The bail outs are loans paid back with interest. The privates scaled back and re tuned their operations quickly to pay back the loans. The government makes a profit from this. That saved jobs and allowed lending institutions to continue doing business. They all had a choice to shut down or default but who ultimately defaulted? The community banks and federal institutions that only came into existence from handout money that created them.
If the privates were as efficient as you suggest then they would never have needed the loans. Under a truly Capitalist system they would not have survived. Capitalism is not a viable long term system.
Capitalism continually attacks jobs. The logic always being that you can hire less people to do more and nothing will go wrong. It goes wrong every time.
So they defaulted. The fact remains that the privates wouldn't have survived without support. So what we conclude from this is that the crisis of Capitalism destroys all the banks, private or not unless they get support, which isn't Capitalistic.
Talking of work ethic, you do realise that the bankers and leading capitalists have been busily screwing the hard working poor (the lifeblood of the nation) out of what little they can earn? That destroys their work ethic. Is it any wonder that productivity is falling? If you look after the workers, they work harder and the country prospers.
So, you do have a point that only the private banks paid back. You have a point on this one issue. Now let me put to you the following examples of workers ownership and the Soviet Union being employed to produce superior products to Capitalism.
1: The T34 was produced by the Soviet Union. It's widely acknowledged to be the best tank of WW2.
2: The AK47 followed shortly afterwards. Since 1947 the AK47 and it's variants, eg AK74 (same basic model) has been the premier firearm in the world. More AK models exist than any other weapon. And it isn't just because they're illegally copied for free in the 3rd world (People could copy M16s after all, and DO copy MP5s)
It's because they work. The AK47 is a byword for reliability and whereas NATO firearms draw criticism for their small round, the 7.62 AK47 round is low powered enough to fire (unlike 7.62 NATO) in a rifleman role, it will knock a man out of the fight temporarily even if it doesn't penetrate body armour (remember that 5.56 NATO is widely derided for lacking power).
The AK model served before the M14 that was replaced by the M16 and outserved the original M16.
The american army has attempted multiple times to replace the M16. Each time has cost a pretty penny, yet failed.
The Russian army still uses an AK pattern rifle. In fact, a derivative of their current main service rifle (AK74) that uses the same ammunition currently serves as a PDW. It is in fact smaller than the FN P90 PDW - which uses different ammunition (but of a similar size) to the M16 family.
Since Russia became officially Capitalist she has attempted to replace the AK pattern rifles produced under the Soviet Union. Those AK pattern rifles still serve.
Why? because false though the Soviet Union was, it's Socialist influence produced superior products to Capitalism.
3: Since the introduction of the current american tank, the M1 abrams, their have been 3 seperate attempts to develop a barrel launched anti tank guided missile for it, which would allow it to engage enemy MBTs at extreme range.
Attempt 1 cost a pretty penny, but failed to produce a result.
Attempt 2 cost a pretty penny, but failed to produce a result.
Attempt 3 cost a pretty penny, but failed to produce a result.
Meanwhile, while the american army and the Capitalist system was sleeping, the Soviet Union enabled all it's MBTs to barrel launch Anti tank Guided Missiles to enable them to engage enemy MBTs (not unlike the M1 abrams) from extreme range. this means that tanks built in the Soviet Union can destroy an M1 before the M1 even gets within range to fire upon them. Why? because false though the Soviet Union was, it's Socialist influence produced superior products to Capitalism.
4: When a war that threatens the nation itself is on, survival comes before profit, in that situation, Keynesian economics is utilised to provide maximum productivity. Why? Because Capitalism isn't the most efficient system.
5: When a business is failing due to the inneficiencies of Capitalist style leadership, if the business is necessary to the health of the nation, it is nationalised and placed under workers control to rescue it.
Why? because the workers know what's best and the bosses blindly pursue profit, which leads to the downfall of the business.
Examples include British rail and Hawker Siddeley. Which produced the venerable Harrier.
6: During the 70s (I think) Capitalism underwent a financial crisis (as it does, every 20 or so years, unstable system that it is).
During this time america had to limit her production and flights of her F4 phantoms. The Soviet Union was suffering no such crisis and even upped production of their competing MiG27, just to make a point.
7: When Germany unified, it test flew it's MiG29's against (equivelant) F16s. The result? In a dogfight scenario. the MiG29 had the advantage.
Why? Because it had an off-boresight targetting system that the F16s didn't.
The Su27 also had such a system. It's equivelant F14s and F15s lacked the system. meaning that should the cold war have gone hot, experienced Soviet pilots would have been able to degenerate combat into a WVR dogfight (see the failure of the BVR centric Phatom during Vietnam) most of the time and then use their off boresight targetting system to win the battle.
Why? because false though the Soviet Union was, it's Socialist influence produced superior products to Capitalism.
8: How long does a TV last? Or a computer? About 5 years, right? What about a phone? Maybe one year. Why? Because they're built to break (this is referred to as built in obsolessence and is taught in many engineering courses).
The result is that people are supplied with sub-par products and the environment destroyed so that corporations can profit. However, it doesn't matter how much they profit; their inherantly unstable Capitalist model always leads them to fail (hence bank and auto bailouts).
My Georgian teacher in Russia told me how her Soviet television lasted 20 years and yet under Capitalism she has to buy a new TV every 5. "And we thought things would be better under Capitalism".
Why? because false though the Soviet Union was, it's Socialist influence produced superior products to Capitalism.
9: Capitalism supplies the goods only when there is no alternative. It's standard route is to charge more and supply less, if anything at all.
We teach our kids this stuff when they are young. Hand kids money whenever they want it and the will always expect it. When you cut them back they think it's not fair. Make them work for their money and they will learn to budget it and develop a work ethic.
But corporations don't learn to budget, do they? They always end up relying on the public purse.
