Some companies are too big to fail, and they should receive government bailouts. But if, and only if, it can be proven that the company can be returned to profitability. When a company employs tens or hundreds of thousands of workers in a single country, letting it go under can have severe consequences to the economy and national morale.
I have to admit, I am torn on this one. Yes, they should help companies save jobs. But does that mean that those same companies should get a fat check and only the higher ups get richer, while the guy down at the bottom of the food chain is struggling to make ends meet, only getting 24hrs, while somebody sits at home sipping martini's? No. I think that the government needs to take a closer look at the financials of the companies it bails out, to see where it might cut the fat so to speak. Yes, these companies are there to make money, but there is a bigger picture and if I run out of money to pay my bills, I am expected to fix the issues. I get another job, change things around, and not sit there with my hand out to say, I ran out of money I need more please! Put more people to work within your companies, mentor them, teach them to do what they need to do to better themselves. Create a paid learning program. Help the government help you. Is it a one time thing? It should be. If I give a person a fish I feed him for the day. If I teach him to fish I feed him for life. Perhaps examine where the changes need to start.
A company serves the interests of many people other than the owners and shareholders of the company. Two most important of these groups are the employees and the consumers. The bailout of a company is justified on the basis of protecting the interest of the employees and the consumer. Just think of a situation if the company that supplies electricity to your house, what would you support - shutdown of the company and your power supply, or bailout of the power company.
Bailouts save a lot of jobs and when utilized correctly help save the economy from taking a major shot. While they obviously aren't a popular decision at the time they are made, when distributed to deserving companies and not every one under the sun that needs help, the history proves they end up being for the best.
Yes, the government should bail out companies, under certain circumstances. Though doing so seems to go against the capitalistic concepts that make up our nation's economy philosophy, there have been periods, such as the Great Depression and the economic crash of 2008, where direct government intervention in the economy has been necessary. The car industry is an example of successful government bail-out. If major car companies had folded in 2008, the loss of jobs and general effect on the economy would have been stunning. By providing loans to prop up companies such as GM and Chrysler, many of those jobs were saved. In addition, only a few years after facing bankruptcy those companies were on the road to recovery, paying back their loans and even thriving. By judicious use of “bail-out” funds, the government can have a positive effect on our economy.
If companies can see a bailout as a saving grace if they ever need it, it would increase the rate of reckless and unexplainable behaviour within the business world. Bankruptcies are one of the only regulating feature of the market, and if governments continue to bail out large companies destined for bankruptcy, this would only cause major inflation, and a possible Global Financial Crises. As we have seen in history, such events may lead to war and death of innocent people. Money is an item that corrupts the minds of our best, yet we follow it religiously...
They should not spend tax dollars on that. Companies will never end up paying it back. Just like with the auto bail out. As soon as they started making money again and got the bail out money they gave the executives a bonus. They should have been paying that money back.