I feel very dirty now.

I've also often wondered, Wigan, Saints and Leigh all wear Red/Cherry and White; it this a Labour/Lancastrian thing?

our first kit was all black!

The banking system wouldn't have collapsed. If you believe that then please explain how - I think you've fallen for the guff that was spun when Northern Crock was going down.

Seriously, I have heard no one explain why it was necessary to save the banks with any detail - so help me out.

Nuclear power just stores up expense for the future. When the plants reach the end of their safe working life you still have to keep them open, staffed and running for safe disposal of the nuclear waste, when they aren't actually producing any power.

The government seems to have seen nuclear as the bridging gap between fossil fuel energy and technology being good enough to have good renewable energy, but I wouldn't go any further than that, nuclear is a problem.

Quote: Monmouth Wire "The banking system wouldn't have collapsed. If you believe that then please explain how - I think you've fallen for the guff that was spun when Northern Crock was going down. Seriously, I have heard no one explain why it was necessary to save the banks with any detail - so help me out.'" As a free market capitalist I would normally view it that loss making, bankrupt businesses should close leaving the market fight over the bones and recover naturally. However, seeing as this would mean people losing homes and life savings if this was to happen to the banking sector the Government intervention was crucial in preventing a number of the weaker banks going to the wall. Some background reading www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008 ... nking-2008

Quote: Monmouth Wire "The banking system wouldn't have collapsed. If you believe that then please explain how - I think you've fallen for the guff that was spun when Northern Crock was going down. Seriously, I have heard no one explain why it was necessary to save the banks with any detail - so help me out.'" As a free market capitalist I would normally view it that loss making, bankrupt businesses should close leaving the market fight over the bones and recover naturally. However, seeing as this would mean people losing homes and life savings if this was to happen to the banking sector the Government intervention was crucial in preventing a number of the weaker banks going to the wall. Some background reading www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008 ... nking-2008

People have always lost homes and life savings when they get made redundant in loss making bankrupt businesses, so do you support government intervention propping them up to avoid this?

It's funny how the free marketeers like government intervention when middle class professionals' homes and savings are on the line.

In the view of most economic experts the Banking bail-out was neccessary as it underpins the entire capitalist system. Strong arguments both sides and I am fairly divided on it myself as, classically, all the failing banks should have be left to fail. But I have been convinced by the arguments that whilst this is a purer economic model it would cause undue hardship not only to consumers, but also severely damage small business and enterprise.

If your last point was aimed at me, that's cheap and inaccurate.

Which it is. It was a nailed on fact that the money bunged into the banks would be squirreled away and held on their balance sheets for their own benefit and NOT lent out to businesses as required. These banks won't be lending for the next 12 months as they use our money to make themselves look better while still pursuing short-term money making ideas for the benefit of their shareholders.

Lending to businesses has dropped despite the £700 billion they have been given - FACT. If you wanted to make sure that people still kept the economy running (by buying stuff) they should have given every tax payer £4,000 and let them do with it what they wanted.

Yeah, making the Gov't look good so that they had a chance of getting voted back in. Politicians playing with our money for their benefit so that we can keep paying them for the job they do - you couldn't make it up.

But hasn't the policy been adopted across the majority of the G8 countries?

The government has certain responsibilities and saving the UK from certain economic and social chaos is one of them, they had no option but to bail out the banks.

What I don't understand about the classic free marketeers is that they detest government intervention and state power because they say it means the market is commanded by one big entity. Well yes, but its at least accountable to its elected representatives.

The free market is no different, its commanded by one or two big entities who have just over time dominated the market share. Thats no more free than state dominance but the state is at least accountable.

What would have happened if HSBC had gone to the wall.....society would have been knackered....thats an unhealthy state of affairs. Certain malfunctioning big players at the top have seriously ruined our market system which has for me destroyed the credibility of the free-market-runs-things-best theory.

Wires71 what I said about the freemarketeers favouring government intervention when its middle class professionals homes and savings on the line wasnt aimed at you personally it was aimed at the pro free market movement in general. They will say that its not fair for people to lose their homes and savings because of errors that weren't to do with them, they were the errors of people at the top of the banks, which is all very true.

But a lot of these same people would have taken the opposite line when the mines and manufacturing industry were falling down and working class people lost their jobs: "the industry was unprofitable so tough". In most cases it was the fault of either management or just the conditions of the market, that workers were made redundant, not the fault of the workers themselves, but where was the call for government intervention to prop them up then?

You can't have it both ways....if we take the line that the government has responsibility to stop people losing their homes and savings, then it has to count for everybody.

I'm sorry, but I still don't get it - Why? Please, can you help me out on this, I really am struggling to get it.