I'm confused about what seems like conflicting info in the wikipedia article. I can't reconcile the quote you picked from the intro with two statements in the 'Impact' section:
> In total, U.S. government economic bailouts related to the global financial crisis had federal outflows (expenditures, loans, and investments) of $633.6 billion and inflows (funds returned to the Treasury as interest, dividends, fees, or stock warrant repurchases) of $754.8 billion, for a net profit of $121 billion.
> A 2019 study by economist Deborah Lucas published in the Annual Review of Financial Economics estimated "that the total direct cost of the 2008 crisis-related bailouts in the United States" (including TARP and other programs) was about $500 billion, or 3.5% of the United States's GDP in 2009, and that "the largest direct beneficiaries of the bailouts were the unsecured creditors of financial institutions."[92] Lucas noted that this cost estimate "stands in sharp contrast to popular accounts that claim there was no cost because the money was repaid, and with claims of costs in the trillions of dollars."
Yes and no. The government still has to pay interest on its debt, which is paid with tax receipts. The government shouldnt be in the business of making money, yes, but it also has to spend less than it makes. In this case, these loans would have had a negative real yield, meaning they made things worse debt wise. The consequence for higher debt, is devaluation of the dollar and these massive and frequent swings in economic conditions.
You should read the creature from Jekyll island. Bailouts just make the problem bigger and more centralized. It cant fix anything, its not possible, that debt still exists on someones balance sheet, it still accrues interest.
As you say, their profit isn't the point. Giving someone a loan with low enough interest is basically just handing them money free and clear with extra steps. So the real question is whether the handouts to the banks helped the populace or came at their expense. Would other uses of the money have helped more?
> In total, U.S. government economic bailouts related to the global financial crisis had federal outflows (expenditures, loans, and investments) of $633.6 billion and inflows (funds returned to the Treasury as interest, dividends, fees, or stock warrant repurchases) of $754.8 billion, for a net profit of $121 billion.
> A 2019 study by economist Deborah Lucas published in the Annual Review of Financial Economics estimated "that the total direct cost of the 2008 crisis-related bailouts in the United States" (including TARP and other programs) was about $500 billion, or 3.5% of the United States's GDP in 2009, and that "the largest direct beneficiaries of the bailouts were the unsecured creditors of financial institutions."[92] Lucas noted that this cost estimate "stands in sharp contrast to popular accounts that claim there was no cost because the money was repaid, and with claims of costs in the trillions of dollars."