Have government bailouts proven to be beneficial economically?
I believe government bailouts have been beneficial economically, because the number of job openings have increased, while the national unemployment rate and the rate of mass layoffs have decreased.
I believe government bailouts have proven to be economically beneficial. According to studies from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, job openings have increased. Additionally, there has been a decrease in the unemployment rate, as well as the rate of mass layoffs. These studies show that there are more jobs available, and that more people are able to keep the jobs that they have. When companies have government financial support, they feel more secure. When companies feel more secure, employees can feel more secure, too. While economic recovery feels slow to many Americans, the increase in job openings and the decrease in unemployment and the rate of mass layoffs show that government bailouts have been economically beneficial.
Posted by: PeacefulElwood69Government bailouts prevented more widespread financial crisis.
Government bailouts prevented more widespread financial crisis. It is very early to assess the long-term effects of government bailouts, but recent financial stabilization has proven that the bailouts worked for certain companies. Just look at General Motors which is already starting to pay back its debt to the government. The bailout forced the company to re-assess its direction and cut down in places, making it stronger and better suited for long-term success.
Posted by: NatBIabAlthough we'd like the bailouts to produce even better results, they did help the economy a little.
I think we are all at least a little disappointed with the government bailouts, especially considering that it was public tax money that was given to greedy private corporations. However, when I picture the scenario happening without the bailouts, I think it would be a lot worse. The bailouts prevented bankruptcies, death of industries, loss of jobs and loss of confidence in the banking system. Without the bailouts, the results would be devastating, and much worse than conditions are today.
Posted by: SpikyWesleyGovernment bailouts have helped the economy, because Wall Street needed a lifeboat for Main Street to survive.
While it is undeniable that the U.S. economy is still in very fragile condition, there was the potential for a full collapse if the emergency bailouts hadn't been used to save some of the largest financial institutions in the nation that were floundering. Wall Street had to be given a lifeboat for Main Street to survive.
Posted by: CurvyErich46Yes, government bailouts have acted as stimulants to several economies of the world, especially countries like the USA and UK. They have helped stimulate trade and commerce and hence have regenerated employment in such economies.
Just after the recent economic downturn during 2008-09, several economies had suffered badly in terms of their productivity and credit standing. Resultantly, it affected the functioning of the economies. There was a dip in economic activity; there was devaluation of currency; and, there was widespread unemployment. In such a scenario, government aids in the form of bailouts and stimulus packages have certainly helped economies to generate production and employment which in turn has helped these countries come back on rails. Also, as a chain reaction, an improvement in the bigger economies have helped the smaller and dependent economies to grow and develop as well.
Posted by: SmarterTabbyYes, I think government bailouts have proven to be beneficial economically because it has prevented a full blow economic depression.
If the Government had not provided bailouts, probably the economy would have sunk to a downward spiral and would have resulted in economic depression. It would have probably had a huge negative effect on the economy. So I think that the Government has done a really good thing in preventing this from happening through the bailouts.
Posted by: danoneenoI do believe the government bailouts have proved to be beneficial economically, although very unpopular with most people because job growth is recovering.
Some of the companies receiving the bailouts have paid the government back or is in the process of doing so. GM has recovered, and is working on more electric-type cars for future economical growth. This seems to help to limit our dependence on oil from foreign governments. It takes time to recover, but if we had not had the bailout, we would be in a lot worse shape, economically speaking. I think it was unfair, but necessary, to keep our country from a financial collapse that we would not have ever had a chance to recover from.
Posted by: TremendousCornelius99yes they prevented complete destruction
i believe that the current banking system is corrupt and evil however every penny everyone had including business and the government was in one bank or another thus the bailouts prevented all this finance from merely disappearing the bailouts were needed we may not liked it but its a necesity the government howeve should have implemented certain rules such as no bonus for bankers no toxic loans and not corruption
Posted by: rossatkins1I believe that government bailouts have helped the economy by keeping people employed.
The bailout of General Motors has had a positive effect on the economy. This has enabled GM to continue operations in the United States and allowed hundreds of thousands of workers to retain employment and thus avoid becoming victims of foreclosure. This bailout mainly helps blue collar workers in GM factories and will help the company continue to grow and employ hundreds of thousands workers nationwide.
Posted by: AndreaSGovernment bailouts, while unsavory, were necessary to stabilize the economy when it was in free fall.
