Why are we so dependant or maybe gullible to follow the USA in economic strategies when we have seen over and over again the US economy is so awry, they are always pumping money back in which they don't have. They can't even manage to regulate the delivery of hundreds of thousand of weapons to Iraq. We do not need the US economy to dictate the other stock markets around the world. The sooner the world in general grasps the fact that the USA is a bankrupt country who cannot provide its citizens with basic healthcare, basic education, only two weeks holiday a year for employees and so on and so on the better. -

peter wells, Vienna, austria

Financial markets do not exists. Money markets, stock markets or equity markets and financial services do exist. Does this help?

AuthenticSweets, felixstowe,

Wow, whoever would have guessed that this would happen! The government and its citizens borrow money hand over foot, spend it like drunken sailors, don't save and don't do anything productive and now, its all fallen over. All those geniuses and nobody saw this coming. Next lesson - come in out of the rain if you want to stay dry. Also, don't play with fire or play on the railway tracks.

Christopher Holland, Canberra, Australia

Why inject all these funds?

al, Perth, Scotland

Craig Ross - spot on. Well said.

Sid, London, UK

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that some spivvy americans have been dumping/selling their rubbish onto the rest of the world. The idiots who bought this stuff must be held to account as this is pure negligence.
It is also a lesson to others "Caveat emptor"

Steve Byrne, Christchurch, UK

I concur with Prof. Wood; further, I am suspicious about BNP and French influence in the ECB. The result of the decision to intervene was obvious to anyone in any market; the consequences of the decision are huge and have not been fully covered by the press by any means. Is the ECB liable for its actions, or can this autocratic organisation just arbitrarily destroy markets, companies and investors? It is interesting to note that the last time they intervened in a big way was 9/11 and, guess what, there was a crash. The issue is causality: did they cause that one, and are they about to cause another one? And we all preach good govenance and transparency, but only for organisations that can't destroy economies.

Dr Peter Langmead, Lusaka,

If Central Banks are indeed pumping colossal sums to keep markets afloat, there must be more to this saga than mere panic and "uncertainty" among investors.

Wait and see

Mathew Maavak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Money allows people to swap goods and services. Assets (including financial assets) are worth what someone will pay for them. I have never understood why central bankers and politicians assume that there is a straightforward long-term gain to be had from trying to intervene in the process of trade, either in goods or in financial assets. Suppose that cheap credit brings forward consumption and prevents a recession following the NASDAQ stock market crash - the borrowers have to pay their debts with interest, so consumption falls dramatically in the medium term. Is a recession now automatically worse than sub-trend growth for ever? We seem stuck in this mindset where bad events for some will snowball and a flat spin and plummet earthwards for all will follow. It is almost as if all the revisionist histories on Roosevelt's New Deal had never been written - markets bad, quasi-political action good; it's that simple.

If we always, always left losers to pay their bill we'd be fine.

Craig Ross, Glasgow,