There were red faces at one of Britain's biggest banks recently. They had accepted a telephone order to buy PS 100,000 worth of shares  from a fifteen-year-old schoolboy (they thought he was twenty-one). The shares fell in value and the schoolboy was unable to pay up. The bank lost PS 20,000 on the deal which it cannot get back because, for one thing, this young speculator  does not have the money and, for another, being under eighteen, he is not legally liable for his debts. If the shares had risen in value by the same amount that they fell, he would have pocketed PS 20,000 profit. Not bad for a fifteen-year-old. It certainly is better than delivering the morning newspaper. In another recent case, a boy of fourteen found, in his grandmother's house, a suitcase full of foreign banknotes. The clean, crisp, banknotes looked very convincing but they were now not used in their country of origin or anywhere else. This young boy headed straight to the nearest bank with his pockets filled with notes. The cashiers did not realise that the country in question had reduced the value of its currency by 90%. They exchanged the notes the notes at their face value at the current exchange rate. In three days, before he was found out, he took PS 200,000 from nine different banks. Amazingly, he had already spent more than half of this on taxi-rides, restaurant meals, concert tickets and presents for his many new girlfriends (at least he was generous!) before the police caught up with him. Because he is also under eighteen the banks have kissed goodbye to a lot of money, and several cashiers  have lost their jobs. Should we admire these youngsters for being enterprising  and showing initiative  or condemn them for their dishonesty? Maybe they had managed for years with tiny amounts of pocket money that they got from tight-fisted parents. Maybe they had done Saturday jobs for peanuts. It is hardly surprising, given the expensive things that young people want to buy, such as fashionable running shoes and computer games, if they sometimes think up more imaginative ways of making money than delivering newspapers and baby-sitting. These lads saw the chance to make a lot of money and took it. Another recent story which should give us food for thought is the case of the man who paid his six-year-old daughter PS 300 a week pocket money. He then charged her for the food she ate and for her share of the rent and household bills. After paying for all this, she was left with a few coins for her piggy bank. "She will soon learn the value of money," he said. "There's no such thing as a free lunch. Everything has to be paid for and the sooner she learns that the better." At the other extreme there are fond parents who provide free bed and board for their grown-up children. While even the most hard-hearted parents might hesitate to throw their children out on the streets, we all know people in their late twenties who still shamelessly live off their parents. Surely there comes a time when everyone has to leave the parental nest, look after themselves and pay their own way in life. But when is it? It can be concluded from the article that the writer believes that   _  .
parents should give more pocket money to their children children should leave the parental nest as soon as possible grown-up children should support themselves children should learn to be economical