3 ms·
OK, how was TARP not a gift?
by jsprogrammer 11y ago
OK, how was TARP not a gift?
- nickles 11y agoTARP has yielded a $64.5B profit [0] for the government. It was a loan, not a gift. It should be noted that the financial bailout was profitable, while the auto bailout netted a $9.5B loss [1]. [0] https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/business/us-signals-end-of-bailouts-of-automakers-and-wall-street.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/business/us-signals-end-of...
- ktRolster 11y agoOf course, the way the banks paid back TARP is with money given to them through the quantitative easing programs......
- jessaustin 11y agoAs the auto bailout shows, bailouts are risky. There was no guarantee that the Treasury would "profit" on either bailout. Therefore, these public actions must be judged in terms of public priorities, not by the "returns". Really though, does this have to be spelled out? The government should represent citizens, not investors. All of the chronic systemic problems that led to the "crisis" conditions in 2008 have only gotten worse since the bailouts. By that measure, they were not the best public actions that could have been taken, for the public. For Hank Paulson and his cronies, they certainly were the best public actions that could have been taken.
- gizmo 11y agoThe return on TARP money was far below market rate. The difference is unquestionably a gift. In addition, had the TARP money not been sufficient to get the businesses back to profitability an additional bailout would have followed. It's heads-you-win tails double-or-nothing game. The recipients understood this was a gift, which is why wall street cheerfully awarded itself 18 billion in bonuses after receiving 125 billion in bailouts.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jsprogrammer 11y agoA loan to save your bank from collapse when no one else will, is a gift.