TARP now estimated to cost $356 billion

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: You’ll recall my recommendation of Farhad Manjoo’s “Post Fact Society” writings. Breezhnev is a slavish adherent to a group that fails to differentiate between Information and Knowledge. There is plenty of the former and precious little of the latter floating around the blogosphere.

Thus, his inability to successfully argue points (because he lacks facts and knowledge) and instead simply contents himself to upchuck vast amounts of information, which offers the appearance of knowledge, but, in reality, is simply noise. When called on his obvious lack of knowledge, he then resorts to name calling and strawman arguments.

I warned you about the rabbit hole, didn’t I? Any attempts to have a good faith debate with him will come to naught and for two reasons: First, he is truly ignorant on the subjects he’s attempting to discuss, and, second, at heart, he’s a polemicist. Never argue with someone who lacks the basic ability to separate fact from fiction.

[patientrenter]

[quote=davelj][quote=TheBreeze]

So much for TARP being ‘money good’.[/quote]

….it would be nice to wait until perhaps the latter innings of the game to start discussing how things are progressing.[/quote]

I am not going to spoil a good spat, and I don’t know the history of what sounds like a long-running feud, but…. I think Breeze (I like Breezhnev) has a point about the estimates the general public has been fed about the cost of the bailouts. Larry Summers and Chris Dodd and others had the temerity to spin stories about how the bailouts were mostly providing temporary liquidity, with not much chance that they would be providing a lot of solvency repair. That was a pretty straightforward twisting of the truth, and I think anyone who propagates that yarn should be called on it. Most of us are aware that solvency is the real fear, and the number isn’t small.

[patientrenter]

[quote=davelj][quote=TheBreeze]

So much for TARP being ‘money good’.[/quote]

….it would be nice to wait until perhaps the latter innings of the game to start discussing how things are progressing.[/quote]

I am not going to spoil a good spat, and I don’t know the history of what sounds like a long-running feud, but…. I think Breeze (I like Breezhnev) has a point about the estimates the general public has been fed about the cost of the bailouts. Larry Summers and Chris Dodd and others had the temerity to spin stories about how the bailouts were mostly providing temporary liquidity, with not much chance that they would be providing a lot of solvency repair. That was a pretty straightforward twisting of the truth, and I think anyone who propagates that yarn should be called on it. Most of us are aware that solvency is the real fear, and the number isn’t small.

[patientrenter]

[quote=davelj][quote=TheBreeze]

So much for TARP being ‘money good’.[/quote]

….it would be nice to wait until perhaps the latter innings of the game to start discussing how things are progressing.[/quote]

I am not going to spoil a good spat, and I don’t know the history of what sounds like a long-running feud, but…. I think Breeze (I like Breezhnev) has a point about the estimates the general public has been fed about the cost of the bailouts. Larry Summers and Chris Dodd and others had the temerity to spin stories about how the bailouts were mostly providing temporary liquidity, with not much chance that they would be providing a lot of solvency repair. That was a pretty straightforward twisting of the truth, and I think anyone who propagates that yarn should be called on it. Most of us are aware that solvency is the real fear, and the number isn’t small.

[patientrenter]

[quote=davelj][quote=TheBreeze]

So much for TARP being ‘money good’.[/quote]

….it would be nice to wait until perhaps the latter innings of the game to start discussing how things are progressing.[/quote]

I am not going to spoil a good spat, and I don’t know the history of what sounds like a long-running feud, but…. I think Breeze (I like Breezhnev) has a point about the estimates the general public has been fed about the cost of the bailouts. Larry Summers and Chris Dodd and others had the temerity to spin stories about how the bailouts were mostly providing temporary liquidity, with not much chance that they would be providing a lot of solvency repair. That was a pretty straightforward twisting of the truth, and I think anyone who propagates that yarn should be called on it. Most of us are aware that solvency is the real fear, and the number isn’t small.

[patientrenter]

[quote=davelj][quote=TheBreeze]

So much for TARP being ‘money good’.[/quote]

….it would be nice to wait until perhaps the latter innings of the game to start discussing how things are progressing.[/quote]

I am not going to spoil a good spat, and I don’t know the history of what sounds like a long-running feud, but…. I think Breeze (I like Breezhnev) has a point about the estimates the general public has been fed about the cost of the bailouts. Larry Summers and Chris Dodd and others had the temerity to spin stories about how the bailouts were mostly providing temporary liquidity, with not much chance that they would be providing a lot of solvency repair. That was a pretty straightforward twisting of the truth, and I think anyone who propagates that yarn should be called on it. Most of us are aware that solvency is the real fear, and the number isn’t small.

