Life jackets for select few

With all the bailouts taking place, there is excessive over supply of money in those countries. It would mean a dilution in the value of money in those countries. With any bailout taking place, it could only mean that the people outside of the bailout entity gets poorer as the value of the money they hold inevitably becomes of less value. Is that fair to the people?

It is unfair. That is against the rule of free market. It is only appropriate that at a time when the economy is down and if the business is unable to sustain in the economy, that the business is compelled to change stewardship. That would allow the business a chance to de-value and to re-adjust to its new equilibrium. Not to allow the business to adjust freely would be to distort the economy. And this would result in a mis-match in the perception of the people in assessing the economy. The economy then becomes tainted with government intervention distorting the free market theorem thereby causing a buoyancy in the market trends.

Additionally, the general public would invariably be affected and the value of their savings would also be adversely affected. And more so, if the public were to invest in businesses outside the ambit of the bailout.

It would seem that when the market is in turmoil, only life jackets are thrown out to certain people drowning at sea. That would seem unfair.

If bailouts must take place, the selection of the business to bailout must at least be an objective test. There ought to be an assessment of the reach that the business has. In order words, if life jackets are intended for only a select few, it must be those select few that has the most number of survivors / businesses clinging on the business that is selected for bailout. But even with the ability to do that, the distortion would still have been suffered.