<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bill for The Financial Crisis Now 7.7 Trillion: How To Spend the Next Trillions So They Work</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/</link>
	<description>Firedoglake weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:17:46 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: wesgpc</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738198</link>
		<dc:creator>wesgpc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738198</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;My two cents, and admittedly my own opinion. Another advantage of Ian’s plan is that it is a way to speed the expected remaining drop in housing prices. Usually the slow deflation of housing bubbles is feature, not a bug. But I think that the current system of mortgage securitization (partially bailed our or not), cannot handle drops (probably not even slower appreciation) in housing prices, or lower than expected cash flows from the newly minted species of mutated mortgage monstrosities.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With the current system there is a good chance the continued, necessary, drop in housing prices in many areas of the country will simply generate more toxic waste securities and more froze up credit markets over the next couple of years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A Home Owners Loan Corporation style program could help with that problem. It would be nice to see Ian’s mortgag plan coupled with real Scandinavian/Nordic reckoning for financial institutions: partial natioanlization of troubled institutions, triage, program for oderly liquitidations and restructurings as appropriate. With preffered stocks and warrants in firms that can survive for the taxpayer.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My two cents, and admittedly my own opinion. Another advantage of Ian’s plan is that it is a way to speed the expected remaining drop in housing prices. Usually the slow deflation of housing bubbles is feature, not a bug. But I think that the current system of mortgage securitization (partially bailed our or not), cannot handle drops (probably not even slower appreciation) in housing prices, or lower than expected cash flows from the newly minted species of mutated mortgage monstrosities.</p>
<p>With the current system there is a good chance the continued, necessary, drop in housing prices in many areas of the country will simply generate more toxic waste securities and more froze up credit markets over the next couple of years.</p>
<p>A Home Owners Loan Corporation style program could help with that problem. It would be nice to see Ian’s mortgag plan coupled with real Scandinavian/Nordic reckoning for financial institutions: partial natioanlization of troubled institutions, triage, program for oderly liquitidations and restructurings as appropriate. With preffered stocks and warrants in firms that can survive for the taxpayer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: goldstandard</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738193</link>
		<dc:creator>goldstandard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:19:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738193</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Tim Geithner as new Treasury Secretary and Citigroup’s near failure and bailout dominated the news this weekend. Tim Geithner, who cares? He has been at the NY Fed pulling the levers alongside Bernanke and Paulson so he obviously doesn’t have the magic formula to save the world. As for Citi, I have just a few observations. First, wasn’t Citi supposed to be a potential buyer of Wachovia just 5 weeks ago? Weren’t they the Fed’s horse in that race? Didn’t they jump up and down stomping their feet while talking lawsuit against Wells Fargo’s deal intrusion? Did they have the money 5 weeks ago to purchase Wachovia? If they did then where did it all go? Money center bank, cornerstone of American capitalism goes from solid to bankrupt mush in the blink of an eye? Was it all smoke and mirrors 5 weeks ago? OK, no more questions, just a simple 2nd grade conclusion. It WAS smoke and mirrors then as it is now. It has been smoke and mirrors for so long that Wall Street, Washington, and Main St. all got lulled into believing everything from the improbable to the impossible to be the new certainty. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Picking apart the Citi deal is a little bit humorous. First, Citi has already gotten $25 Billion from the TARP just recently which turned out to have been less than a band aid. In this deal Citi will get a backstop of about $250 Billion for its CDO portfolio and as I understand it this is only for their “on balance sheet assets”, their “off balance sheet assets” dwarf what they show on the books. Citi will also get $27 Billion in exchange for warrants at $10.61 and 8% preferred stock. Citi closed on Friday with a market value of about $20 Billion after receiving $25 Billion just recently so this first $25 Billion has already been flushed, now the government put $27 Billion more and goes on the hook for an additional $250 Billion in guarantees? I don’t get it, the government has put together a $300 Billion package for a company that the market said was worth $20 Billion [and that was Friday before a bailout]. I guess they’ll deal with the bigger problem later [the off balance sheet black hole] &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;OK so let’s look at this from OUR standpoint, the citizens who are putting up the money. Treasury and the Fed have just put up $27 Billion for a 7.8% stake in a company that was valued at $20 Billion? This is paying 12.8 times the value of the $27 Billion, another way to look at it is the government is on the hook potentially for $306 Billion or 15 times Citi’s market cap. I am not a rocket scientist but with this type of deal I wouldn’t get in a car to the end of my driveway with the Treasury or Fed driving! What about the off balance sheet debacle? The on balance sheet goo was supposed to be “the good stuff”, what happens to the “bad stuff”? