It strikes me that if we enacted what was proposed, it could work.
Basically, we're talking a large transfer of bank deposits into this bond, which would fund the recovery effort.
It would, of course, have to be run by an independent, all-party steering group. To succeed it would need as close to 100% buy-in as possible.
When you see the words "Mises" or "Hayek" in someone's post, just ask yourself: do I really want to ban paper money and go back to gold?
You have to pity the kind of people who buy into conspiracy theories. I find the following to be the saddest words on the internet: "Re: connection between Bilderberg puppet lady gaga and viral outbreak in ukraine "
Is this a fancy word for the nationalisation of savings and pensions?
three problems with what you suggestOriginally Posted by feargach
Why should I accept a lower rate of interest on this bond when I can go down to my stock broker and buy one of the existing bonds at a higher yield? Alternatively, I could my money into one of the Life Company bond funds. Mr Begg suggested that the RB be issued at a lower rate than the existing NTMA bonds.
Secondly, If we all take our money off deposit to buy the bond then banks will be short of money and unable to lend.
Thirdly, who manages the collection and investment of the proceeds. Does a shiny new state agency have to be set up. Would the newly nationalise lending officers in Anglo do it. There is no evidence that NTMA has any greeat investment acumen.
David is this all you have got?
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote