Should governments step in to bail out private companies that are close to failing?

  • Some companies just need it.

    Honestly, people need to realize that the government can really help with companies, I get that larger companies may be more money to bailout but, smaller companies should also get more of a chance to get money, if you help out the smaller companies, who knows what could happen? - Tribbs

  • Some companies we can't afford not to bail out

    Lots of people have argued on this site that we shouldn't bail out large failing companies because others need a chance. However want about large companies who are the only firm in their competition for example if a water company who was the sole company who supplied water to the area if they were to fail we couldn't do with out. Furthermore most people have misleadingly stated that it is the companies fault they are struggling, however rising in inflation, increase in the minimum wage can be a financial struggle to these companies

  • Immigrants totally dependent on their jobs

    It's not that they should they have to because the worry is all about the immigrants from overseas , have no family generation growing in a country where they work hence will result in no family financial support where the immigrant who is suffering from the trauma of losing a job will consequently end up in suiciding.
    Government has to get their hold on it and bailout the failing companies to save their population at one point and offcourse gaining rate in unemployment.

  • They should because everyone is going to go bankrput

    I strongly believe that we need our government to support us through thick and thin. It's preposterous that we are not having enough support from out government. It's estimated that 30 000 jobs will be lost by the end of 2017. It is simply outstanding that our government is not supporting is through these times.

  • Yes in order to keep the economy stable.

    , and keep the labor force in work. If the government doesn't, a lot of people might end up losing jobs from the bankruptcy of a large corporation. It could lead to higher unemployment rates, reducing GDP, and eventually devaluation of currency. Example: General Motors, Chrysler filed bankruptcy in ?USA, people would've lost many jobs.

  • Yes government should spend more to reduce poverty

    While our poverty rate continues to hover around 12%, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden have reduced their poverty rates to 4%, 4% and 2% respectively. Anti-poverty policies in the U.S. Only lift 36% of people out of poverty, while government policies reduce poverty in Germany by 76%, by 83% in the Netherlands, and by 89% in Sweden. Not surprisingly, all of these other countries end up with much lower rates of poverty.

  • Massive job loss

    Untold thousands of workers depend on the solvent operation at General Motors, and, given the precarious position of the economy, losing the liquidity that was represented by General Motors and all of its related businesses the shock of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy could have had significant repercussions to the overall economy. Trade-off: Bailout vs Depression, I go for bailout.

  • Yes I agree that a government should step in

    I fully support that when large corporations are in trouble, the government should financially aid them. However an assessment of the national economic damages that a corporations bankruptcy may produce will be vital in order to justify whether a bailout is legitimately justified. A massive corporations bankruptcy, if large enough, may have adverse effects on the economy such as; raising national unemployment rates dramatically, reducing GNP and GDP output and possibly influencing a devaluation of currency among many other direct and indirectly related negative effects...The severity of these adverse effects will ultimately depend on the size of the corporation at hand. Corporations large enough, form such an integral part of a nations economic house of cards that when bankrupt, could partly or fully collapse the rest of an economic system. And indeed when it does, the effects are not only felt in the corporations home country, but also around global markets as with the 2008 economic crisis. Yes, taxpayers will have to pay for it but it should be seen more like a loan expedited in order to save the countries economy and further prevent a dispersal of negative economic effects from arising that can tear an economy progressively to shreds.

  • I agree that there are certain times where the government needs to provide financial assistance to companies because it in turn effects everyone if they DO fail

    There are many Americans out there right now with no jobs, no money, and no right way of life. We do not need to help increase that percentage of unemployment. What we do need to do is let the government in times of great need, even though it seems like an intrusion on an American's rights, the government is helping those Americans that have no say as to whether or not they should lose their job. The government is ensuring our safety and prosperity. "See a need, fill a need," (Robots the movie).

  • Yes, I agree that there are situations where the government should provide financial assistance to prevent private companies from failing, because some companies are too important to fail.

    There are companies that are so interconnected to the day-to-day life of the average American that their failure would have consequences that could lead to the failure of the U.S. economy. As an example, a failure of GM would have resulted in a loss for more than two million jobs, directly, and another 1.5 million jobs, indirectly. This would have raised the unemployment rate to more than 15%. The direct cost to the U.S. government would have exceeded $450 billions dollars, a lot more than the $150 billion in bailout aid granted. This doesn't take in to account profits that the government will make on the stock and options granted, in return for the bailout funds.

    Posted by: G4rwIsdead
  • That Would Be Rewarding Failure

    If a business is about to fail, and that's entirely their fault, not anybody else's. And why would you ever want to reward failure?

    Take Blockbuster for example. Who's fault was it that they failed? It's their own; they failed to find a way to compete with Netflix and Redbox, therefore, they want broke. If the government had given them our tax money, that would have only enabled their failure.

  • Hello It's me

    I just wanted to comment to make myself feel like I am part of something big. Yes I want attention. I Know people hate people who want attention but hey, what's life without a bit of troll? I'm continuing to write this because the word limit will not allow me to end it there anyways.

  • Hello It's me

    I just wanted to comment to make myself feel like I am part of something big. Yes I want attention. I Know people hate people who want attention but hey, what's life without a bit of troll? I'm continuing to write this because the word limit will not allow me to end it there anyways.

  • Keynesian economic growth can only help a short time

    If you allow any government to continually bailout companies you're only stalling the down fall of the economy, sure people keep their jobs and the poverty level goes down but in the long run, the money that the government throws into the economy to keep it from falling( through bailouts) simply increase our inflation rates which eventually lead to a near complete crash of our economy similar to the Great Depression in the 1930s.

  • Why should companies rely on the government

    If the companies have almost gone bankrupt once then how do we know they won't waste our money again. Also if the government bails out one company then why doesn't it bail out another. If the government helped out every single business that was in financial aid we would go bankrupt so why should the government be able to dictate which businesses get help

  • Governments should not bail out private businesses because they have reason for failure.

    A census conducted in the US has shown that private businesses have failed to fulfill a majority of criteria in order to create a substantial working private business. Some of these include lack of experience, poor location or poor money management. Therefore I think it is better for governments to not spend tax payers money on reviving failing businesses that might not even have a chance of surviving with the bail in place.

  • It is the company's resonsibility.

    I don't think the government should intervene and interupt the process of sowing and reaping. If the company is failing then it's either an unnecessary business or they are doing something wrong. Having the government bail them out of a hole that they dug just revokes the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions. It's a net that they don't deserve. Besides, there are hundreds of other things the government could be doing to help the economy that they currently aren't doing.

  • Law of diminishing returns predisposes all companies to finite growth.

    It's Economics 101. In fact, it used to be 9th grade General Business. It's my understanding that hasn't been taught in public schools for 40 years so it's really not surprising so many people now can't grasp such basic economic principles.

    There is no such thing as too large to fail. In fact, the opposite is true. If you prop up companies so massive they can't even feed themselves, you're throwing good money after bad and delaying the inevitable.

  • Money can be spent on more useful projects.

    A lot of governments make the mistake and start to give charity to failing businesses when they know the money can be spent on sectors such as health, road and urban infrastructure and also on schools. These sectors many not be what you would call economically beneficial however it helps with the development of a state in general and with such development comes improvement in all areas including the economics of a country.

  • Bail out's" hell no"!!

    In the real world of capitalism bailouts should not be allowed.
    No body bails out small business why should these corrupt large companies get special privileges?
    It's just irresponsible for governments to bail out any business!
    Let them go bankrupt. They will be bought out or closed down and somebody else will start over that's the way it should work.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.