Why were banks bailed out? Doesn't make more sense bailing out the people instead?


Banks made mistakes and they should be accounted for them. This year we will see a return of the bonus culture when there's still many people loosing their jobs. It would engender it a slower recovery, but it would be less painful for the tens of millions of charge payers. I can't understand why the tax payer should bail out a few thousand bankers for their mistakes. There's millions more people out in that than bankers. Why do we keep helping these few bankers that have got adjectives the money they will ever need in life and lives to come?
Best Answer:
Oh good afford it to taxpayers who won't pay off their bills. Soon banks own NO MONEY, because the taxpayers OWE them the money and declare bankruptcy. Now ALL money is worthless. Yeah that would have be a great plan. Complain about AUTO MAKERS getting money, since they went Bankrupt anyway.
they be thinking the banks would make getting a loan easier instead it went into bonuses for the executives
The mistake the U.K. Government made be they have allowed Banks to write off their debts that came just about by their greed, by giving them billions of our pounds. The Banks are now sitting back refusing to lend money to businesses that are in a minute going bust because of it. The Government should make them start lending again or make them settle back the money. If they then go bust so be it, why are Bank job more important then Car, Steel, Building or other Manufacturing jobs?
If the taxpayer were bailed out, Obama couldn't push his socialist agenda to take over adjectives those banks, auto manufacturers, healthcare, etc. Besides, the government doesn't trust the inhabitants to use the money in a "smart" way. Remember: it was the general public that elected these fools to office to start with.
If the govt didn't bail out the banks, next a lot of them, maybe all of them, would enjoy gone under, which should have been a fitting punishment for their routine. But if that had been the case after all of OUR money, in those banks, would hold gone down the toilet too, leading to out country going bankrupt. How would you have compensated for food etc? It might not sound like the best plan when regarding the outrageous arrangements of the banks, but when it comes to us having money in our pockets it be really the best thing to do. Basically, its the choice between having no money at all, or have a little less over a long period of time - I know which one I'd fairly choose!
Banks are responsible for the money supply. Because bank loans become the increase deposits of the borrower. Each modern loan creates money. What is a deposit. My checking account of $10,000 at XYZ bank is a $10,000 asset to me but it is a corresponding $10,000 liability to XYZ bank. This is because adjectives financial assets net to zero. A bank deposits is merely such an asset. So too is a share of stock. It is an asset of the shareowner but a liability of the corporation whose shre it is. A bank is broke when bank liabilities exceed sandbank assets. What are bank liabilities? Your deposits. In the absence of deposit insurance by the FDIC, downfall of banks menas that you, yes you the deposit lose money. Essentially a bank bailout is bailout of you, yes you the depositor. The real problem is the confusion of the cost of housing for the attraction of your home. Because everyone needs a place to live, someone who owns his home own a zero position. He owns nothing because his asset -- the house -- exactly offset his liability -- the need to find someplace to live. Only if you buy two homes do you have a POSITIVE [net long position in nouns lingo] value in your home. If the general price of houses increases, both your costs [liability] stir up as well as your assets. Net net it is a zero. Likewise if house prices decline. The one and only people for whom this not apply are renters and landlords and homebuilders who have a NEGative, POSitive and POSitive position respectively.
No. They didn't produce mistakes. Government officials encouraged them to give mortgages to underprivileged relations and promised they would back up the banks. So now you must. All sumptuousness from the government actually comes from you and/or your descendants. Government has no magnificence, but has put you and your descendants into several trillions of dollars in debt pretending to keep it's hollow promises and much more is coming. The problem be initialed almost four decades ago when the rice yields were tripled. Instead of beginning to factor their population like the Euro-cultures did, Asian and African cultures tripled their populations and ate up the new bounty. At about impossible to tell apart time cheap container shipping allowed work to be globalized, so jobs moved to the ever more desperate grossly overpopulating cultures. Initially it was most of lower level industrial job but escalated up even into middle management. The poor become poorer because they cheapen their labor by overpopulation and that makes the rich richer. Since everyone was accustomed to squandering and debt, the bank where hung out to dry by the squandering, indebted societies. When the people began to evasion en mass, the banks began to fail. They needed to be save because they are conduit for the economy. The problem progressed from squandering indebted societies, government trying to "equalize" debt access to people not financially skilled of supporting their debts, overpopulating cultures causing loss of jobs and reduction of wages, non-attendance of debts because of that, and failing banks because of the wholesale defaulting.
Because the Government (especially the current British one) doesn't really know what it's doing when it comes to the economy..... http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/23/whos-to-blame/ http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/30/how-we-got-into-this-mess/