I never got the “economy would of been devastated if the banks weren’t bailed out” argument made during the recession. The economy was in shambles anyway!
It’s a tough one. Assuming nobody stepped in. Yes there would be devastation but somebody would pick up the assets in a fire sale. So no, there would have been some pain but the system would have been better long term.
We can’t avoid all pain, otherwise we end up with companies who take stupid risk since they never fail.
Let them fail and someone else will grow. Otherwise we don’t have a healthy capitalism.
In most western countries the Govt only guarantees up to a certain amount per depositor (in US it is $250k).
The ballad of Silicon Valley Bank is a good example of why the Govts needed to bail out their banks during GFC. Without the govt backing those banks there would have seen huge runs, and in no time at all the imaginary money banks operate on would have disappeared, meaning companies can’t pay workers, people can’t buy groceries etc.
Note, I am not defending the heinous behaviour of finance execs leading up to, during and post GFC - for them I’d bring back the guillotine. But rather explaining that bailouts are needed sometimes to ensure the economy keeps ‘flowing’. Post GFC has seen a lot of countries bring in tighter regulations for banks with regards to how much cash on hand they must have, how much in investments/bonds and how much exposure to loans they are allowed. Unfortunately I’m not sure if US took the opportunity to propose and enforce new regulations as many other nations did.
We did. We put in many worthless regulations that really didn’t solve the problem.
I’m a connective republican. Socially more liberal but fiscally conservative.
The executives of the banks that needed bailouts should have been jailed as they took risk they shouldn’t have taken. All the banks do it because there are no consequences when they fail. Zero.
They need to punished for mishandling assets so poorly.
I never got the “economy would of been devastated if the banks weren’t bailed out” argument made during the recession. The economy was in shambles anyway!
It’s a tough one. Assuming nobody stepped in. Yes there would be devastation but somebody would pick up the assets in a fire sale. So no, there would have been some pain but the system would have been better long term.
We can’t avoid all pain, otherwise we end up with companies who take stupid risk since they never fail.
Let them fail and someone else will grow. Otherwise we don’t have a healthy capitalism.
The government could have bought out the failed banks and nationalized them.
That would have been a horrible idea. For all intents that what they did with the bailouts. We don’t need the government to own banks.
Let them fail and others will but them up. We don’t need the tax payers assuming trillions in bad loans.
we don’t have national federally owned banks available to the public, or at least any that I’m aware of.
deleted by creator
Exactly nor should we. Nationalizing banks is a stupid idea.
Let them fail. That’s how capitalism works.
So your idea is just pray for some rich people to buy the assets and not let the bank’s customers without all their money?
What if this pray for the rich saviors is not answered? Any plan b? Maybe make this buying a law?
Customers wouldn’t be without money. It’s insured.
Instead we used tax payer money to prop them up and didn’t solve the problem.
You have to let things fail.
In most western countries the Govt only guarantees up to a certain amount per depositor (in US it is $250k).
The ballad of Silicon Valley Bank is a good example of why the Govts needed to bail out their banks during GFC. Without the govt backing those banks there would have seen huge runs, and in no time at all the imaginary money banks operate on would have disappeared, meaning companies can’t pay workers, people can’t buy groceries etc.
Note, I am not defending the heinous behaviour of finance execs leading up to, during and post GFC - for them I’d bring back the guillotine. But rather explaining that bailouts are needed sometimes to ensure the economy keeps ‘flowing’. Post GFC has seen a lot of countries bring in tighter regulations for banks with regards to how much cash on hand they must have, how much in investments/bonds and how much exposure to loans they are allowed. Unfortunately I’m not sure if US took the opportunity to propose and enforce new regulations as many other nations did.
We did. We put in many worthless regulations that really didn’t solve the problem.
I’m a connective republican. Socially more liberal but fiscally conservative.
The executives of the banks that needed bailouts should have been jailed as they took risk they shouldn’t have taken. All the banks do it because there are no consequences when they fail. Zero.
They need to punished for mishandling assets so poorly.
Nobody ever argued that the banks would of been devastated
They argued that the banks would have been devastated
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, you’re correct!