Speaking back in October Gordon Brown says that people would take exception 3 partial proposals for bank restructuring.

There have now been 3 attempts by Gordon and his band of merry muppets to restructure the banks and we are no further forward.

By restructuring the banks he means throwing our tax payer money at them and hoping that some will stick.

Watch our great leader here…(read more)

LEARN MORE ABOUT: Bank Failures

REVEALED: Best Investment During Inflation

HOW TO INVEST IN GOLD: Gold IRA Investing

HOW TO INVEST IN SILVER: Silver IRA Investing

Gordon Brown and His Bank Bailouts: A Controversial Chapter in British Economic History

Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is known for his role in addressing the global financial crisis of 2008. As the crisis unfolded, Brown devised a series of bank bailouts that aimed to stabilize the UK’s financial system. However, his decision to do so remains a subject of debate and controversy.

At the heart of the financial crisis was the collapse of major banks and financial institutions, both in the UK and internationally. The subprime mortgage crisis in the United States had a domino effect, leaving many banks severely exposed to toxic assets and on the brink of collapse. Brown’s response was to intervene and prevent a complete collapse of the UK banking system.

In October 2008, he announced a comprehensive bank rescue package worth £500 billion, which included injecting taxpayer funds into major banks such as Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Lloyds TSB. The goal was to stabilize the banking sector and restore confidence in the economy.

The bank bailouts were met with mixed reactions from policymakers, economists, and the general public. Supporters of Brown argued that his intervention prevented the complete meltdown of the financial system, which would have had disastrous consequences for the UK economy. They believed that without the bailouts, banks would have stopped lending, leading to a credit crunch, job losses, and a deep recession.

However, critics of Brown’s approach argued that the bailouts rewarded banks for their reckless behavior and created a moral hazard. They believed that the government should have allowed the banks to fail, arguing that this would have served as a lesson and deterrence for future risky behavior. They also raised concerns about the long-term impact on public finances, as the bailouts involved significant taxpayer funds.

Following the bank bailouts, the UK government took significant ownership stakes in RBS and Lloyds TSB, effectively nationalizing them. This move resulted in a debate about the role of the state in the financial sector, and whether public ownership of banks was a temporary measure or a more permanent shift towards a more interventionist approach in the economy.

Furthermore, the bailouts led to criticism concerning the lack of accountability for the banks and their executives. Many argued that there should have been stricter conditions placed on the banks, including greater oversight and regulation, as well as measures to prevent excessive risk-taking and bonuses for executives.

Despite the controversies, Gordon Brown defended his decision, stating that the priority was to prevent a collapse that could have had grave consequences for ordinary citizens. He argued that while the bailouts were far from perfect, they saved countless jobs and laid the foundation for the UK’s eventual recovery.

The bank bailouts remain a divisive chapter in British economic history. While some acknowledge the necessity of intervention during a financial crisis, others question the long-term implications and the potential unintended consequences of such measures. The debate over Gordon Brown’s actions during the 2008 crisis continues to shape discussions on the role of government in the economy and the best way to address financial crises in the future.