Whenever I discussed the current bailout situation with people, I find they have a hard time comprehending the actual numbers involved. I needed some way to put this into proper historical perspective.
If we add in the Citi bailout, the total cost now exceeds $4.6165 trillion dollars. People have a hard time conceptualizing very large numbers, so let's give this some context. The current Credit Crisis bailout is now the largest outlay In American history.
Research crunched the inflation adjusted numbers. The bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures - combined:
· Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
· Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
· Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
· S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
· Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
· The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
· Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
· Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion
TOTAL: $3.92 trillion
______________________________________________________________________
Whenever I discussed the current bailout situation with people, I find they have a hard time comprehending the actual numbers involved. That became a problem while doing the research for the Bailout Nation book. I needed some way to put this into proper historical perspective.
If we add in the Citi bailout, the total cost now exceeds $4.6165 trillion dollars. People have a hard time conceptualizing very large numbers, so let's give this some context. The current Credit Crisis bailout is now the largest outlay In American history.
Jim Bianco of Bianco Research crunched the inflation adjusted numbers. The bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures - combined:
· Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
· Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
· Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
· S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
· Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
· The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
· Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
· Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion
TOTAL: $3.92 trillion
______________________________________________________________________
You can tell the feds are bailing out mortgage lenders by the way no one wants to call it a bailout.
President George Bush made that clear last week when he announced his plan to rescue broke borrowers. "A federal bailout of lenders would only encourage a recurrence of the problem," Bush explained.
So this is not a bailout, you see, because it is for the borrowers, not the lenders. And if you believe that, then you'll also believe that the Federal Reserve has been shoving money at the banks by the billions in recent weeks in order to help borrowers, too.
In truth, what Bush has proposed is far worse than a bailout. Federal regulators and policies would supplant market discipline and price signals in the mortgage market. And all because a long-overdue correction in the domestic mortgage-making sector manifested itself this summer.
What is happening with real estate lending now is not unlike the dot-com bust. America survived that bubble. Then, as now, actual income-production became secondary to complicated financial constructs which obscured the underlying business. If there ever was a business. Recall that Enron invented entire energy-trading markets that ultimately dealt in nothing.
The mortgage industry is not quite that far along, but it is close. Although securitization of mortgages has overall been a great boon to both borrowers and lenders, spreading risk and allowing many more mortgages to be issued than otherwise be the case, it has also brought the derivative frenzy and the obsession with yield that has landed us in correction mode.
The very move into the subprime market-make that a stampede-was predicated on the notion that the added risk could spread thinly enough not to matter while collecting the massive bonus of substantially higher interest rate income streams. Those streams could then be further bought and sold, adding yet more margin to the endeavor.
And this worked, to some extent. Countless subprime borrowers got loans and homes and are not now facing foreclosure. This inconvenient bit of information has to be forgotten in the rush to condemn the "excesses" of subprime leading. Still, somewhere along the way, the vital link between a borrower who is making monthly payments and all the wheeling and dealing in securities was broken. Without those payments, you do not have mortgage to buy, sell, or trade. With dot-coms, it was the lack of income-producing products that triggered the correction. In past few weeks lenders-and traders downstream dealing in mortgage derived instruments-have rediscovered that is really does matter who you lend your money to, assuming you want any of it back.
There is another aspect of the current mortgage industry that is often overlooked, and it too is related to income streams. The streams are what lenders want, not the underlying real estate assets. In contrast to years past, there is no Dirk Dastardly down at the bank looking to swindle the widow out of the family farm. The banks do not want to own the assets that they themselves took as collateral for their loans-ever.
The correct federal response to this should be, "Too bad. You broke it, you bought it." Let the realtors, bankers, Wall Street sharpies, and-yes-the borrowers fight it out amongst themselves. Somewhere there is a market-clearing price for these assets.
Of course, the uber-nannies in the Bush Administration can't allow that. Instead they have opted to compound the problem by using federal assets to move in on the private mortgage insurance market and otherwise encouraging banks to forgive bad loans.
Worse, the White House intends to make the Federal Housing Administration the Federal Housing Administration by directly assuming responsibility for 80,000 underwater loans. Look for that number to double once Democrats in Congress are finished bidding it up.
In sum, we have the makings of the financial equivalent of Medicare Part D-a massive federal program in the place of a semi-private sector that more or less works. Not perfectly, but it is better than making Washington largely responsible for credit allocation in America.
