Economics are not that difficult unless of course they get mixed up with politics. More going out than coming in, trouble. Take this scenario and ask the question are the people likely to suffer traditional government voters? If the answer is yes then you get into the economics of the loony bin. Government takes over a bank at enormous expense to us the tax payers. Government promises to get back the money. After six months bank makes a whopping loss because the position with its book was worse than expected. Government in effect says oh dear lets just write off £3B it’s only £100 per tax payer in UK. This cannot make economic sense unless its votes that count. I want my 100 quid back because I would not invest in this bank at this time. The previous chancellor dithered over the various ways to save pension funds that he had helped steal and had gone into liquidation and a pension’s minister claimed they had to be sure the schemes eventually offered were “value for money” and then they only offered partial recovery of what is in effect a saving scheme for the future. There is no value for money option in what is being spent now. If this is Gordon’s plan for a revival of fortunes I fear “more needs to be done” This gets the thumbs down from me. Could a nationalised bank bankrupt a country? Because that is what is happening here.