to think perhaps we should have let the banks sink?

[carriedababi]

?

Wouldn't just be the banks though would it? It would have been all the individuals who watched their life time savings go down the drain

And be stumbling around in post-apocalyptic wasteground?

and then what would have happened to the entire economic stability of our nation, if not the world? you think it would be any better than it is at the moment?!

If the banks had sunk then people's savings would have disappeared with them, and no-one would ever have felt safe putting their money in a bank ever again, so actually I think a bail out was kind of unavoidable.

What we should have done, many years back, is kept the retail banks separate from the investment banks.

Retail banks (which hold consumer funds) should not have been allowed to take large risks.

Investment banks could have been allowed to take large risks, on the understanding that if they gambled and lost they would not be bailed out (since it was only their money they were playing with).

I cannot understand why they are not separating retail and investment banking now.

Haven't really thought this through have you?

dilemma456 too true, and not only individuals but major firms!

Energy firms, Pharmaceuticals, retail, local councils...everyone has a bank involved in their financing. The individual does in their savings and mortgages, the firms in their financing, borrowing, overnight lending, structured products etc. Every single person would have been hit.

Once the banks were responsible for such a huge proportion of the nation's GDP, letting them sink would have made the current cuts situation look like a tea-party. Iceland is an extreme example of what happened.

yesi haven't thought it through thats why im asking perhaps.