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;AND AS ALWAYS, WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM??? answer…out of thin air, the government can only borrow it. Well actually they do have another option. Once they can no longer borrow in the capital markets they will have only one option left, this option is always the last one used by every government in history that went bankrupt. THEY WILL PRINT, PRINT, PRINT! There are no other options left. I don’t know how long it will take for the masses to do the math on this but when they do, the “value of a Dollar” will be so far from the old saying “as good as Gold” as black is to white. There will be continued efforts at spin, forget it, the system we knew and loved is toast. Actually toast is too polite, after this fire there will only be ashes remaining.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim Geithner as new Treasury Secretary and Citigroup’s near failure and bailout dominated the news this weekend. Tim Geithner, who cares? He has been at the NY Fed pulling the levers alongside Bernanke and Paulson so he obviously doesn’t have the magic formula to save the world. As for Citi, I have just a few observations. First, wasn’t Citi supposed to be a potential buyer of Wachovia just 5 weeks ago? Weren’t they the Fed’s horse in that race? Didn’t they jump up and down stomping their feet while talking lawsuit against Wells Fargo’s deal intrusion? Did they have the money 5 weeks ago to purchase Wachovia? If they did then where did it all go? Money center bank, cornerstone of American capitalism goes from solid to bankrupt mush in the blink of an eye? Was it all smoke and mirrors 5 weeks ago? OK, no more questions, just a simple 2nd grade conclusion. It WAS smoke and mirrors then as it is now. It has been smoke and mirrors for so long that Wall Street, Washington, and Main St. all got lulled into believing everything from the improbable to the impossible to be the new certainty. </p>
<p>Picking apart the Citi deal is a little bit humorous. First, Citi has already gotten $25 Billion from the TARP just recently which turned out to have been less than a band aid. In this deal Citi will get a backstop of about $250 Billion for its CDO portfolio and as I understand it this is only for their “on balance sheet assets”, their “off balance sheet assets” dwarf what they show on the books. Citi will also get $27 Billion in exchange for warrants at $10.61 and 8% preferred stock. Citi closed on Friday with a market value of about $20 Billion after receiving $25 Billion just recently so this first $25 Billion has already been flushed, now the government put $27 Billion more and goes on the hook for an additional $250 Billion in guarantees? I don’t get it, the government has put together a $300 Billion package for a company that the market said was worth $20 Billion [and that was Friday before a bailout]. I guess they’ll deal with the bigger problem later [the off balance sheet black hole] </p>
<p>OK so let’s look at this from OUR standpoint, the citizens who are putting up the money. Treasury and the Fed have just put up $27 Billion for a 7.8% stake in a company that was valued at $20 Billion? This is paying 12.8 times the value of the $27 Billion, another way to look at it is the government is on the hook potentially for $306 Billion or 15 times Citi’s market cap. I am not a rocket scientist but with this type of deal I wouldn’t get in a car to the end of my driveway with the Treasury or Fed driving! What about the off balance sheet debacle? The on balance sheet goo was supposed to be “the good stuff”, what happens to the “bad stuff”? </p>
<p>AND AS ALWAYS, WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM??? answer…out of thin air, the government can only borrow it. Well actually they do have another option. Once they can no longer borrow in the capital markets they will have only one option left, this option is always the last one used by every government in history that went bankrupt. THEY WILL PRINT, PRINT, PRINT! There are no other options left. I don’t know how long it will take for the masses to do the math on this but when they do, the “value of a Dollar” will be so far from the old saying “as good as Gold” as black is to white. There will be continued efforts at spin, forget it, the system we knew and loved is toast. Actually toast is too polite, after this fire there will only be ashes remaining.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Synoia</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738174</link>
		<dc:creator>Synoia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:08:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738174</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;That’s only $257,000 for each US citizen. Peanuts.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That’s only $257,000 for each US citizen. Peanuts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alank</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738058</link>
		<dc:creator>alank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:58:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738058</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;The banks need to be split into the constituent parts that existed ante Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Stat.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The banks need to be split into the constituent parts that existed ante Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Stat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alank</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738042</link>
		<dc:creator>alank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:53:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738042</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Gotcha. Didn’t see that at first.  This is a Bloomberg estimate.  And they have litigation demanding transparency with regard to recipients of loans and the collateral accepted that Paulson characterized as ‘counterproductive.’ Right.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gotcha. Didn’t see that at first.  This is a Bloomberg estimate.  And they have litigation demanding transparency with regard to recipients of loans and the collateral accepted that Paulson characterized as ‘counterproductive.’ Right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jo6pac</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738036</link>
