Government Bailouts Should the government be responsible to bailout financial institution to avert an economic disaster? For Government Bailouts of Financial Institutions The government should be involved in the bailout of financial institution. The main reason is that these companies are too complicated and interfaced nationally as well as internationally for the government to consent to flop (Newton, et al, 2011). This may bring about a diversion in a sequence of international irreversible financial catastrophes. Financial institutions like the American International Group provide insurance and financial services as its main goods and have made investments in other commercial aspects like skiing, houses, telecommunication and ports among others (Arends, 2008). This company like many others has created operations in many nations across the world where it offers varied business and brings back revenue for their countries as well as the home country. With the government making a choice of issuing financial incentives to such institutions; for instance $85b to the American International Group as bailout, it takes into consideration the set-up of the firm and how its letdown would finish the people who have policies with these institutions as well as the employees. This is an act of placing the people in the fore front and being active so as to safeguard against a bigger catastrophe; this was hinted by the AIA which is an associate of the AIG in Singapore in 2008 (Debate, 2012; Hamilton, 2012). The holders of the policy decided to pull out their money from the institution in light of the impending crisis. This brought about the termination of employment of the CEO of the AIG. The let down by the government to save AIG financially would have brought about a bigger catastrophe since a number of the clients had had their liquidity frozen and hence were not able to acquire financial promises. Businesses that are interfaced to the American Group may have limited or none availability to credit and most definitely not able to acquire their wage bill (Johnson et al, 2011). This form of situation may bring about intense issues throughout the whole world and limit the revenue acquired in the stock market, banks as well as the associated firms. The government may similarly be on the losing end, since limited taxes would be acquired, when the firms are not in a position to acquire raw products and other vital facilities that are important to create products and services. The government has to put into focus the possible provision size of the company and measure it alongside the cost of issuing a bailout. Approving a bailout assists to bring back confidence and stability in the international market and simultaneously make it possible for the financial institutions to have the much needed space to make right their financial cash flow issues. Adversity may be diverted in India and China and other countries connected to the AIG. The auxiliary holdings that are there around the world in addition to the operations in other cities; like for the AIG it is California and New York would be placed in safe hands due to the intelligence and on time steps of the government (Debate, 2012). The correct decision, in regard to the American International Group, was made and brought about the restoration of confidence in the operation of its activities in new management and tight policies that would make sure that a high level of responsibility and transparency would be acquired. The bailouts offer a safe bench that the economy could start from. Though it would result to high level of debts, the country is not in a position to do without the financial industry and look forward to keep a successful GDP. The banks would have to begin from the beginning since lack of finances would lead to a domino implication. Based on studies done by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment chances have gone up; hence there have been a drop of the unemployment rate as well as layoffs. This research brings forth the idea that additional employment is there and they are able to sustain them. With a slow economy several Americans are able to get jobs and drop of unemployment as well as layoffs proving that the government bailouts are economically sufficient. Against Government Bailouts of Financial Institutions The government bailouts of financial institutions have offered some of relief to some firms that have faced intense issues, bailouts such as Fannie Mae and AIG (Hamilton, 2012). However, the relief has not been that much of a relief to the nation as it will acquire through being able to remove the burden and barrier of the government. The government has not been able to develop its capability through acquiring a front row stand in the economy, providing monopolies through amalgamating with privately owned companies and taxing rich and reallocating from several groups, they have made it clear that it is vital and for œOur own benefit. The bailouts that are being fronted may appear valid at first sight. However, it is said that the œproperty values will drop if people leave their dwellings in drives? It is true that the property values will decline with individuals foreclosing the homes (Arends, 2008; Johnson et al, 2011). This is vital since the cost of property had been bid greatly in the first case and has to drop. We actually do not need home prices, we talk so much about great food and gas prices and need them to drop. However due to some reason, the home costs ought to still be high. In regards to new homebuyers they have to be forced to pay artificially high costs for new homes. The prices ought not to be fixed high or on a limited size though should be definite by the free market. Individuals that pay high costs for services and products like homes, make the wrong business choice. They see their products that they acquired as a base of investment and counted them to elevate their prices. Every investment has a specific portion of risk that is connected to them. One may acquire or lose money. If the prices, like the homes, went on to increase and people using the products terminated and used other options should the governments have got involved and terminated their revenues? No However if these financial firms leave their businesses then they are not bound to lose employments opportunities that they create. It is definite that there will be several individuals who will be out of employment in the financial industry. However, there will be more that will be out of employment in other industries if the government intervened financially (Horn, 2013). The government does not create anything. The provision that the Government Issue is wealth or capital that it terminates through taxing, hence, what the state offers to a precise group it acquires from another group. Ever other industry is bound to have limited money to invest in and offer jobs if their profits are taxed. Take an instance where several individuals buy huge cars when gases are affordable. They projected that the gas cost would not increase. And then much later the gas prices increase. The deduction from this is that the cars may not be used to go to work adding to the fact they will not be able to make money purchase stuff. Less money will be created and spend and hence the varied industries in a country will suffer. People will be forced to do away with certain things so as to meet others; houses will not be ended and lead to renting (Arends, 2008). The value of properties will decline for several people. The government has to get involved and help out. This is the economic insanity that is prevalent in the present financial industry. The government has been believed to get involved and subsidized products. The government has to take money by force through taxation and offer it to help make an industry effective (Horn, 2013; Newton, et al, 2011). The government then has to help financially firms that suffer from losses like Ford and GM, it similarly has to bar new firms from coming up since they do not have the subsidies offered by the taxpayers. They are not huge to fail. Hence it is economically sufficient to go on subsidizing which motivating companies that misread the market and wastes resources. Conclusion The government has no role to play in business. It has a poor performance record considering that they do not have either profit or loss motivator. They are able to recover losses with the help of taxation or increasing the money and being on the fore front to use it before the prices increase. There is no a single model like the price model which the free market offers to show how to bets issue resources. What though is it that has crept up in the US to make people think that the government is more liable to these firms? The government™s viable commercial operation has brought about a 1 trillion debts and financial institutions look up to the government to save them. The wreckless and rash financial policies will bring about several people in the country to be financially suffering. They have to come to a halt, not just since it is economically a failure. The policies would bring about socialism and fascism. The growth of the government™s ability normally arises from a loss of autonomy to the person. References Arends, Brett (2008). œWhat the Housing Bailout Means to You. Wall Street Journal. Acquired from: Debate (2012). Have government bailouts proven to be beneficial economically? Acquired from: economically Hamilton (2012). A historical perspective on the role of government during times of financial crisis. Acquired from: Horn, C. (2013). Working Scared (Or Not at All): The Lost Decade, Great Recession, and Restoring the Shattered American Dream. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Johnson, A. et al (2011).Battleground: Government and Politics: Government and Politics. California: ABC-CLIO. Newton, L. et al (2011). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society. New York:McGraw-Hill Education.