"Some people hate me for this view, but TARP is looking better all the time."
I agree. Maybe it worsened moral hazard issues down the road, maybe some of the money has been spent beyond the intent of the program (GM anyone?), maybe it was bigger than it needed to be, but TARP and quantitative easing by the FED pretty clearly worked and worked well.
As a lagniappe, most of the money is actually getting paid back.
6 comments:
Of course back stopping shitty assets results in a boom. John Law could tell you that.
Seriously, is this as far as economics has come?
A fine demonstration that absolutely nothing has been learned by the monetarists.
Well, let's not jump to conclusions, will we. Let's see how the debt issue will be working out and how inflation reacts to this. Then we will see how much money it cost in the end and what will come of it.
I am also still worried that the boom will be jobless this time around. If that changes, we can debate about the merits. A jobless recovery only means that employers are too scared of longterm trends to hire new labour.
Where is the evidence that TARP 'has clearly worked and worked well'?
Also, given that you grant three (to me, seemingly major) problems with it, what does it mean to say that it has worked? Isn't it the case that the vast majority of the money hasn't even been spent yet?
sorry guys but this is the worst set of comments I've ever seen on this blog. Y'all are better than that (I hope).
So Angus, if it worked so well, and the US is going to turn a profit (we haven't seen the feds other assets) why shouldn't the government make "investments" of this sort all the time?
Post a Comment