We Desperately Need a Twenty-First Century View of the Economy.

Evonomics ^ | 02-21-2016 | Nick Hanauer and Eric Beinhocker

[Toddsterpatriot]

For example, that the banking system as it currently exists is so important to the economy that it must be bailed out at taxpayer expense

There was no "taxpayer expense" for the bank bailout.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Years later, (with the exception of the $12 billion loss on the auto bailouts) the taxpayers came out (modestly, around 46 billion) ahead, and around 23 billon of that was from banks.

However - and this is a big however - it was not clear to anyone involved at the time, that the taxpayers would ever be repaid in full, or anything close to it.

The costs of systemic failure were considered so high that *any* amount of taxpayer loss would’ve been considered acceptable, and for several years taxpayers were deeply in the red.

The voters may not understand the exact nature of the bailout, but they had then, and have now, a good understanding of the reality that they were on the hook for any losses, and for several years losses were in fact what they saw.

And THAT’S what informs the voters current view of the bailout, and in my mind, rightly so.

______________

In this respect is worth considering what the alternatives might’ve been if the public interest rather than the solvency of the banks and investors had been the primary concern.

For example, instead of bailing Bank of America out of it subprime mess, the government could have refinanced mortgages for anybody who wish to, bpacked by treasury bonds, at around 3%, in return for government ownership of 50% of the proceeds on sale the property. In most cases write-downs could’ve been avoided, many more people would of stayed in their homes, and disposable income would’ve been much higher.

In my view, on just about every rational criteria this would’ve been a better program - but but of course it was never considered.-

[Toddsterpatriot]

The costs of systemic failure were considered so high that *any* amount of taxpayer loss would’ve been considered acceptable, and for several years taxpayers were deeply in the red.

When were they deeply in the red? Based on what?

In this respect is worth considering what the alternatives might’ve been if the public interest rather than the solvency of the banks and investors had been the primary concern.

The solvency of the banks was in the public interest.

For example, instead of bailing Bank of America out of it subprime mess,

How do you feel Bank of America was bailed out of its subprime mess? From what I saw, they lost hundreds of billions. The government didn't hand them any money to make up for those losses.