[Re: Why Britain's banking rules arent' restricting economic growth, Friday] Paul Fisher's article is excellent. It challenges the public perception that banking rules are too restrictive and kill, effectively, the economic recovery. There are real problems facing our economy, but there is also no substitute for good credit risk analysis. The time of careless lending has obviously left us.
It doesn't make sense for a central bank to have responsibility for supporting economic growth. I struggle to understand how Fisher can accept such a derilection of duty by an elected government.
[Re: Does the proposed merger between BAE and EADS make good commercial sense, Friday] This merger looks more like a takeover of BAE by EADS - and at an absurdly small premium. There's likely more to this deal than meets the eye. Whether government defence cuts are hitting BAE's profits is unclear, but otherwise the firm seems to be selling itself short. I hope either Boeing or Lockheed Martin will feel inspired to make a better offer.
BAE and EADS are already huge firms and their products cost a fortune. How will a merger benefit market competition?
QE was justified in 2009 to stabilise the economy after the financial crisis. But subsequent doses have not been.
The thing about open-ended easing is that, now, every other central bank will follow in the Fed's footsteps.
We're not in a recession because of employment law. It's because of the government's failed economic plan.
Finally, help for small businesses with UK employment laws. Red tape reduction will get the economy going again.