Saturday, June 27, 2009

Losing Bets: TARP, Zombie Banks, FDIC

No wonder this is a Friday/Saturday news release:

Of the original $700 B of TARP funding, CBO estimates that $439 B of the original $700 B has been spent, $280 B of that will be repaid and $159 B will not be repaid and will be a cost to the taxpayer. When you include the costs of FDIC actions and the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the expected cost to the taxpayer rises to about $553 B.

But hey: SPEND MORE, you Congressional jackasses!


Paul - Berry Laker said...

When will all this stop?

This is getting way out of hand!

steveegg said...

Does that include the $9 billion sent down the black hole formerly known as Chrysler or the $70 billion sent down Government Motors' black hole?

Dad29 said...

All I can tell you is what you saw in the post.

Frankly, does it make a difference?

J. Strupp said...

...and what would have been the cost of allowing our financial system to collapse?

For all it's faults, TARP managed to convince the banking system, stock market, American and global economies that the U.S. government would now allow our banking system, however flawed, to collapse under it's own weight.

For once, I give credit to the Bush administration for avoiding an outright catastrophy.

That's not to say that we don't have major problems to face up to down the road but.....

Beer, Bicycles and the VRWC said...

It has collapsed in the past and come out stronger. Only by allowing the bad actors to suffer the consequences of their actions will the system improve. Experience indicates government can only make it worse. The have prolonged the agony for GM and it will be the same for others. If they survive, it's because they would have anyway.

Dad29 said...

Since I advocated FOR the TARP at the time, Strupp, I agree with you, to some extent.

However, Citi must be sold off, like AIG, expeditiously.

And the Fed spending must be curtailed.

J. Strupp said...

I'm with you on Citi.

Deek, the U.S. banking system has collapsed numerous times in the past and has always been bailed out/backstopped by the U.S. government and/or other private financial institutions. The only reason our financial system has "come out stronger" after financial crisis is because the system was supported by the backing of U.S. government. Our current crisis is no different. The idea that our banking system is a completely capitalist entity is, and always has been, a fantasy.

The theory that our banking system (and American-style capitalism) would benefit from no government intervention during times of financial crisis and, therefor, endure total collapse because we want to "weed out the bad apples" is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Dad29 said...

Wrong, Struppster. The bank crashes in the early 1930's were NOT "Bailed out."

If they had been, you'd see a helluvalot more S&L's and banks around town.

J. Strupp said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
J. Strupp said...

Haha no you're right I'm wrong. I probably should have excluded the biggest financial crisis in American history before making that comment on government/private bailouts. Yikes.

I would only add that the early 1930's banking failures aren't exactly a blueprint to follow in times of financial crisis either.

Dad29 said...

In the final analysis, you propose to eliminate 'bubbles.' Ain't going to happen; they've been around long before the Tulip Craze and will remain a fixture.

That's a factor of human nature, not regulation, "backstops," or anything else.

But hey, discussions are fun.