Bailout? Over to you, Gordon

1. The Paulson Plan

For: The bailout planned by Hank Paulson promises to restore some order to the markets. It may prevent another Great Depression.

Related articles

• House approves $700bn rescue plan
• Will bail-out mean the crisis is over?
• Dominic Lawson: Democrat fingerprints are all over the financial crisis
• Simone Wallmeyer: We unmask the face behind the crash
• EU 'Big Four' in bailout row
• Mary Dejevsky: Amid the chaos, we should hail the triumph of Europe
• UBS to axe 2,000 jobs
• Number of new homes being built plunges to 50-year low
• Growing number of firms at risk of going bust, warns Bank
• Wall Street endures further turbulence amid bleak news
• Cash-strapped Bolton faces uncertain times
• US bailout likely as IMF warns of full-blown crisis
• Moment of truth for default derivatives
• Flood of customers forces Rock to stop saving accounts
• M&S reveals plummeting food sales
• Bellwether Wolfson warns of slowdown
• City worries mount over Christmas at Woolworths
• Ted Baker warns over 'increased economic uncertainty'
• Jeremy Warner's Outlook: Brown needs to be more bold in dealing with banking crisis
• Terence Blacker: Sound and fury in the wake of this financial crisis
• Credit crisis diary: I predict a riot (credit-crunch style)

Against: It will cost the US taxpayer dear, even if some of the $700 billion of "troubled assets" later prove sound. It may not even resolve the crisis, as it doesn't directly recapitalise the banks.

Sum-up: The only game in town.

Supporters: Most of the American and international establishment, from the IMF to the CBI as well as Bush, McCain and Obama. Still, few outside the US want to copy it.

Opposed by: The awkward squad in Congress and the American public, according to the polls. Some 200economists signed a petition objecting because "the plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers' expense".

2. Lend the banks more money

For: It should enable the private-sector banks to fix their balance sheets without having to worry about funding problems.

Against: Fine in theory; but it hasn't worked. The Bank of England alone must have lent close to £300bn, including its normal operations and its Special Liquidity Scheme. Yet the money markets still seize up because even the most ambitious lendingprogramme can't stop even a large institution needing help if confidence evaporates and the markets take fright – as we have seen with Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, HBOS, Fortis, Wachovia and the rest.

Sum-up: It can no longer be seen as "the answer".

Supporters: The central banks.

Opposed by: Few are actively hostile in the UK, but many are wondering how big the lending will have to get and what it will do to fragile public finances.

3. Extend the Paulson Plan to Europe

For: As for the Paulson Plan.

Against: As for the Paulson Plan.

Sum-up: It may happen, but only if the EU behaves in an uncharacteristically united fashion.

Supporters: According to some sources, the French government would favour a €300bn (£235bn) Paulson-style plan for the EU.

Opposed by: The French government. Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said recently that "There is no such thing" as this proposal. Her German counterpart, Peer Steinbrück is said to be especially unenthusiastic.

4. Governments to take equity stakes in the banks

For: The quickest way to recapitalise banks, and the taxpayers get a share of the upside when the banks recover.

Against: Where will it end? The banks are bound to need yet morecapital injections as the recession bites and as the usual cycle of defaults and bad debts wreaks more damage. Yet again, taxpayers may wonder why they're bailing out a failing institution. Moral hazard.

Sum-up: Warren Buffett, right, did it with Goldman Sachs, to the tune of $5bn. Why can't ministers be as smart?

Supporters: Quite a few economists, such as George Magnus of UBS, the man who spotted the crunch earlier than most.

Opposed by: The banks, though it depends on just how desperate they are.

5. Dropping "mark to market"

For: Making a bank place a market value on assets such as shares or bonds is straightforward and transparent, making the accounts reflect the true value of the bank's business. However, abandoning the practice with mortgage books and mortgage-backed securities may be the right thing to do at a time, such as now, when markets can't operate efficiently. The assets retain an "intrinsic"value: they're still producing income and may well, if held to maturity, provide a reasonable return. Dropping the requirement for banks to put them on their balance sheets at absurdly low levels would stabilise the system and allow the banks to lend more freely.

Against: Banks need to be open about their potential losses – it was off-balance sheet accounting and other opaque methods that got them into this mess in the first place.

Sum-up: A dry subject suddenly the talk of the town.

Supporters: French authorities.

Opposed by: Accountants.

6. Unlimited state guarantees for depositors

For: Offers easy-to-understandreassurance. The trick is that such a comprehensive guarantee restores confidence, thus never has to be used.

Against: It messes up banks in other countries which don't have suchgenerous arrangements and which see a hug e outflow of savings, so destabilising the world's interconnected financial system even further. It's against EU rules. And how does a small economy like Ireland guarantee all Europe's savings if they turn up one morning? It's self-defeating.

Sum-up: Probably not a long-term option for any single nation.

Supporters: The Irish government.

Opposed by: Most of her neighbours, who've seen savings flow out of their banks. The French are very unhappy.

7. Nationalisation

For: Not much, though it does allow the taxpayer to gain from the upside if a bank ever recovers, as they may hope with Northern Rock. The version where a bank's liabilities are left with the taxpayer but not its more lucrative assets, as in the Bradford & Bingley deal, is trickier to defend.

Against: Long-term, few believe that governments make the best bankers, and a nationalised bank with state backing has an unfair advantage. Northern Rock, ironically, has seen such an inflow of funds that it has had to close some of its accounts.

Sum-up: Always a last resort. You end up with a "Bad Bank".

Supporters: The workers and savers in affected institutions, the Left, and Vince Cable.

Opposed by: Believers in moral hazard and expropriated shareholders who think they should have got afairer price.

8. A state guarantee for mortgage-backed securities

For: The root cause of the crisis – a shortage of mortgage funding causing a tailspin in the property market – can be resolved. The banks can start lending to first-time buyers again.

Against: They tried this wheeze with Northern Rock, and it flopped. If a bank's debts are state- backed, then the Treasury might as well issue a gilt. Fannie and Freddie weren't the best precedents either.

Sum-up: It won't fly.

Supporters: Some banks, all estate agents and all housebuilders.

Opposed by: The Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, has said it would be "very dangerous" for the Government to start funding the housing market, though his objections have been less muted recently.

9. Massive cuts in interest rates

For: It would send a clear signal that the authorities have learned thelessons of the 1930s.

Against: You simply extend the "Greenspan Put", and allow thecitizenry to pay – indirectly in this case via higher inflation – for bankers' errors. You create a welfare state for bankers. Moral hazard.

Sum-up: Japan had near-zero rates and near-zero growth for years.

Supporters: Nouriel Roubini, doyen of monetary economists, plus a broad coalition from our own TUC to David Blanchflower, the resident militant on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee.

Opposed by: An ever-shrinking band of "inflation nutters".

10. Do nothing

For: It worked with Lehman Brothers, and a number of other non-retail financial institutions over the years, most memorably with the collapse of the venerable Barings in 1994.

Against: We'll get the biggest slump since the 1930s.

Sum-up: It may be where we end up anyway, having wasted billions trying to avoid it.

Supporters: Some Congressional Republicans.

Opposed by: The rest of the world.