I read Alison Rowat's column ("Capitalism: Be ruthless and pitiless with yourself", The Herald, October 7) with a sense that something large was missing.

The achievements of Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison and Steve Jobs are real enough, and the benefits plain, but the same cannot be said of the senior management of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and the demutualised British banks, formerly building societies.

Capitalism and the market are two quite separate ideas. The first is essentially about specific ways in which ownership, finance and labour (and to some extent land) are brought together to pursue profit and the second is the means through which they pursue it.

There has always been scope for other forms of organisation such as mutuals, social enterprises, co-operatives and credit unions. They can, and have, flourished too – as the John Lewis Partnership, many co-operatives and the old building societies demonstrated before the latter were privatised and got into ruinous financial engineering. They don’t fall neatly into a public/private sector division of the economy but they do (or did) very useful things.

The public and private sectors are interdependent. How could the private sector work without an educated and healthy workforce? What about transport systems and infrastructure that the private sector would not build, unless the public sector provided a contract to build them? All that public sector provision is essential to an effective economy and the private sector would be in a mess without it. Perhaps most importantly, it is public sector organisations that pick up the pieces when the private sector fails.

We badly need a much more balanced and less ideological view of the relationship between public and private sectors and there is no point in supposing either is always going to be perfect.

Beyond that, we also need a wider sense of what a mixed economy can be and that a more mixed economy is a more stable economy, offering a wider range of opportunities and better serving us all.

Perhaps the opening of the first community-owned bakery in Scotland might be more than a straw in the wind (“Dunbar bites back and opens co-operative bakery”, The Herald, October 7).

Alasdair Rankin,

11 Gillespie Crescent,

Edinburgh.

I read Alison Rowat’s article and thought how supine the Scots are in comparison with those such as the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors and indeed the Icelanders who throw eggs at their politicians.

Think of the impact that would have been made had there been, at the time of the banking crash, a mass shoe-throwing demonstration at the Royal Bank of Scotland heaadquarters. To reduce the chances of me being arrested for promoting violent protest, I suggest that throwing carpet slippers would be equally effective.

If we do not care sufficiently about ourselves and our children then at least we ought to care for those at wrong end of the social and economic spectrum suffering so much from the excesses of crony capitalism and corporate rule: from the continuing excesses of especially the bankers whom our politicians courted and deregulated with such enthusiasm.

It is unbelievable that deregulation, for instance now in relation to planning, is still the name of the neo- liberal game.

John Milne,

9 Ardgowan Drive,

Uddingston.

It was instructive to read Iain MacWhirter’s almost impeccable analysis of the country’s current financial and economic woes (“Cameron no Canute as a tide of debt advances”, The Herald, October 6). But why is there so much debt? It exists because we all live under a monetary system that creates new money through issuing loans, overdrafts and credit cards. If governments, businesses and individuals require new money for investment or spending purposes they must borrow and go into debt.

Government can choose to create new money, and regularly produces 3% of the money supply in the form of notes and coins. This insignificant sum of money is debt-free and is spent into the economy.

Occasionally, the Government does produce large sums of debt-free money. The Bank of England has created £300 billion to buy up the toxic debts of the banks in an effort to encourage them to start lending again. We have a further bout of quantitive easing or money-creation as well as talk of credit-easing.

Over the last year or so, the Government has gone on at great length about the need to reduce the national debt.

May I suggest the following method of doing so? Annually, the Bank of England should create £100 billion of new money and use it to reduce the national debt. This allows the Government to buy back some of its IOUs which in turn allows the recipients of the £100 billion to either bank or invest the received money thus increasing bank liquidity and commercial activity. The great advantage of this approach is that there is no longer any need to reduce the national debt by cuts in government spending and increase in taxation.

It is now time for the Government to show real leadership by instructing the Bank of England to create new money, primarily and directly, for the welfare of the people (you and me). For too long the power to create money, and thus control economic policy, has been surrendered to private banks, whose open and repeated purpose has been the interests of their shareholders (neither you nor me).

Christopher Gilfedder,

91 Langbar Crescent,

Glasgow.

I seem to remember the original QE2 having serious turbine problems on her maiden voyage. Let’s hope the latest QE2, launched this week by Bank of England Chairman Mervyn King has more initial success. But I wouldn’t bet on it (“The most serious financial financial crisis Britain has ever seen’”, The Herald, October 7).

The trouble with quantitative easing and the electronic money it produces (it isn’t actually printed, it’s just created in a computer) is that it doesn’t go directly into the real economy where people live and businesses operate. It goes into the London Bond Market and takes quite a long time to filter through to where it may do good.

QE also pushes up inflation and holds down interest rates, which is the opposite of what is needed to get people spending and create growth. It’s fine if you are a whiz kid trader in the bond market – your job and obscene bonus are guaranteed because of the extra business you get without trying, and the cost of your million pound mortgage is a few thousand less. But it’s not so good if you are a pensioner relying in income from investments or bank interest to eke out your meagre pension, or you have lost your job and are trying to scrape along on inadequate benefits.

I have listened carefully this week to the speeches by Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne, and the TV interviews with Mervyn King.

My overall impression is that, despite all the fine words and feigned confidence, they haven’t a clue what to do next. They and the country are being swept helplessly along on a global wave of financial crisis which is now beyond the capability of world leaders to control or cure.

This is what reckless bankers, out of control financiers and out of their depth politicians have brought us to. I’m afraid there is a long and very hard road ahead.

Iain A D Mann

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

This downturn, possibly going into a recession, will run for as long as the banks are run by those on excessive salaries whose business decisions are underwritten by the taxpayer whose businesses they refuse to support but continue to inflict excessive charges upon.

Peter Wright,

1E Yerton Brae, West Kilbride.