Should the government have bailed out troubled industries during the financial crisis?
When it comes to the topic of the financial crisis, most of us will agree that banks needed assistance. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether or not the United States government should’ve bailed out these troubled banks. The U.S government should have bailed out troubled banks because it stabilized the economy, saved an amplitude amount of money, and it succeeded in preventing more failing banks. By the government choosing to bail these companies out, they made an excellent decision and it benefitted everybody. The money saved was phenomenal, how fast the economy recovered was astonishing, and the long term effect being that something to that extent won’t be happening anytime soon. The bank bailout taught big business a lesson, and taught the world as a whole a lesson. The banks were in deep trouble and by the government intervening and bailing them out, they got the economy back up on their feet. These industries were just ‘’too big to fail.’’ Opponents like to argue that the government wasted money foolishly on the bailout however, according to the Center for Automotive Research, a Detroit-based think tank ‘’it’s a heck of a lot better though than the $108 billion to $156 billion the government would have lost over three years if it hadn’t intervened.’’ (Doc. 1) In making this statement the Center for Automotive Research proves that the government should’ve bailed out troubled industries because it saved them, as well as it saved the banks. TARP, the Troubled Assets Relief Program was created in October of 2008 and its purpose was to help stabilize the economy. Although Robert J Samuelson is correct in stating that ‘’A Bloomberg poll last October asked how TARP had affected the economy. Forty-three percent of respondents said it weakened the economy; 21 percent said it made no difference; only 24 percent said it helped’’...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document