By Joseph Stiglitz
Much has been made in recent years of private/public partnerships. The US government is about to embark on another example of such a partnership, in which the private sector takes the profits and the public sector bears the risk. The proposed bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entails the socialisation of risk – with all the long-term adverse implications for moral hazard – from an administration supposedly committed to free-market principles.
Defenders of the bail-out argue that these institutions are too big to be allowed to fail. If that is the case, the government had a responsibility to regulate them so that they would not fail. No insurance company would provide fire insurance without demanding adequate sprinklers; none would leave it to “self-regulation”. But that is what we have done with the financial system.
Even if they are too big to fail, they are not too big to be reorganised. In effect, the administration is indeed proposing a form of financial reorganisation, but one that does not meet the basic tenets of what should constitute such a publicly sponsored scheme.
First, it should be fully transparent, with taxpayers knowing the risks they have assumed and how much has been given to the shareholders and bondholders being bailed out.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

Back to Economists' Forum homepage
Leading economists discuss topics raised by 
With most of the world’s big economies now officially out of recession, the Financial Times examines the legacy of the worst global economic crisis since the 1930s. See our in depth page:
News, data and opinions on market-moving economics. Read posts from Chris Giles, the FT's economics editor, Krishna Guha, US economics editor and Ralph Atkins, Frankfurt bureau chief.