Comments on: Opportunity missed in U.S. bailout? http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2012/12/07/opportunity-missed-in-u-s-bailout/ Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: keebo http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2012/12/07/opportunity-missed-in-u-s-bailout/#comment-12158 Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:34:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=1827#comment-12158 I suppose the author believes bailouts, excessive debt and free money from government and the fed should be the natural order? Personal restraint, control over impulses to spend and responsible use of financial resources is to be scorned. Moral hazard created by bailouts and stealing from honest hard working savers to pay for the profligacy of others is the new order of the day.

What a sick method of dealing with the issue. There should have been no bailouts of the stupid lending practices and crackpot political policies that created the massive irresponsible misallocation of capital into areas that could not support such extravagance. The reason we manage to get into these situations is the lack of consequences for retrograde thinking and actions. The idiocy spread around by writers glomming onto any idea available in order to fulfill a quota of articles really has become pathetic.

]]>
By: AdamSmith http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2012/12/07/opportunity-missed-in-u-s-bailout/#comment-12101 Sat, 08 Dec 2012 17:31:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/?p=1827#comment-12101 Great article.

Another way to look at the same idea is by some simple math, using just two numbers:

1. The US government spent $800 billion to bailout the banks in the meltdown of 2008.

2. The entire US population is 311 million people.

If you divide $800 billion by 311 million people, that’s $2,572 per person – every man, woman and child.

So, if the US Congress would have simply sent that $800 billion bailout instead directly to the people, it would have been $10,288 for a family of 4.

Some people would have spent the money immediately, but many would have put it in the bank. Thus the banking system would have been greatly strengthened.

One big difference with this approach is that many of the wealthy, who had made such large wrong bets, would have had to live with their losses instead of being bailed out. Many of their hedge funds would have gone broke, as they deserved to do.

But America itself, its working middle class, would be much stronger. And the economy would have been long recovered by now.

Great article, Reuters.

]]>