The first one -Break up the banking system
The debate is about how long some of the banks such as RBS and Lloyds should remain nationalised? The idea for some people is,they want to sell off those national banks They look at the experience of other countries such as Japan ,Sweden...they think they will sell it eventually after a long time .
But others think that if the bank are controlled by the government the government will distribute the money,so the bank won't become too big to fail .
There are the ideas over all. But I suppose that may links to the credit crunch because some of the banks were use too much money that makes people lose their confidence then everyone starts to think to take their money out of the bank but what if the bank haven't got enough money the reason is they spent a big part of the money on somewhere ~ and many banks in different countries are also have no matter loans or debt so that makes credit crunch happens in ever where .
So that really is a bad example . So my view is to remain the national banks for keeping the stable of economic in own country.Especially after the credit crunch.And also controlling by the government is a good way to try to try to make the right decisions.But it also make our economic or business becomes narrowly. much money that makes people lose their confidence then everyone starts to think to take their money out of the bank but what if the bank haven't got enough money ~ and many banks in different countries are also have no matter loans or debt so that makes credit crunch happens in ever where .
So that really is a bad example . So my view is to remain the national banks for keeping the stable of economic in own country.Especially after the credit crunch.And also controlling by the government is a good way to try to try to make the right decisions.But it also make our economic or business becomes narrowly.
Current ratio
6 years ago
11 comments:
Good - but change the time of your clock!
oh well! i got a question about it: if your bank is in the poor country, it's controlling by that government, and you need money to do something likes advertise about your bank for the customers and for your customers to trust your bank. The government can't give you the money, because it's a poor country, then what do you do? how can you growth your bank? and how can you make more money for the government and the econimics?
Ok!I think should remain nationalised.Because.Remain national banks can make to reduce the risk.But bank interest rate is very low.If to sell off banks.The banks will be become to personal.So that it's have more risk.But bank interest is higher.So I think if the country's economic is better.we can keep banks nationalised.If the countery's economic is bad.we can to sell off some banks to become personal.
But I have a question.If the countery's economic is so so.How to do that about banks?This means if I wanna countery's economic increase.The bank keep nationalised or to sell off?
As I said if we control the bank by the governmennt the development of our own Economy will be very narrow (if we are poor counties).But what are we doing is to keep the economy stable as a whole so to keep some national bank is really will help.But you are right as well .uhhhhh~ may be the soultion should be we keep some national bank and also some international bank in our own country :p
I think to keep bank nationalised also can help the economy increase ~ as you said if the bank are controlled by the government the interest rate will be at a very low level (I didnt know that atually :p) well~ if you are correct if the interest rate is low then the economy may be increased.coz if the interest rate is low people will no longer want to save their money in the bank but they will try to spend more so the consumption of the country will goes up .which means the economy growth in a short run. But it is also depends on the inflation rate I suppose But it is no good for the banks .
Anyway what I am trying to say is to keep the bank nationalised can also boost the economy.
I think the worst thing to do will be to keep the banks nationalised.
We shouldn't forget the US government was a huge player in inflating the housing bubble by reducing interest rates and keeping them low.
The problem in the real-estate market began with the deflation of the housing bubble.
Problems in the real-estate market(sub-prime crisis) caused the beginning of the credit crunch. (or at least made the credit crunch appear earlier)
What I'm trying to say is that when we leave the banks in the hands of the governments, we will give the control over the banks to the ones who played a huge role in causing this crisis.
Wouldn't that be the worse?
I'd rather leave the banks to the system that gave us huge economic growth over the last decades. Capitalism!
I think that banks doesn't be under conrolling goverment. Because when all money, business concentrated by goverment It's not good variant for people.
I think that the government should be the owners of the banks, because they do whats best for the people. They have an overview over the countries economy, often a quick and orderly structure, and if they need financial support, they will get it..
I think that the best option is to keep the banks nationalized.
What nationalized banks have that private banks don’t is taxpayer oversight and a mandate to act for the good of the population. Private banks seek to maximize profit.
Another reason why the government should own big banks like Lloyds and RBS is if the banks goes trough rough financial times the Government is able to give the financial support needed.
I also believe that separation in ownership and control (as in the private banks) is too risky. For example in the USA American citizens have become major owners in a very large number of major banks. Many of those banks have no control!
Well I'm strongly convinced that banks SHOULD remain under the government's control. I see 2 main reasons for that. First and the most obvious is that the whole credit crunch has happened because of the greed of the bankers(mostly because of their high-risk sub-prime mortgage games) and the government control won't allow banks to cast covetous eyes towards people's money. The second reason is that government control will be some kind of insurance for people because if something goes wrong,government will take care of that and so this will improve the lack of confidence in banks and therefore will encourage people to put money in the banks and to take credits.By that banks will be better of because they will have real money and people will be better off because companies will be able to take credits, expand blah blah blah and by that stimulate economic growth.
IN addition to that we can look at China and see that this plan works.
Post a Comment