The investment banks that were failing held the accounts for thousands of pension and retirement accounts; if they failed, those would have lost even more money. After the first one was allowed to go bankrupt, the financial system froze up entirely: no one trusted any investment. Without the bailouts and the backing of the federal government, we would have had economic winter for years. The bailouts stink - bankers still walked away with the most money - but they were the only way to prevent the little people from being hurt even more than they were already.
Posted by: P Whitney 87I believe government bailouts have greatly helped us in our countries time of need (UK).
The UK has just recently survived the recession. The government 'made' extra money to put into our economy in order for us to survive. I believe that without this handout our country would be in a worse place now. Although the value of the pound decreased and the exchange rate was affected, I think it was the right decision to make. There are now more jobs available and items of food, clothing, amenities etc are starting to decrease in price again.
Posted by: SaIvDevPreventing sure failure
While this is not an entirely desirable alternative to bankruptcy, it has fostered not only innovation in domestic vehicles, but has also retained countless auto manufacturing jobs that help keep Americans employed. That being said, I challenge anyone to come up with a solution that doesn't simultaneously drive up our increasing government debt.
Posted by: AnonymousMaintain money circulation.
The bailouts provided a safety net whereby the economy could build from. Although it has caused massive debt, our country can not afford to lose the financial sector and expect to maintain a productive GDP. America would have to start from scratch as bankruptcy would cause a domino effect. Lining up in the morning for some bread and a bowl of soup does not satisfy me, which is why I think the bailout was a tough but good call.
Posted by: AnonymousGovernment bailouts are proven to benefit the economy because they help to keep people working in a tough economy.
When the economy is poor and corporations are reducing their workforces, the government has an obligation to keep as many people employed as possible. Government subsidies are a fact of life in the United States, whether they are the supports provided in good times to dairy farmers or the creation of special programs during economic depressions. They provide stability to the economy that allows our national product to weather the ups and downs of a free market economy. By creating so-called bailouts, the government is ensuring that more people will stay employed and continue to pay taxes, purchase consumer products and meet the needs of their families. But they shouldn't be a free for all for corporations, companies receiving funds have an obligation to open their records to scrutiny to ensure that the goal of keeping people employed is met.
Posted by: 5h43HeIIoMade money
While this is not an entirely desirable alternative to bankruptcy, it has fostered not only innovation in domestic vehicles, but has also retained countless auto manufacturing jobs that help keep Americans employed. That being said, I challenge anyone to come up with a solution that doesn't simultaneously drive up our increasing government debt.
Posted by: Anonymous
Jobs have not increased since bailout
Myth: Employment has increased since the bailout and stimulus package.
Fact: The number of people employed since 2008 has decreased by around 8 to 10 million. Of those employed, 9 million are underemployed and median salaries are lower. Is this what you consider economically beneficial?
The bailouts had a short term impact but this is why our recovery is so slow. The long term effects are severe. Banks are bigger than ever and it puts us at greater risk when large companies depend on the largesse of the american taxpayers to get them out of trouble.Posted by: bubbaconchGovernment bailouts are not proven to beneficial economically.
US tax payers would be getting less money out of our pockets trying to pay for another company's economic downfall. The people are just getting more money out of us and we are getting nothing. Also some companyis do not even pay back the loan so it not helping us at all.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, government bailouts haven't been beneficial to the blue-collared worker in any way, just look at the unemployment rates.
The only people who benefited from the bailouts are the same people who should have been held accountable for almost driving their companies into bankruptcy. Those CEO's and board members should not have gotten a dime. And what did they initially do with the bailouts? Predictably, they handed out bonuses to the people who were to blame in the first place. It was a complete waste of taxpayers' money. The only jobs that were saved were the jobs of people who were not running a company in a productive way. They should've had to "face the music" the same as any small business owner would have had to, closing their doors and finding new jobs.
Posted by: BrianDjGovernment bailouts have failed because they have not improved our economy and the big wigs continue to get their absurd bonuses even after the taxpayers bailed them out.
I do not believe that the government bailouts have worked as intended. Our economy is still terrible and the big executives of some of these companies who received bailouts from the hard-working taxpayers still seem to feel like they are entitled to receive bonuses that regular citizens cannot even comprehend. Most middle class people in this country could live for years on just the bonus that one executive receives. In these hard times, I just do not believe that this is fair. Also, many banks who received huge bailouts are not doing anything to help middle class people who are struggling to keep their homes.
Posted by: R0d0FerdyGovernment bailouts have not worked
In a free market, business needs to be able to succeed and fail. If bailouts are handed out to anyone, big or small, it creates a moral hazard. Governments should not baby their citizens any more than parents should helicopter their children. How can innovation improve if lessons are not learned from the failures?
