The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

TimeDivided09
The experts were also telling you that de-regulating the market was a good thing too until that idea went up in flames. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, supposed "socialists" presided over a host of de-regulation schemes and tax breaks for the wealthiest people in your country saying it was going to be boom time for the UK, yeah it was until the bubble burst.

Same with our elected leaders. Sometimes the experts are just wrong and new experts need to be brought in. The establishment will always select the experts that best fit and defend the current paradigm.


Good points, but it was always known that deregulation of banks could have dire consequences, but a decision was made that it was worth risking it. As it turned out it probably wasnt, although we did have huge growth prior to this crash.

And in this case almost everyone agrees that the current course of action is the probably the least worst method to get back to growth.
Reply 21
yoyo462001
The best way for public resources to be distributed is via the public approval?, this same public that is so easily influenced by the media. Id rather the Bank of England filled with top Economists that have a much better understanding of such a a bailout plan than to let the public, who are largely uneducated (on the matter) and have little or no information, make such important decisions decide whether or not to proceeed, .


If people say **** you and don't pay tax, then how do you bail a bank out?
TimeDivided09
The experts were also telling you that de-regulating the market was a good thing too until that idea went up in flames. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, supposed "socialists" presided over a host of de-regulation schemes and tax breaks for the wealthiest people in your country saying it was going to be boom time for the UK, yeah it was until the bubble burst.

Same with our elected leaders. Sometimes the experts are just wrong and new experts need to be brought in. The establishment will always select the experts that best fit and defend the current paradigm.


I disagree with lordbonney and agree with you. The system needs to be criticised heavily, especially if, like me, you believe it isn't working.
Sadly, not everyone cares to educate themselves on the matter, or refers to trollop such as the Sun and the Daily Mail before sprouting ignorant and misinformed statements that are not really representative of their own, thought-through views.
So as much as I would hope the UK public would make the effort to ensure things are how we want them, it doesn't work like that at the moment.
I have to say that I don't like America's ideals or influence so as long as we're distanced from it that will do for now.
Reply 23
yoyo462001
well the public dont usually under economic consequences, so i dont think the public should have got a say in the bailout plans

I agree with this. Most people (pretty much anyone who hasn't studied economics) doesn't understand the economic implications of banks being bailed out, and just believe everything some trashy newspaper says about how bad it is.

I don't think it should be tied to the government either, there should be a separate agency, like the Bank of England that decides what happens, so it isn't influenced heavily by politics since our economic stability kind of transcends politics.

Also many, many people don't realise that our country is literally built on top of the finance industry, they don't seem to realise that we don't make our money from making steam trains and ocean liners any more.
Rucklo
If people say **** you and don't pay tax, then how do you bail a bank out?

What your saying is that the public dont like having decisions made for them? and result in saying 'lets not pay tax' because you do believe this then you have a poor understanding of the electorate.
The best way for public resources to be distributed is via the public approval?, this same public that is so easily influenced by the media. Id rather the Bank of England filled with top Economists that have a much better understanding of such a a bailout plan than to let the public, who are largely uneducated (on the matter) and have little or no information, make such important decisions decide whether or not to proceeed, .



What a hideous capitulation to private power! A sinister culmination to the efforts of lobbyists and rogue politicians that care more about giving money and concessions to private interests than the public good. The people also include other experts and economists that differ on the matter. They are simply marginalized along with the rest of us as being too stupid to understand the greatness of the 'market'. The point is to have other voices heard. That was not done with the bailout, especially in the US.
Reply 26
yoyo462001
What your saying is that the public dont like having decisions made for them? and result in saying 'lets not pay tax' because you do believe this then you have a poor understanding of the electorate.


No i'm saying you can't treat the public like fools because they ultimately can crash the system faster than any economic collapse.
yoyo462001
The best way for public resources to be distributed is via the public approval?, this same public that is so easily influenced by the media. Id rather the Bank of England filled with top Economists that have a much better understanding of such a a bailout plan than to let the public, who are largely uneducated (on the matter) and have little or no information, make such important decisions decide whether or not to proceeed, .


