Wall Street Debate
Buy custom Wall Street Debate essay
I firmly wish to oppose my worthy opponent who argued that the bailing out of banks and companies after the 2008 financial crisis was a right move. In my opinion, the action of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARD) which was hastily founded in order to aid the financial stability is not worth it. The plans to buy up the mortgage backed assets will turn out to be expensive to the taxpayers if the asset value is not recovered any time soon. The move has also significantly contributed to the swelling of the federal budget deficit from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion. It is also somehow frustrating to see how the senior employees in these companies and banks continue to enjoy huge payments despite having led the institutions into this mess.
Even after the bailout, the banks were still much afraid to lend again especially where the mortgage assets were used as collaterals. And with this reaction of the banks, the bailout process did not realize its intended purpose of reviving the economy. Banks and companies bailout was not the right decision for the government since the crashing housing market was the root cause of the crisis (Cox Para 5). Although the bailout allowed the approval of new mortgages, and prevented worsening of the housing crisis, but it could not address the mortgage payment problems that banks were experiencing at that time. The government could therefore have thought of solving the mortgage repayment problems to the low and middle class earners. Solving problems such as unemployment and inflation was the best move towards reviving after the 2008 financial crisis and not establishing or raising the bank bailout amounts.
The $700 billion set out by the government to bailout the banks continued to increase the United States National Debt and therefore suppress the economic long-term health. In addition, the amount added an extra burden to the taxpayers who will be required to repay the loan. This is a moral hazard which ought to be completely avoided at all time. We should not encourage firms to undertake reckless risks with an aim of being bailed-out whenever their risks materialize. Government should not over-burden the taxpayers for the mistake of the reckless banks and companies who sort to maximize their risks without weighing their consequences (Muolo 10).
And in case the bailout is a must, then the government should seek ownership of stock or equity from the affected companies and banks in order to ensure that the taxpayer benefits from the move later. But it was important for the government to find a lasting solution for the 2008 financial crisis, other than the bailout effort which was only short lived (Wright 64).
The bailout only solved the short-term credit crisis, and it worsened the long-term economic health of the country. It is obvious that the bailout process involves confiscation of money from the productive members of the economy and lending it to the failing ones. It therefore seeks to sustain the obsolete and unsustainable businesses at the expense of the productive ones and it’s not right (Wright 38). The government ought to have allowed the free market regulation to naturally overturn the financial backlog. Our economy should naturally regulate itself by separating the winners from the losers in the economy. The bailout also significantly lowered the standards of the giant companies since it showed their managerial inefficiencies. Banks and companies should therefore establish strict measures to help them overcome the economic shocks and should not depend on such bailouts in future as they can never be guaranteed. I therefore urge my worthy opponents to join me and the rest of united Americans, and reject the idea that the bank and companies bailout in the 2008 financial crisis was a right move.
Buy custom Wall Street Debate essay