6 ms·

All the expenditures on the right side of the '>' sign, with the possible exception of New Deal, were expenditures of consumption or large payments to foreign p

by marvin 18y ago

All the expenditures on the right side of the '>' sign, with the possible exception of New Deal, were expenditures of consumption or large payments to foreign powers, in other words money your economy will never see again. Expenditures. The government guarantees in relation to this series of bailouts are more akin to investments - some of the money will be lost, but not nearly 4 trillion dollars. This story is so factually incorrect I am tempted to flag it. It doesn't belong on the front page. It seems that a lot of people these days get angry about the economy without having any idea what they are talking about. Also note that 4 trillion dollars (or even 7) is less than half your gross domestic product. The United States can actually guarantee that much money. You guys are all buying houses worth more than three times your annual pre-tax income, right? In relation, this is peanuts. There are serious issues worthy of discussion in relation to US government intervention (for instance the lack of oversight, or whether it was a good idea in the first place), but this particular comparison is lame.

chaostheory 18y ago
"The government guarantees in relation to this series of bailouts are more akin to investments - some of the money will be lost, but not nearly 4 trillion dollars." How do you know? There is virtually no transparency aside from what it costs and where the money is being drawn from? Theoretically they can just use the money for parties and private jets, bonuses, or even purchase stock at double the market price... very sound investment indeed =)
- marvin 18y ago
  This is the fifth time you've made this point in this story's comments.
  - chaostheory 18y ago
    well people like you seem to ignore it =) and I still haven't gotten a good counter argument (it's actually just the 3rd time I think) and o yeah the investment argument has also been repeated to no end
    - krschultz 18y ago
      Because history does not side with you. We made money off the airline bailout in 2001. We made money off the Chrysler bailout in the 60s. While the government may have lost $200 billion in the S&L crisis, much more saved by preventing a longer depression and the associated loss of tax revenue. Expand the length of time and the breadth of the factors you are looking at and all of a sudden even 4 trillion dollars doesn't seem like a bad investment if the return is more than that - even if it is an indirect return.
      - chaostheory 18y ago
        It depends on historical perspective... it's all in the details. since this is a financial institution bailout (and not say an auto manufacturer bailout) - you've already proven my point. not to mention if you add up all of the gains and losses of previous bailouts (my math may be off so feel free to correct me http://www.propublica.org/special/bailout-aftermaths http://www.propublica.org/special/bailout-aftermaths), it adds up to a net loss of 173 billion dollars (it's probably more because I don't see Amtrak on the list - and that thing continues to lose money even today) (even if history was against me, there is still no good valid excuse for not having public transparency) krschultz your post, a logical and valid response, was all I was asking for. I just think it's lame when someone can't come up with a good counterargument, that they just post a petty complaint as a response
krschultz 18y ago
Don't just tempted be to flag it. Get this sensationalism out of here.
Prrometheus 18y ago
>Also note that 4 trillion dollars (or even 7) is less than half your gross domestic product. Also note that no recession has cost more than a 13.0% decline in real GDP, and the median recession costs about a 1.0% decline in real GDP. These bailouts are almost certainly more expensive than the recession they aim to prevent. And that is not even considering the costs of the long-term moral hazard they create, and the costs keeping inefficient industries on government life-support.

by marvin 18y ago

chaostheory 18y ago

"The government guarantees in relation to this series of bailouts are more akin to investments - some of the money will be lost, but not nearly 4 trillion dollars." How do you know? There is virtually no transparency aside from what it costs and where the money is being drawn from? Theoretically they can just use the money for parties and private jets, bonuses, or even purchase stock at double the market price... very sound investment indeed =)

marvin 18y ago
This is the fifth time you've made this point in this story's comments.
- chaostheory 18y ago
  well people like you seem to ignore it =) and I still haven't gotten a good counter argument (it's actually just the 3rd time I think) and o yeah the investment argument has also been repeated to no end
  - krschultz 18y ago
    Because history does not side with you. We made money off the airline bailout in 2001. We made money off the Chrysler bailout in the 60s. While the government may have lost $200 billion in the S&L crisis, much more saved by preventing a longer depression and the associated loss of tax revenue. Expand the length of time and the breadth of the factors you are looking at and all of a sudden even 4 trillion dollars doesn't seem like a bad investment if the return is more than that - even if it is an indirect return.
    - chaostheory 18y ago
      It depends on historical perspective... it's all in the details. since this is a financial institution bailout (and not say an auto manufacturer bailout) - you've already proven my point. not to mention if you add up all of the gains and losses of previous bailouts (my math may be off so feel free to correct me http://www.propublica.org/special/bailout-aftermaths http://www.propublica.org/special/bailout-aftermaths), it adds up to a net loss of 173 billion dollars (it's probably more because I don't see Amtrak on the list - and that thing continues to lose money even today) (even if history was against me, there is still no good valid excuse for not having public transparency) krschultz your post, a logical and valid response, was all I was asking for. I just think it's lame when someone can't come up with a good counterargument, that they just post a petty complaint as a response

krschultz 18y ago

Don't just tempted be to flag it. Get this sensationalism out of here.

Prrometheus 18y ago

>Also note that 4 trillion dollars (or even 7) is less than half your gross domestic product. Also note that no recession has cost more than a 13.0% decline in real GDP, and the median recession costs about a 1.0% decline in real GDP. These bailouts are almost certainly more expensive than the recession they aim to prevent. And that is not even considering the costs of the long-term moral hazard they create, and the costs keeping inefficient industries on government life-support.