I ask this as it seems a lot of Republicans are getting upset with their own administration on this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/18/wallstreet.congress Of course, I have no desire to give billions in aid to the rich bankers who have failed... but the consequence of not doing so is, what, another Great Depression?
I am on the fence. I realize that you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere with who you are going to help and who you won't. I'm not so sure that bailing AIG out was really a bad thing, but it definitely doesn't speak well for the direction the economy is going. I think a new administration, whether Obama or McCain will be better for the economy. Lets hope that companies can stay afloat on their own for another 6 months or so.
We need to stop treating companies like people. Bail out people and let badly managed companies fail. The market will fill the gap in time if the service/product of the company was truly integral to the market.
I think the effects of not bailing out companies is much greater then bailing them out. Corporations go to wall street for funding their operations, if Wall Street isn't functioning, then corporations will not get the money they need to operate their business.
Maybe I am just dense, but I fail to see how propping up a FAILED business is good for Wall Street. Please make it clear for me. Links welcome.
Totally agree with earthfaze. This crisis has gotten so big because we have "bailed out" the failures so many times in the past, it is only a matter of time before the CEOs realize that failure is what is most profitable. The "experts" repeat the call that bankruptcy is worse than decades of bailouts, but these are the exact same experts who thought that debt-based multi-level derivatives were a sound financial strategy.