Why not $50 trillion? Make up any number you want
Forbes reports that "According to CreditSights, a research firm in New York and London, the U.S. government has put itself on the hook for some $5 trillion, so far, in an attempt to arrest a collapse of the financial system."
Comments (4)
How about a googol? That's a 1 followed by 100 zeroes. Now THAT'S what I call an economic stimulus.
How will we pay for it? Don't ask. And I'm certain the politicians won't.
Published: November 17, 2008 2:37 PM
The good thing about the unConstitutional coup is that since it is not the Constitutional Republic the legitimate U.S. government is not financially responsible for the profligacy of the illegitimate usurper.
The American people are not so fortunate but they can get some retribution for their victimization by seizing the the members of the inner circle of the unConstitutional coup and all of their collaborators.
Once seized, does the word 'Guantanamo' sound appropriate?
Published: November 17, 2008 5:02 PM
I can't wait for one of these creative economists with musical talent to put up a version of Stones' "emotional rescue" - or Financial rescue, with CEO's telling govt. agents "I count on your financial rescue" while the govt. agents responded: "you will be mine you will be mine, all mine"
Published: November 17, 2008 6:36 PM
The mises daily article "The Idiocy of Wall Street" by Don A. Rich gave what I thought was a sound explanation of the 5 trillion figure.
"More formally, there is a gap between the nominal and real value of debt instruments that across the entire credit spectrum easily exceeds $5 trillion, the risk of which the federal government has assumed."
That said, it's completely true that no one knows how much money will be spent, as is always the case when the people doing the spending aren't urged to production by their consumption. So it could be 500 trillion(which might still buy an oz. or two of gold by then) or more. It's worth noting that the Forbes article goes much further in depth than the Rich comment, but it essentially uses the same criteria for its estimate, piling up figures of bad debt and bad companies the government is apparently committed to 'fixing'. I would argue that Rich's less precise estimation is actually a cleverer position, given that most of the regulation and spending carried out by the government in responding to *this wave* of failures and bad market decisions will likely appear moderate when balanced with whatever spending that is sure to be proposed as their solution takes hold.
Published: November 18, 2008 12:42 AM