appears to mean
take money and jobs from the people
and give the money to the banks and the jobs to other countries.
when asked (e.g. on QUestiontime on TV this week) why does the government let
Royal Bank of Scotland (80% state owned) lend money to Kraft to buy cadbury
government ministers (and of course tories) say
"oh, but if we intereed in what the banks did, it would mess up the free market and financial service industry which is so succesful at creating wealth and blah blah blahh
well
1. they messed up the free market by borrowing 150billion pounds from china and putting it into failing businesses (those banks)
2. those banks were not sucesful at creating national wealth, only wealth for a small number of people. other countries that didnt do this had JUST AS MUCH wealth increase
and had a better distribution of that increase over the population.
this is proof positive that the government are unfit to govern since they don't represent the people, not even as shareholders in the banks they bought "on our behalf".
anyhow, if i was (say) a rich bastard who owned a steel mill and a bank, would I let the bank invest money in a competitor steel mill and have it buy my steel mill at a knock down pice, asset strip it, and move on? no i wouldn't. so why did Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling let RBS do this?
The answer is they are too scared to do ANYTHING - they even looked like frighted rabbits in the headlights nowadays.
maybe they will copy Obama, now he's moved on from healthcare to wealthcare reform ....but i'm not optimistic.
1 comment:
Surely the reason RBS ought to lend to Kraft is the same reason it should make any other loan -- the RBS, and therefore the state, will receive all the tasty tasty interest, on top of the income tax, NI, corporation tax, and so forth it continues to collect from Cadbury's!
Post a Comment