Banks: Wrong solution to wrong problem

David Davis

Well, it’s beyond Marx’s and Lenin’s wildest fantasies. Many of the West’s biggest banks have fallen into the clutches of states, ostensibly through the results of their own actions, but in fact because of probably very careful planning and subterfuge. This would have been over a very long period while we all slept, by lefties who forsaw it and brought it about.

If you “regulate” the sort of activities that banks do, then they will inevitably try to find products and ways round, so as to carry on being successful despite you, not because of you. Furthermore, if you do what lefty slobs did under the Clinton administration, and threaten/force/bribe banks to lend money to NINJAS, to buy democrat stalinist votes from said people, then the banks will respond by “securitising” these mortgages and selling them on in parcels with an attractive yield attached.

What should have happened is that the worst-exposed ones should have been allowed to fail, and the better pieces picked up by smaller, harder outfits better able to resist further State blandishments in future. Instead, what will now happen is that we shall get more of the same.

Other states will now see also that “the thing can be done” and their banks will come in for strangling too. Worse, Gordon Brown will get to look decisive and popular again. What price he tries to ram through things like “42 days detention” again?


  1. I quite agree that what the governments have been doing is wrong and inflationary. But is there something other than nothing that can / should be done?

    What should the govt have done:
    1 Nothing?
    2 Guaranteed the deposits of individuals, but not the banks (i.e. if your bank goes under and your bank balance disappears you will get the money (based on the records of the failed bank and your own proof of identification) but your bank will disappear)?
    3 Borrow money to spend on the banks?

    Is no. 2 practical? In my simple mind if the government created the money that was lost when your bank went under then as far as individuals are concerned: MONEY DESTRUCTION AMOUNT = MONEY CREATED

    Therefore the money supply impact is neutral.

    How would you knock down ‘option’ 2? Would Option 2 have to be extended to all bank deposits including businesses?

  2. Interview Request

    Hello Dear and Respected,
    I hope you are fine and carrying on the great work you have been doing for the Internet surfers. I am Ghazala Khan from The Pakistani Spectator (TPS), We at TPS throw a candid look on everything happening in and for Pakistan in the world. We are trying to contribute our humble share in the webosphere. Our aim is to foster peace, progress and harmony with passion.

    We at TPS are carrying out a new series of interviews with the notable passionate bloggers, writers, and webmasters. In that regard, we would like to interview you, if you don’t mind. Please send us your approval for your interview at my email address “ghazala.khi at gmail.com”, so that I could send you the Interview questions. We would be extremely grateful.


    Ghazala Khan
    The Pakistani Spectator

Leave a Reply