		<dc:creator>jo6pac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:49:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738036</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Is that all they’ve come with? That’s not even close shouldn’t it be about 70 Trillion in all? I wrote a few years ago the need to spell Trillion and now what the next number, anyone?&lt;br /&gt;
jo6pac&lt;br /&gt;
The race to the bottom continues&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the great updates Ian&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is that all they’ve come with? That’s not even close shouldn’t it be about 70 Trillion in all? I wrote a few years ago the need to spell Trillion and now what the next number, anyone?<br />
jo6pac<br />
The race to the bottom continues</p>
<p>Thanks for the great updates Ian</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: muleboy303</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738010</link>
		<dc:creator>muleboy303</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:27:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738010</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;point of personal pet peeve…&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;now that budgets/bailouts/rescues etc. are priced in Trillions (with a “T”) can we now dispense with&lt;br /&gt;
the *&amp;^%$#! PENNY ?&lt;br /&gt;
(to save a Billion (with a ‘B’)or two each year?)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>point of personal pet peeve…</p>
<p>now that budgets/bailouts/rescues etc. are priced in Trillions (with a “T”) can we now dispense with<br />
the *&amp;^%$#! PENNY ?<br />
(to save a Billion (with a ‘B’)or two each year?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cathy</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738006</link>
		<dc:creator>cathy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:26:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738006</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;It’s not that I have no hope, I just think that no amount of bailout in any way will solve the problem. Things just have to fail, and a lot of pain has to occur, like it or not. The institutions will fail anyway, no matter how much future borrowings we throw at it. Why waste the money? That may sound hopeless, but I think the recovery can’t happen until then and I’m optimistic about our future then.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It’s not that I have no hope, I just think that no amount of bailout in any way will solve the problem. Things just have to fail, and a lot of pain has to occur, like it or not. The institutions will fail anyway, no matter how much future borrowings we throw at it. Why waste the money? That may sound hopeless, but I think the recovery can’t happen until then and I’m optimistic about our future then.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hugh</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738002</link>
		<dc:creator>Hugh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:23:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1738002</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think that the bottom line that no one will face is that there is no solution to this problem. It’s not fixable. Period.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The tragedy is that it was both avoidable and even after it happened it remained eminently fixable.  But it will not be fixed as long as we have the idiots who created the problem (and this covers both Bush’s and Obama’s economic advisers) calling the shots on it.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I think that the bottom line that no one will face is that there is no solution to this problem. It’s not fixable. Period.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The tragedy is that it was both avoidable and even after it happened it remained eminently fixable.  But it will not be fixed as long as we have the idiots who created the problem (and this covers both Bush’s and Obama’s economic advisers) calling the shots on it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hugh</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1737999</link>
		<dc:creator>Hugh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:21:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/24/bill-for-the-financial-crisis-now-77-trillion-how-to-spend-the-next-trillions-so-they-work/#comment-1737999</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;There are so many loan modification programs out there that it is difficult to know what’s going on with them.  Most of them sound like BS.  Bair’s suggested loan modification program which so far seems like the best of the lot covered nonFannie/Freddie loans.  Of some 4.4 million of these that had problems, she thought that about half would be eligible for modification (2.2 million) and that 1/3 of these would re-default so in all about 1.5 million homes or about 1/3 of the original number (which again does not cover all the problem mortgages everywhere) would be helped.  So the numbers overall are worse than you suggest.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are so many loan modification programs out there that it is difficult to know what’s going on with them.  Most of them sound like BS.  Bair’s suggested loan modification program which so far seems like the best of the lot covered nonFannie/Freddie loans.  Of some 4.4 million of these that had problems, she thought that about half would be eligible for modification (2.2 million) and that 1/3 of these would re-default so in all about 1.5 million homes or about 1/3 of the original number (which again does not cover all the problem mortgages everywhere) would be helped.  So the numbers overall are worse than you suggest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
