4 ms·

> they invested because the market wasn't in a position to do so when the industry needed it How is this different than "The industry planned poorly and deserv

• kbenson 11y ago
  Because that industry employed two million people and a blow that large to the workforce with the economy how it was might have resulted in consequences that reached far beyond that industry. Put another way, a free market will result in the best solution. Eventually. There's no reason we can't target what might end up being cascading failures to reduce the negative swings in the economy. I would hazard that this will result in a better economic outcome quicker, but even if it doesn't, I think it at least results in less human suffering, which is a fair trade in my eyes.
• bildung 11y ago
  As I understood it, the durable goods industries are the part of an economy that gets hit the most in a recession: Whether B2B or B2C, in the case of an uncertain economic outlook many customers will postpone investments in durable goods (e.g. cars, machining, housing upgrades like better heating/isolation systems etc.) more than they'll do with other products. So: Many companies were similarly over-leveraged, but those in the durable goods industries were folding over it. See IIRC Finland as an example: No banking or housing problems in 2007/8, but still in a recession because of the big role durable goods exports play in their economy.