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weasel words to disguise insolvency and pretend its a liquidity crisis. :

"The recapitalisation, further liquidity support from the Bank of England and the new guarantee scheme amount to a significant step forward in resolving the present crisis". words from 2008.

No money was "given" to banks...as capital...it was loaned.

If you or I were in as bad a financial state as many of the banks, would we have been extended credit? I very much doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you or I were in as bad a financial state as many of the banks, would we have been extended credit? I very much doubt it.

with capital ratios of 10 or more, no banks would lend to anyone in that state.

with hidden losses and mark to model valuations, no-one would lend to banks either.

except, someone who creates fiat with the stroke of a pen....a central bank....Merv makes the stuff...on submission of a whitened, ancient financial turd "asset", Merv licks it up and vomits FIAT into the bank.

recapitalise?? I dont think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not an argument and you really wouldn't want to live in a country where that was possible.

But we do live in such a country, e.g. Coal Act, 1938 and subsequent nationalisations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

forgive me for coming over all chicago school but I can think of a great way of distributing this stimulus to all those hard working taxpayers....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 153 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.