Financial Crisis Tab Already In The Trillions

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Damnthematrix's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Financial Crisis Tab Already In The Trillions

Financial Crisis Tab Already In The Trillions

By |

November 18, 2008 "CNBC" -November 17, 2008 -- Given
the speed at which the federal government is throwing money at the
financial crisis, the average taxpayer, never mind member of Congress,
might not be faulted for losing track.

CNBC, however, has been
paying very close attention and keeping a running tally of actual
spending as well as the commitments involved.

Try $4.28 trillion dollars. That's $4,284,500,000,000
and more than what was spent on WW II, if adjusted for inflation, based
on our computations from a variety of estimates and sources*.

only is it a astronomical amount of money, its' a complicated cocktail
of budgeted dollars, actual spending, guarantees, loans, swaps and
other market mechanisms by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and other
offices of government taken over roughly the last year, based on
government data and news releases. Strictly speaking, not every cent is
a direct result of what's called the financial crisis, but it is
arguably related to it.

68-percent of the sum falls under the Federal Reserve's umbrella, while
another 16 percent is the under the Troubled Asset Relief Program,
TARP, as defined under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, signed
into law in early October.
(The TARP alone is bigger than virtually any other US government endeavor dating back to the Louisiana Purchase. See slideshow.)

  Financial Crisis Balance Sheet
Government Entity Sum in Billions of Dollars
Federal Reserve  
(TAF) Term Auction Facility 900
Discount Window Lending  
Commercial Banks 99.2
Investment Banks 56.7
Loans to buy ABCP 76.5
AIG 112.5
Bear Stearns 29.5
(TSLF) Term Securities Lending Facility 225
Swap Lines 613
(MMIFF) Money Market Investor Funding Facility 540
Commercial Paper Funding Facility 257
(TARP) Treasury Asset Relief Program 700
Automakers 25
(FHA) Federal Housing Administration 300
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac 350
Total 4284.5
Note: Figures as of Nov. 13, 2008

includ US National Archive, US Dept of Defense, US Bureau of
Reclamation, Library of Congress, NASA, Panama Canal Authority, FDIC,
Brittanica, WSJ, Time,, and a number of other websites.

(Editor's Note: CNBC's
Steve Liesman and Sabrina Korber have been keeping a runny tally of the
government's efforts, while Sean Entwistle, Yolaiki Gonzalez, Giovanny
Moreano and Ariel Nelson researched and computed the data for the
comparisons with other major historical events in the slideshow.)

© 2008
rlee's picture
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 18 2008
Posts: 148
Re: Financial Crisis Tab Already In The Trillions

Keep watching - you ain't seen nothin yet!

Damnthematrix's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Is it now time for Something new? For Real Change? How About Bar

Is it now time for Something new? For Real Change? How About Barocracy?

October, 2008, made it clear it is past time for a new theory of economics that
makes better understanding of political "science."

Even before the economic meltdown of that month, never had the water areas that
cover most of this spaceship been so polluted, nor the remaining, inhabitable
river valley areas been so burdened with the population footprint. Nor strategic
resources been so depleted, and ecosystems so unsustainably simplified. Never
before have present rates of depletion and consumption been more clearly

In addition, it is clear that the century-old definitions of economic activity,
socialism and capitalism, in their basic ideological form, are now irrelevant to

A previous period of ominous need provided lessons for adjustment, and may
provide insight into why a new economic-politi

cal description of reality, like
barocracy, must now be invented. Even though that period was more economic and
political failure than unsustainability due to population-growth pollution and

In the midst of the Great Depression's economic chaos, a lot of soul searching
occurred. That provides an indicator that when there is dire need, lazy, cliche
thinking must be, and does get, jettisoned.

This is now necessary because economic chaos may again be at the doorstep. And
the old cliches about which really works, socialism or capitalism, should no
longer be allowed mindless credence. The primary benefit of democracy has been
its ability to allow open discourse that led to more capability to deal with
practical necessity.

This essay is an attempt to explain why the election of Barack Obama may be the
time to coin a new term that reflects hopes for pragmatic thinking that reflects
the best age-old hopes of democracy, "barocracy."

No longer can a world-wide economic system be steered by tired, old cliches,
like the one that underlies the Adam -Smith-engendered belief that markets can
self-regulate. This fallacy should now be painfully obvious, along with the
silliness that government is the problem, not the solution.

What guides what may have been best put by Robert Costanza, director of the Gund
Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, when he
wrote, "When the markets get out of kilter with reality, that's what causes
bubbles." He then said he doesn't advocate squelching the market BUT GUIDING
IT--and not being guided by it. "The market is a good servant. But it's a poor

The question of whether outmoded cliches or pragmatism should have center stage
should have arisen with the last-minute attacks of "a socialistic Obama" by
desperate Republicans that resounded in the last stages of the presidential

This was intended to raise fears of potential totalitarianism.

