The banking bailout was necessary to prevent a systemic collapse. What would happen if you went to the ATM tomorrow to get cash and couldn't get cash? What if no one could get cash? What if payroll services stopped issuing paychecks because the three or four largest banks in the country were shut down? There are so many unknowns, so many variables. I really think Paulson, et. al. felt that the risks to the global economy were so great that they had no choice but to put the money in. I do not want to contemplate what things would look like right now if the biggest banks had failed.
As for strings on the money, I don't know. The government acted as an investor, injecting capital in exchange for shares. Would a private investor normally have one or more seats on the board in exchange for the investment? Sure. But would you really want Congress to have seats on the boards of the biggest banks in the country? As distasteful as it is to fork over hundreds of billions without "guidance", I would rather have the money being managed by bankers than Congressional staffers. On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Cameron C wrote: > Yeah - it would be nice if this level of scrutiny was assigned to the > money loaned to banks. Really, it's just more proof that congress > can't spend money wisely under virtually any circumstance and no > matter which party is in control. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:285467 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
