Sunday, February 08, 2009


With all of the reasons tossed out for why a stimulus bill needs to be conservative, at least in comparison to the amounts many said would be necessary for an effective stimulus, what's the future of the bank bailout? I may not be thrilled about taking a huge money gamble to fix an economic mess largely created by the idiots who run our nation's banks, but I'm even less thrilled by spending hundreds of billions more to help save their jobs and prop up their bankrupt companies.

And in terms of that bailout....
Summers suggested the bank rescue plan may offer incentives for private investors to buy mortgage-related assets that have lost value because of the collapsed U.S. housing market.

"It can't all be private capital," Summers said on "Fox News Sunday."
It only takes enough private capital for securities not already guaranteed by the government to establish their market price; then the government can buy the rest at market value? Yeah, right.
"But with the right kinds of government guarantees, with the right kinds of financing ... with the right strategic approaches, Secretary Geithner believes that we can bring in substantial private capital," Summers said.
Why do I suspect that with Summers' version of "the right kinds of government guarantees", whether it's public money or private that "buys" the security, the taxpayer bears all the risk.

1 comment:

  1. Nothing to worry about there, Aaron. After all, Geithner was brought in to this administration because of his wealth of experience regulating banks and setting-up the TARP program . . . with that kind of experience behind him you can be sure that you and I will eat all of the risk.



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.