To bail or not to bail

To bail or not to bail, that is the question.

I am sure the US public does not appreciate how the government is using taxpayers' money to bailout the corporations for their mistakes or greediness. Of course, the other course of action would be to let the banks and investments agencies go bankrupt, and then the government comes in to take over. In doing so, all the major banks and financial institutions will once again be state-owned, and public confidence can be restored.

Upon deeper analysis, I decided that a bailout would probably be better in the long run because:

1. Investors' and market confidence: For the past 20-30 years, the money structure has shifted towards the corporations. If the major financial institutions are forced to bankrupt, it will severely affect the investors' current investments and their willingness to invest in the US in the future. The main focus now has to be how to recover the market's confidence.
2. The real estate crisis: The housing market is a clear indicator of public confidence. Take away the investors and you are left with mostly people who cannot afford homes. This does not provide relief for the real estate crisis US is facing at the moment.
3. Jobs creation: US unemployment is the highest since September 2001. Businesses need capital to invest and create jobs. It will be a long and painful journey to recovery before the average US citizens have money in their pockets again.
   

Latest news-flash: an agreement in principle has been reached regarding the bailout. Guess that means that the government also believes that the market will not heal by itself and that the consequences to refuse the bailout package is simply too serious for everyone.