[davelj]

PR, I think it’s important to be skeptical. Hell, I’M skeptical. But I also think it’s important to have a half a clue as to what you’re talking about before discussing it with someone who may have a different view of things, but most certainly has half a clue. (That is, I may be wrong, but at least I have a knowledge base from which I can discuss the issue intelligently.) I generally follow Lincoln’s advice that, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

[davelj]

PR, I think it’s important to be skeptical. Hell, I’M skeptical. But I also think it’s important to have a half a clue as to what you’re talking about before discussing it with someone who may have a different view of things, but most certainly has half a clue. (That is, I may be wrong, but at least I have a knowledge base from which I can discuss the issue intelligently.) I generally follow Lincoln’s advice that, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

[davelj]

PR, I think it’s important to be skeptical. Hell, I’M skeptical. But I also think it’s important to have a half a clue as to what you’re talking about before discussing it with someone who may have a different view of things, but most certainly has half a clue. (That is, I may be wrong, but at least I have a knowledge base from which I can discuss the issue intelligently.) I generally follow Lincoln’s advice that, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

[davelj]

PR, I think it’s important to be skeptical. Hell, I’M skeptical. But I also think it’s important to have a half a clue as to what you’re talking about before discussing it with someone who may have a different view of things, but most certainly has half a clue. (That is, I may be wrong, but at least I have a knowledge base from which I can discuss the issue intelligently.) I generally follow Lincoln’s advice that, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

[davelj]

PR, I think it’s important to be skeptical. Hell, I’M skeptical. But I also think it’s important to have a half a clue as to what you’re talking about before discussing it with someone who may have a different view of things, but most certainly has half a clue. (That is, I may be wrong, but at least I have a knowledge base from which I can discuss the issue intelligently.) I generally follow Lincoln’s advice that, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Patientrenter: This goes back to our discussions regarding honesty and fairness. While I agree that both are very important and especially in light of the massive problems we’re facing, I also think that there is an “Oh, Shit!” aspect to this situation and the senior members of the Administration are keenly aware of it.

Rough calculations put the potential cost of fixing this around $20Trn. The USG does not have anywhere near the resources to take that on, hence programs like PPIP that are looking to create monetary velocity and private partnerships and all with the recognition that this problem is too deep and wide to be handled organically. If Obama, Bernanke and the senior Treasury people were to come clean on how big this problem truly is, I think the wheels would come off the wagon in really short order.

So, they’re pursuing their version of “small ball”, using all available tools (although not as effectively as they could, in my opinion) and doing their best to impart confidence (hence Bernanke’s appearance on “60 Minutes” and Obama’s on Leno) and injecting as much liquidity as possible through the various Fed/Treasury programs.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Patientrenter: This goes back to our discussions regarding honesty and fairness. While I agree that both are very important and especially in light of the massive problems we’re facing, I also think that there is an “Oh, Shit!” aspect to this situation and the senior members of the Administration are keenly aware of it.

Rough calculations put the potential cost of fixing this around $20Trn. The USG does not have anywhere near the resources to take that on, hence programs like PPIP that are looking to create monetary velocity and private partnerships and all with the recognition that this problem is too deep and wide to be handled organically. If Obama, Bernanke and the senior Treasury people were to come clean on how big this problem truly is, I think the wheels would come off the wagon in really short order.

So, they’re pursuing their version of “small ball”, using all available tools (although not as effectively as they could, in my opinion) and doing their best to impart confidence (hence Bernanke’s appearance on “60 Minutes” and Obama’s on Leno) and injecting as much liquidity as possible through the various Fed/Treasury programs.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Patientrenter: This goes back to our discussions regarding honesty and fairness. While I agree that both are very important and especially in light of the massive problems we’re facing, I also think that there is an “Oh, Shit!” aspect to this situation and the senior members of the Administration are keenly aware of it.

Rough calculations put the potential cost of fixing this around $20Trn. The USG does not have anywhere near the resources to take that on, hence programs like PPIP that are looking to create monetary velocity and private partnerships and all with the recognition that this problem is too deep and wide to be handled organically. If Obama, Bernanke and the senior Treasury people were to come clean on how big this problem truly is, I think the wheels would come off the wagon in really short order.

So, they’re pursuing their version of “small ball”, using all available tools (although not as effectively as they could, in my opinion) and doing their best to impart confidence (hence Bernanke’s appearance on “60 Minutes” and Obama’s on Leno) and injecting as much liquidity as possible through the various Fed/Treasury programs.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Patientrenter: This goes back to our discussions regarding honesty and fairness. While I agree that both are very important and especially in light of the massive problems we’re facing, I also think that there is an “Oh, Shit!” aspect to this situation and the senior members of the Administration are keenly aware of it.

Rough calculations put the potential cost of fixing this around $20Trn. The USG does not have anywhere near the resources to take that on, hence programs like PPIP that are looking to create monetary velocity and private partnerships and all with the recognition that this problem is too deep and wide to be handled organically. If Obama, Bernanke and the senior Treasury people were to come clean on how big this problem truly is, I think the wheels would come off the wagon in really short order.

So, they’re pursuing their version of “small ball”, using all available tools (although not as effectively as they could, in my opinion) and doing their best to impart confidence (hence Bernanke’s appearance on “60 Minutes” and Obama’s on Leno) and injecting as much liquidity as possible through the various Fed/Treasury programs.

[Author]

Posts