Of course. Its destroying capitalism. One of the main forces behind capitalism is the possibility of failure. Businesses do every thing they can to not let that happen...lower prices, better customer service, better products, etc. If the government is going to bail these companies out, it destroys the whole system.
Permalink | Report

Yes and no.

In the case of the banks, the answer is much more "yes" than "no". Banks are in the business of risk. Even a mortgage is a risk. Knowing and judging those risks is a job of a bank. They deliberately made risky choices in the mortgages they made and used financial trickery to treat them as if they were as safe as conventional ones.

The problem isn't so much in the bailout as that nothing has changed to encourage them not to take those risks. Those risks were extremely profitable for a time. Bailing them out was necessary (I'll get to that in a second) but it had to come with additional regulation.

In the case of the car companies, it's more "no". The car companies made a number of serious mistakes, but I wouldn't call them "risky" in the sense that they were knowingly taking a gamble. The worst mistakes by the car companies were made several decades ago, in signing union contracts that pushed the problems off until... well, now.

They also made a number of poor market choices. Those choices were wrong, but not obviously so at the time. They took essentially the same risk as any other company does, and those risks are overall a good thing for the economy.

Neither case is entirely yes or no, but the difference is that car companies are in the business of making a product with a reasonably well-defined customer base, while banks are more innovative about what they can create. That makes the banks riskier than the car industry.

In the interests of the overall economy, both bailouts were probably necessary. Banks underlie ever other transaction. The economy would recover eventually; new banks would replace the old ones. But the intervening time would have a contracting economy, throwing millions out of work.

The same applied to the car companies; with unemployment already high, failing to bail them out in order to teach a lesson would be cutting of our noses to spite our faces.

In the case of the auto industry, we're gradually getting less dependent on them. They need to make fewer mistakes, but if they have a similar crash in 20 years, there will likely not be a bailout. This one coincided with an overall crash (and was partly caused by it) so they got lucky. The next time they may not.

The banks, however, must learn some lessons, and so must the government. We can't afford to be so reliant on them that they can all crash at once and crash the economy. Working out how to save ourselves from that is difficult: there are always tendrils connecting them so seemingly safe events are often tied by risks we can't see. We've send an unfortunate message to them that they can play heads-they-win, tails-we-lose with the economy, and it was even more unfortunate that our losses could have been even worse.
Permalink | Report

Not along as the government insists that the management that got the company into the situation, leaves. Think of it as "evolution in action". Stupid managers get kicked out even as the company is saved.
Permalink | Report

I too am of the belief that it encourages risky behavior by the large companies who can act however they please with someone else's money. I'm not American as you know, but either way it will be each American paying for these large bailouts over their lifetime and their children's lives. In a free market system I think that you do well and thrive or make huge mistakes and die, making room for other companies who do things more efficiently or offer better products to come along and make a change. If this isn't allowed to happen it will make the US economy become more obsolete in the global marketplace.
Permalink | Report

I believe that the banks and car companies have learned there lesson in a big way. Besides that, since there are no longer huge amounts of sub-prime money to give to these companies to make loans to the same sub-prime people, the cycle has ended. We are no longer going to finance people who can't afford to make payments, thus strengthening the country once again.
Permalink | Report

There is absolutely no doubt that the government throwing money at businesses reinforces risky behavior. For example, if a baby kept sucking on candy and then ran out of candy because of it, would you go out and purchase another pack of candy for the baby? I think not.

When governments bail out companies they're setting a president that if your business is failing all you need to do to get more money simply ask the government.

What's an even bigger mistake is that no government official is regulating where the money should go. They're simply giving it to Presidents and CEOs to spend on themselves and make huge bonuses. The money is meant to stimulate the company, not the Presidents wallet.

This is all a clear message to governments that money isn't the answer, it's who's controlling the money.
Permalink | Report