3 ms·
Well, normally a bailout doesn't involve just giving people money (the bank bailout was a loan), but you could do that, it'd be a massive cost however. The bigg
by ImprobableTruth 5y ago
Well, normally a bailout doesn't involve just giving people money (the bank bailout was a loan), but you could do that, it'd be a massive cost however. The biggest winners would also be those with terrible loans/those who issued them.
Alternatively, you could just give all homeowners a loan instead - but this doesn't change the fundamental issue of subprime mortgages, so it would really just be pumping up the bubble further.
- saganus 5y agoAh, I see what you mean by "simply". Yeah, I guess there's definitely a ton of side effects depending on which way you go. However, the optics of giving banks more "free" money at the expense of "the people" is not good regardless. I wonder what would happen if the government extends almost-free loans to whoever has a mortgage. I imagine a lot of people would use it to pay it, but probably a ton more would just use it to get a bigger TV, a car or something similar. No way to win either way it seems.