I admit to not really understanding TARP. Some commentators I generally trust said that it was necessary to prevent a complete collapse of the world banking industry. I just don't know. My gut is against that kind of interference, but I know I don't have the knowledge to fully understand the situation. I'm left confused.
Corporate Welfare is socialism. I would rather have endured the hardships of a banking failure than to give a windfall to the banks so they can purchase more assets and pay down debt.
Some predicted that since there was more debt than currency in circulation that we'd have a complete financial collapse.
I don't think so, because debt can be easily erased. It happens all the time. Sure a bunch of people would lose their ass in the market, but thems the breaks. Maybe they would be more willing to invest in solid business instead of new "products" that someone dreamed up to take a dollar out of one pocket, and put two in the other.
They were also predicting the end of industry because no one would be able to get a business loan or line of credit. Oh well... Maybe they should have some cash on hand instead of running their business completely off of debt.
It was bad (nay, EVIL)... it was a seed of socialism being planted. It was the beginning of the new world order. Say hello to our new countrymen... canada and mexico...
The banks are better off. Part of the new banking restrictions also force the bank to keep a minimum amount of cash on hand. Hard to lend money when the feds force you not to lend it. Given that, banks are the only ones who are really better off.