> In exchange for essentially worthless assets, no?
Clearly not, considering they were able to sell it for a profit later.
>Turning $426B in 2009 into $445B in 2014 comes out to an 0.76% ROI, so not exactly a good deal for anyone but the shareholders who didn't lose their shirts.
I'm not claiming that it's a $0 bailout either. I'm only pointing out that $1 spent on anti‐poverty programs isn't comparable to $1 of TARP spending, so trying to directly compare the two like the parent poster was doing is misleading.
Clearly not, considering they were able to sell it for a profit later.
>Turning $426B in 2009 into $445B in 2014 comes out to an 0.76% ROI, so not exactly a good deal for anyone but the shareholders who didn't lose their shirts.
I'm not claiming that it's a $0 bailout either. I'm only pointing out that $1 spent on anti‐poverty programs isn't comparable to $1 of TARP spending, so trying to directly compare the two like the parent poster was doing is misleading.