3 ms·

Because history does not side with you. We made money off the airline bailout in 2001. We made money off the Chrysler bailout in the 60s. While the government m

Because history does not side with you. We made money off the airline bailout in 2001. We made money off the Chrysler bailout in the 60s. While the government may have lost $200 billion in the S&L crisis, much more saved by preventing a longer depression and the associated loss of tax revenue. Expand the length of time and the breadth of the factors you are looking at and all of a sudden even 4 trillion dollars doesn't seem like a bad investment if the return is more than that - even if it is an indirect return.

chaostheory 18y ago
It depends on historical perspective... it's all in the details. since this is a financial institution bailout (and not say an auto manufacturer bailout) - you've already proven my point. not to mention if you add up all of the gains and losses of previous bailouts (my math may be off so feel free to correct me http://www.propublica.org/special/bailout-aftermaths http://www.propublica.org/special/bailout-aftermaths), it adds up to a net loss of 173 billion dollars (it's probably more because I don't see Amtrak on the list - and that thing continues to lose money even today) (even if history was against me, there is still no good valid excuse for not having public transparency) krschultz your post, a logical and valid response, was all I was asking for. I just think it's lame when someone can't come up with a good counterargument, that they just post a petty complaint as a response