|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Personally, I was VERY anti-bank and anti-bailout to a degree. I wouldn't want to lose my savings and bank accounts, but at the same time, what went around should go around. I think one of the reasons the pay of jobs haven't equaled out to the inflation is due to things like how we bailed out the banks. If we had a HARD crash, I think balance would eventually have been restored without a bailout, and pricing on homes, houses, and necessities would also have balanced out to where your average person could afford them.
I've said before, we handled the bank bailouts in about the worst manner possible - except for letting them collapse. They truly were too big to fail. Letting things take their course would have been a HARD crash, far, far worse then what actually happened. We'd still be sifting through the rubble.
The libertarian fantasy that letting the market sort itself out is best is horribly, horribly wrong.
As I said, we did it in a very bad way. Far too easy on the banks. Without the controls and requirements to keep them under control. Temporary nationalization - like the FDIC does routinely with smaller banks. Break ups to keep them from being too big to fail. Haircuts for ceos & stockholders. Perhaps bailing out the mortgages rather than the banks.
"Let it all burn" wasn't an option.