Two economists say in new paper that TARP worked

[Beet]

Via Ezra Klein...

"Zandi and Blinder offer the first comprehensive estimate of our full response to the crisis: Absent the financial rescue and the stimulus, 'GDP in 2010 would be about 6 ½ percent lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8 ½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/31/AR2010073100092.html

Economically, I'm inclined to agree. Still, it clearly hasn't been sufficient to restore a normal economy.

[memphis]

Were there ever many mainstream economists opposed to it?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

of course it worked (or at least pushed the failure of the banking system into the future)

anyone that doesn't understand you have to save your banking system shouldn't be commenting on economics.

[Lief 🗽]

People still railing against the bailouts are idiots. We even made all our money back. Probably the only good domestic policy of Bush's entire administration.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

TARP was really a no-brainer, but it took the Dems on capital hill to get it passed

[memphis]

People still railing against the bailouts are idiots. We even made all our money back. Probably the only good domestic policy of Bush's entire administration.

We got all the money back from the banks. Good luck with AIG.

[hcallega]

The second bill was poor, but very much needed.

I oppose the bailouts from a philosophical standpoint, as I generally believe that the banks and other entrenched interests should stand on their own. However it's also pretty obvious that our economy would be in the toilet without the bailouts, so it was a necessary evil.