3 ms·
Good. Now get to work devising a bill that has more oversight and whose tactics are more agreed upon by economists (capital injection a la Sweden in '92: http:/
by soundsop 18y ago
Good. Now get to work devising a bill that has more oversight and whose tactics are more agreed upon by economists (capital injection a la Sweden in '92: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23k...). Sweden spent 5% of its GDP but recouped 3% of GDP, for a 2% GDP net cost. Did anyone believe that 60% of the money spent by this defeated bill would have been recouped?
- fallentimes 18y agoBrilliant article - I've been sharing it with friends all day.
- krschultz 18y agoWell up to 40% could default on them before you got to that point. Right now no one knows what the rate will ultimately be. In some areas it is already 60%, but in some areas it is 5%, so 40% nationally would be a very high number. At that point the better question would be what to do with so many bankrupt people.
- soundsop 18y agoRemember, the 700 billion would purchase the worst bank assets, so presumably the associated mortgages would default at significantly higher rates than the national average.