Posted by: AnonymousGov. Bailout Undermines Long-term Sustainability
Economic long-term stability and sustainability is the governments responsibility. Government involvement in the free market undermines its regulatory responsibilities, and results in increased expenses to taxpayers. Not only do bailouts send a incentive to fail, it also increase the domestic costs on imported products, domestic products, and deflation of the dollar.
Posted by: AnonymousI disagree because the bailouts are only a short-term fix as long as the underlying issues are not addressed.
The government bailouts seem to have worked in the short run economically, because they kept even more people from losing their jobs. However, my opinion is that the bailouts have not worked in the long run because they have not addressed the underlying issues which caused the crisis. Some of those issues are credit card regulations, circumstances that banks provide loans under and so on. Those need to be corrected to fix the crisis.
Posted by: P5ych0OgdanGovernment bailouts have not had a good effect on the economy.
The government bailouts have done little to improve the economy. More families are in the poverty level and the unemployment rate is close to 10%. Small businesses are suffering and there has been a lot of waste with the foolish spending of the stimulus money, such as the 55 jobs created that ended up costing $2 million a piece.
Posted by: EantDirtyThe purpose behind the bailouts was to interject liquidity into the markets, and avoid the seizing of credit.
The bailouts did not work, because the purpose was to assist with removing "toxic assets" and freeing the banks and investment companies from the losses, while providing liquid assets, in which the company could continue to operate by lending money and investing. From the aspect of removing toxic assets from balance sheets, the bailout did work. However, because of restrictions imposed by the Federal Government, lending and loaning requirements were also changed in favor of lowering the level of risk that these institutions could engage. In doing so, many seeking credit were prohibited from receiving loans. This is the most troubling aspect of the failed policy, because the companies that were deemed "too big to fail" have been saved. But, this has been done at the expense of the livelihood of many. This, in and of itself, is why I support the position that the government bailouts did not work.
Posted by: SilentJefferey42Where's the benefit in reality?
A bailout package is good to revive a company or sector, but how can it be beneficial economically? Bailouts are positive stimulators that can help industry perform better, but eventually, it would be the health of the business that would bring the economic benefits. It's like inducing direct approach towards business survival to bring the indirect economic benefits.
Posted by: TownMasoSince when did it make sense that people who did bad things get rewarded?
I strongly believe that it's common sense that government bailouts cease. For one reason, since when did lying and cheating get rewarded? Especially after getting caught for it? I can only sincerely agree that it has somewhat effect. But only to a certain extent. See, yes it kept jobs. But how many of those people do you think allowed all this to happen? 2, 3, or maybe only 5 people? I think not! And what about the other businesses who could have filled in the shoes of these big time banks and corporations who were not corrupt? I think I would rather deal with them than reformed, post-scandal businesses. And who do these bailouts really help? Us common people whose shares in the corporations are now suddenly worthless? Or the government who need lobbyists and other financial support for their campaigns?
Posted by: Jay_WhizGreece
They haven't eradicated the core problems that have caused damage in the first place. They merely serve as a temporary flotation device for the country that's crashing, without providing any actual long term benefits. The austerity measures bailouts often come with also damage the economy further as they as so severe.
Posted by: AnonymousBailouts reward bad decisions...
Free money for making bad business decisions? Seems like something is fishy to me. Rewarding bad decision making with a second -- or third-- chance doesn't make sense to me. If you got yourself there in the first place you should have to face the music. You should have to dig yourself out of the hole or face the consequences. You wouldn't hire back a teacher once they have done something wrong would you? You would want the best teachers to thrive and the rest to have to fix themselves before they can thrive themselves. Learn from the mistakes you have made. Do not give businesses a safety net so that they can play around with their money.
Posted by: AnonymousNo positive gain from bailouts
Out of persistent bailouts, chaos and corruption often arise. Additionally, the effects of a bailout are not at all as promised. With the U.S. Department of Commerce reporting that the United States economy moving at a slower growth rate than it has been the past four years since the bailout, jobs in the economy not increasing since 2008, and domestic industrial production falling 19% since the 2008 bailouts, it is evident that no effective long term growth has occurred.
Posted by: AnonymousWe shouldn't be funding the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.
This money could have supported a lot of social safety nets. Instead, we chose to give money to the very people who got us into this mess. I mark this moment as the moment Congress lost its mind, because they've been acting like petulant children ever since. Funding the banks that thrive on predatory practices is completely unethical, when those very practices now have people starving.
Posted by: ExoticCurt