Would it have been Cheaper to Bail Out Financial Sector or Subsidize Recovery?

  • News
  • Thread starter Pattonias
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the cost comparison between bailing out the financial sector and supporting those who lost their jobs. The political implications of government moves and the accuracy of the term "bailouts" as most were actually loans or investments are also mentioned. The estimated cost of bailouts is around $19 billion as of a year ago. Direct subsidies may also pay back, but it takes longer and is difficult to determine the exact amount.
  • #1
Pattonias
197
0
I've been wondering if it would have been cheaper to bail out the financial sector and prop up the mortgage system that was created by the failed financial sector, or would it have been cheaper to help those who lost their jobs stay on their feet until the market shifted to fill the gap?

Not an easy question I know.

You can't take the governments moves over the last 10 years for face value as you have to consider the political implication of every move they make.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3


That link is out of date and it is worth noting that most of the financial "bailouts" are more accurately described as loans or investments. The difference being that the government expected at least some of the money back. TARP, for example, had a projected cost as of a year ago of $19 billion, despite having laid out hundreds of billions of dollars. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Now of course direct subsidies may pay back too, but even if they do it takes longer and is impossible to determine with any precision how much.
 

1. What is the difference between bailing out the financial sector and subsidizing recovery?

Bailing out the financial sector involves providing financial assistance or support to struggling banks, financial institutions, and other businesses in the financial industry. This can include loans, investments, or other forms of aid to help these institutions stay afloat and prevent them from collapsing. On the other hand, subsidizing recovery involves providing financial support to the overall economy, such as through tax breaks, stimulus packages, or other measures, to help stimulate growth and recovery.

2. Why was a bailout of the financial sector considered in the first place?

The 2008 financial crisis, also known as the Great Recession, was caused by a combination of factors, including risky lending practices, a housing market bubble, and inadequate regulations. This led to the failure of several major financial institutions and threatened the stability of the entire financial system. In order to prevent a complete collapse, the government considered a bailout of the financial sector as a way to stabilize the economy and prevent further damage.

3. What are the potential benefits of bailing out the financial sector?

Bailing out the financial sector can help prevent a complete collapse of the financial system, which would have devastating effects on the economy. It can also help restore confidence in the market and prevent a domino effect of failures. Additionally, it can potentially save jobs and protect the savings and investments of individuals and businesses.

4. What are the potential drawbacks of bailing out the financial sector?

One major drawback of bailing out the financial sector is the use of taxpayer money to support institutions that may have engaged in risky or unethical practices. This can be seen as unfair and can lead to public backlash. Additionally, there is no guarantee that a bailout will be effective in preventing future crises, and it can create moral hazard by incentivizing risky behavior in the future.

5. Could subsidizing recovery have been a more cost-effective solution?

It is difficult to determine if subsidizing recovery would have been a more cost-effective solution, as it would depend on various factors such as the specific measures implemented and their effectiveness. However, subsidizing recovery could potentially have a longer-term impact by addressing underlying issues in the economy and promoting sustainable growth. It may also have a more equitable distribution of resources, as it would not solely benefit the financial sector.

Similar threads

News Should America Create An Infrastructure Bank?
    • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
5K
News Is America's Financial Crisis Rooted in Decades-Old Policies?
    • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
5K
Doing always more: good or evil?
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
Good piece on the two largest famines
    • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
11
Views
1K
News Criticize your choice for president
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
3K
Current and Future AI Threats to Humanity and the Human Response
    • Computing and Technology
Replies
10
Views
2K
News Andrew Sullivan is a blatant liar-slanders Chomsky on air for no reason
    • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
Other Got starting job, need focus for next step
    • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
9
Views
1K
Teaching STEM at the Time of Political Distress
    • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
14
Views
3K
How do I convince dad not to throw me out of the house because I wont get any job
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top