←back to thread

335 points aspenmayer | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
GeekyBear ◴[] No.45008439[source]
Didn't we already cross this particular Rubicon during the auto bailout a decade ago?

Other examples:

> Since the 1950s, the federal government has stepped in as a backstop for railroads, farm credit, airlines (twice), automotive companies, savings and loan companies, banks, and farmers.

Every situation has its own idiosyncrasies, but in each, the federal government intervened to stabilize a critical industry, avoiding systemic collapse that surely would have left the average taxpayer much worse off. In some instances, the treasury guaranteed loans, meaning that creditors would not suffer if the relevant industry could not generate sufficient revenue to pay back the loans, leading to less onerous interest rates.

A second option was that the government would provide loans at relatively low interest rates to ensure that industries remained solvent.

In a third option, the United States Treasury would take an ownership stake in some of these companies in what amounts to an “at-the-market” offering, in which the companies involved issue more shares at their current market price to the government in exchange for cash to continue business operations.

https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2022/08/23/piece-of-the-acti...

replies(16): >>45008458 #>>45008466 #>>45008546 #>>45008710 #>>45008838 #>>45009730 #>>45009928 #>>45010439 #>>45010649 #>>45011116 #>>45011228 #>>45011332 #>>45012047 #>>45012973 #>>45014055 #>>45018837 #
freeopinion ◴[] No.45011228[source]
> government intervened to stabilize a critical industry, avoiding systemic collapse that surely would have ...

I guess we'll never know what would have, no matter how sure you seem to be.

I, for one, am still a little bitter about what could have been if not for a couple of those bailouts.

replies(1): >>45011373 #
1. mcny ◴[] No.45011373[source]
Did you also oppose the government stepping in when Silicon Valley Bank collapsed? The FDIC had a clear upper limits. It shouldn't have paid depositors more than that.
replies(1): >>45015819 #