Should taxpayers support banks, children? Hell no. OK. Then we abolish all support for banks. But that means depositors lose money when a bank fails. What do we do about that? E r. Dunno. Well it’s easy: set up state backed accounts or banks for depositors who want total safety, but they’d get li(cid:11)le or no interest. That money is not put at risk. As to those who want their money loaned on so they can earn more interest, they carry the risk (just like anyone who invests on the stock market carries the risk). Why should anyone else bear the risk? Good idea. We love you Miss. No: the state would just create Mi ss, there’d be new money and spend it (or cut l ess l end- taxes) which would mean every- i ng, so GD P one has more money. So total w o ul d f a ll. spending would return to it’s original level. Loan based spending would fall and non-loan based spending would rise, plus debts would fall. No it’s higher because you’ve s P i D removed a subsidy. GDP is o G S a c k maximised when prices are at b t h e re i free market prices rather than w te d . s t ar subsidised prices. But less True, but mortgagors in the 1980s paid money THREE TIMES the interest rates they available pay nowadays. Did the sky fall in the for loans 80s? Anyway, the fact that my idea would raises GDP trumps all other points: if mean anyone is really badly hit they can be higher compensated out of the increased GDP. interest To use technical jargon, my idea is rates. Pareto op(cid:22)mum. It’s game set and match to me. all n t’ h a ve hy S o w o fe ss ors Cos they aren’t as smart pr h ose t mics as you and me, children. o n o o f e c o ne h at d t ork e w o ut? I was inspired to create this cartoon by Giacomo Corsini. Any mistakes are my responsibility - Ralph Musgrave.