The frustrating thing is that the White House and Congress are chomping to act, while the Fed's more targeted response to the credit crunch has just begun. By using the discount window to entice healthy banks to take on some of the rot, an immediate lockdown on all credit seems to have been averted. It will take time to digest the bad loans, and real estate prices might dip in some markets going forward as a result. California, for example, has a consensus 10 to 15 percent overvaluation to work through, and that may take a year or two to correct.
But that process will slam to a halt once Uncle Sucker begins assuming bad loans left and right.

Originally about the housing bailout that unfairly forced taxpayers to pay the mortgages of people who could not afford the homes that they tried to purchase, this site morphed in late Summer of 2008 into a rallying point against the Wall Street bailout, which unfairly forced taxpayers to pay for bad bets by Wall Street. Even though only a short time has passed since the $850 billion bailout bill was enacted, it is clear that Secretary Paulson's great experiment to save his friends has failed; the credit markets remain frozen and the stock market is down almost 15% since the bailout passed.
Now, at least one presidential candidate wants the government to buy mortgages that it knows are bad from home-borrowers who can't make their payments. This is the ultimate slap in the face to the 99% of Americans out there who either pay their mortgages, rent, or own their homes. It will improperly freeze home prices at their current inflated prices, which are disproportionately high relative to folks' incomes, thereby making it impossible for hard working Americans to afford a home.
Taxpayer outrage at the Wall Street bailout is still a festering wound across America, and now these shameless politicians want you to pay for other people's greed and ignorance.
When you strip away all the BS that the media and the politicians throw at you, it really comes down to one basic fact: it is fundamentally unfair to force responsible Americans to pay for the acts of others who either knew better and took risks anyway, or should have known better and ignored the risks.
Unfortunately, it has become painfully clear that your elected representatives do not care what you think. Accordingly, we urge you -- no, we beg you -- to vote this November (and each November after that) -- against the politicians who voted against your very clearly stated will!!!
Our great country is being held hostage by greedy politicians and their appointees (e.g., Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke) who refuse to listen to the collective voice of the American people.
Because we believe in law, justice, and fairness, we call upon you -- the American voter -- to make your voice heard this November. VOTE THEM OUT!!!
Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent, odds are that you oppose the recent $750 billion bailout of the banking industry. This is a pretty easy prediction to make because the overwhelming majority of Americans (and more than a few folks from abroad) oppose the Treasury using their tax dollars to pay for the risks taken by big banks and the greed/ignorance of homeborrowers. That our politicians chose to vote against the will of the people is a sad example of how knee-jerk populism can blunt the mind.
As we predicted as clearly and loudly as possible, the bailout has had worse than no effect -- its has sent the markets into a tailspin. This financial freefall was caused in large part by a crisis of confidence, and a huge lurch toward Socialism by a heretofore rabidly capitalistic government does not restore confidence. Who could of predicted that? (Answer: anyone who actually thought about it.)
Which brings us to the critical point at this critical juncture in American history: politicians need to start making economic policy decisions with their brains (or brainpower rented from advisers) rather than with their knees. The bailout law passed via HR 1424 is a painful example of what can happen when politicians simply fail to think, critically or otherwise. The bailout gives the Treasury Secretary unfettered control to distribute $750 billion of taxpayers' money in any way he (or she) sees fit. Congress did not specify how the money must be spent, dictate how the money must be used by aided institutions (e.g., not to pay CEO bonuses), or impose any system of checks and balances. Predictably, banks are using the bailout money to advance their own self-interest (they are, after all, for profit entities) rather than to thaw the credit freeze.
And now more ostensibly private industries are seeking taxpayer assistance (e.g., auto industry, credit card industry, etc.). Stated simply, Congress -- in its rush to judgment -- failed to think through the bases and effects of its actions and, as a result, the law has had unintended (but easily predictable) consequences!
Of course we all want every American to own a home. But if anything has become clear over the past few years, it is that every American is simply not financially prepared to do so. The reality is that some folks must wait and save to purchase a house -- and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Congress, if its members were actually thinking, would impose strict, nationwide, iron-clad 'loan to value' ratios that would require a minimum down payment of 10% on all home loans. This requirement alone would have prevented the housing crisis.
Politicians need to take off their populist blinders and recognize that they are not doing Americans or America any favors by bailing out banks, homeowners, or other industries. Bailouts beget more bailouts; they do not solve the underlying problems. Homeborrowers need to learn that you can't treat your house like a piggy bank and not pay for it in the end. Banks need to learn that their private gains are not subsidized by socialized losses. And the auto industry -- and any other private business seeking government assistance -- needs to learn that taxpayers cannot and should not be paying for your mistakes.
We honestly believe that our President-elect is a brilliant man. Hopefully, his decisions while in office will be guided by that intellect!!!