You'd rather nationalised banks be filled with top Economists that got us into this mess in the first place and want to get us out of it with the only motivation of profits?
I'm all for wanting my money back, but more than ever, the public needs to have its rightful stakeholder say at this time. The public are more likely to act in the interests of us citizens as a whole, than not giving a damn about anything but the money.
If you're ok with the capitalist system we've had then I suppose that will not matter to you, but I'd prefer us thinking of more than the bottom line in future.
Reply 28
AliciaJ703
OP is making gross generalizations


They are pretty disgusting.
i think its been made clear through all recent events that we the UK public are soft as **** and wont do **** all about anything we dislike
*Star*Guitar*
I disagree with lordbonney and agree with you. The system needs to be criticised heavily, especially if, like me, you believe it isn't working.
Sadly, not everyone cares to educate themselves on the matter, or refers to trollop such as the Sun and the Daily Mail before sprouting ignorant and misinformed statements that are not really representative of their own, thought-through views.
So as much as I would hope the UK public would make the effort to ensure things are how we want them, it doesn't work like that at the moment.
I have to say that I don't like America's ideals or influence so as long as we're distanced from it that will do for now.


Would you suggest a refinement of the system or a completely new model?
Tefhel
I agree with this. Most people (pretty much anyone who hasn't studied economics) doesn't understand the economic implications of banks being bailed out, and just believe everything some trashy newspaper says about how bad it is.

I don't think it should be tied to the government either, there should be a separate agency, like the Bank of England that decides what happens, so it isn't influenced heavily by politics since our economic stability kind of transcends politics.

Also many, many people don't realise that our country is literally built on top of the finance industry, they don't seem to realise that we don't make our money from making steam trains and ocean liners any more.



Wrong. Saying we don't "understand" the economics of the bailout and policies geared toward avoiding regulation is like saying that we don't agree or understand the obvious schemes politicians and their economists cook up. There is a difference.


Right about the horrid de-industrialization of both our nations. Our economy is so reliant on finance that fake booms based on speculation are vital to our economic growth. Our GDP indicates and only rates growth among the top percent of our wealthiest industries, it doesn't take into account the people. That is why GDP can rise and there be high unemployment. It only measures the performance of the major industries.

Is this what the grand experts are put into place for? To have the top industries grow richer while we grow poorer and hope that something "trickles" down to us?

Yeah, you're right, we shouldn't get involved? The public meddling into the affairs of the experts is so passe', so vulgar! :rolleyes:
D-Day
They are pretty disgusting.



Would you care to elaborate too? I am still waiting for Alicia to chime in too!
lordbonney
Would you suggest a refinement of the system or a completely new model?


It's more complex than that. I understand the point that something like the current bailouts should've been done considering that finance is a strong component of our economies. But having our economic system be largely based on speculation is pretty dangerous. It seems like we learned next to nothing about the Great Depression.
TimeDivided09
Would you care to elaborate too? I am still waiting for Alicia to chime in too!


Missing me already? I don't have the time now but maybe later :smile:
lordbonney
Would you suggest a refinement of the system or a completely new model?


I'm still formulating my ideas (reading a lot on Company Law atm).

I think the the theory of capitalism works, and the top dogs justify the situation based on that theory, but its not working in practice.
(the "corporate statesman", the "trickle-down theory" ) .

I want people to sacrifice a bit of their consumerism and the company's with their profits in order to ensure fair trade, employee's rights to minimum wages and healthy working conditions, consideration of evironmental impacts etc. I'm not asking for miracles but a lot can be done by a little from us all.
Companies are not the rulers of us, as much as they like to think. But we need to remind them of that and not have them bully our Governments into thinking that either, so its down to each citizen to do their bit; make the most of their political vote and influence the market in a direction we want it to take.
AliciaJ703
Missing me already? I don't have the time now but maybe later :smile:


At least give me one counter-argument. D-Day, what about you?
Reply 37
TimeDivided09
Would you care to elaborate too? I am still waiting for Alicia to chime in too!


Elaboration
TimeDivided09
It's more complex than that. I understand the point that something like the current bailouts should've been done considering that finance is a strong component of our economies. But having our economic system be largely based on speculation is pretty dangerous. It seems like we learned next to nothing about the Great Depression.


It is yes, but its difficult to think of something else. At the end of the day governments are going to want to get voted back in, and prior to this crash the system was working darn well, giving us a long period of growth, and governments are unlikely to curtail that.

I agree with you, but at the same time cant think of a viable alternative, it seems that the current system, maybe with a touch more regulation is the least worst system?
yoyo462001
The best way for public resources to be distributed is via the public approval?, this same public that is so easily influenced by the media. Id rather the Bank of England filled with top Economists that have a much better understanding of such a a bailout plan than to let the public, who are largely uneducated (on the matter) and have little or no information, make such important decisions decide whether or not to proceeed, .


Ah, protecting the 'ignorant masses' from themselves, eh? Then the power is bestowed to the few and they can continue to keep it that way, a population that won't question their propaganda.

Latest