First, it should be clear that it is rather remarkable that there is a debate
about whether national economic planning is inherently totalitarian during a
time of an extreme world-wide economic melt-down. Obviously, planning can be
used for totalitarian purposes as it was in Russia and Germany. But it can also
be used for corporate ends, as it is now in the U.S. Or social ends, as it was
for France.

But during hard times, even the most conservative capitalists wonder how
governmental responsibility might be implemented. As the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce did at the beginning of the Great Depression by raising what-ifs about
a "planned economy." And conservative lawyer and youngest-ever Harvard Law
School graduate, Adolph Augustus Berle, wrote that "the Depression showed that
modern corporations had failed not only stockholders, but the public--and would
do so again, if left unregulated." He made clear that government needed to bear
final responsibility for the economy by using its powers to balance supply and
demand. He added that it was then time "to require corporate directors to manage
the managers, not just for shareholders' benefit but in accordance with new
rules codifying rights of stakeholders and the broader social responsibilities
of corporations."

The social activism of Franklin Delano Roosevelt may have reflected the best
expression of those ideas in that era. And the extent of what was most
disseminated by the Chamber of Commerce then was limited to cant about
price-fixing and limiting the role of competition.

Barack Obama' main mantra during the election campaign involved "change." And it
is now time when it should be obvious that humans in the age of machines,
automation, cybernation, and globalization, live in an age of interactive,
complex economic consequences. Of course this industrial paradigm necessitates
bureaucracies of one kind or another. There is no choice between bureaucracy and
no bureaucracy. The basic isssue that requires consideration is whether
bureaucracies can be controlled, and with what public goal in mind. Somehow the
economic complexities, the availability of strategic resources, the ability to
sustain an ecologically complex environment, must all be not just understood,
but must be collectively controlled if there is to be any kind of a
democratically pragmatic future. Otherwise, chaos will reign.

Whether we like it or not, industrialization has brought "scale" beyond the

It became apparent to some during the Great Depression that the capitalist
economy had clearly destroyed the capitalist civilization and personality, and
as Barack Obama tries coping with the many challenges facing him, that
realization is renewed. But what must be understood is that businessmen have
been successful at building a collective , world-wide society for private
profit. In the place of old market-determined competition, there are new
realities, like "corporate socialism" or a "collective capitalism." There are
many good reasons why in the U.S., capitalistic socialism is practiced, and in
China, the most successful entrepreneurial society in the world today,
socialistic capitalism is practiced.

Many years of socialistic military spending accelerated this process. Its
research and development, especially from WWII on, financed directly or
indirectly two thirds of all technological pioneering. Thus research
bureaucracies financed inventive genius. The space agencies added to this
momentum in the 60s, and by mid-century capitalism became the very
wide-tentacled corporation called "globalization." This development accelerated
private profit from public efforts.

But while this was occurring, President Lyndon Johnson, the collectivist enemy
of that time, may have helped sow the seeds for the derivative/sub-prime
meltdown of the 21st Century, when, in the Housing Message of 1964, he said "Now
is the time to direct the productive capacity of our home building industry to
the great needs of the neglected segments of our population....In the tradition
of the long-established partnership between private industry and community
development, the Federal government should encourage and facilitate these new
and desirable approaches." Of course that enabled the politically popular means
of allowing everyone, no matter how poor or incapable of paying for a long-term
mortgage, the opportunity of having a home. That was good policy for gaining
political popularity then, but now clearly-understood poor economic policy.

Public ends and private considerations have gone through an evolution of
consideration. Even F.A. Hayek, one of the best known of the defenders of
traditional capitalist wisdom wrote in '60s, "..if management is supposed to
serve wider public interests, it becomes merely a logical consequence of this
conception that the appointed representatives of the public interest should
control managment."

But the capitalist-dominated governments of the past have not allowed for much
"regulation" of the corporate bureaucratic elite. In addition, the system of
production which the corporation created was run by a corporate order of
bureaucratic and elite managers, closely resembling those feared by any
socialistic order. The ideal of this "order" would result ideally in a corporate
culture that taught that ethical considerations overrode a calculus of gain.
But, as we now know, one corporate manipulater of derivative capitalism a few
months ago was able to personally pocket $1.4 billion dollars without any
observable qualms involving responsibility to shareholder investors. Clearly
"ethical considerations" have recently been stretched infinitely.

But any indicator of social responsibility has continued to augur socialism, and
the ultimate of that was all involved in the fear of "communism." It was cant
that under communism, resources were allocated by direct and centralized
political decision-making, and, under capitalism, decision-making occurred
through indirect, though, admittedly, increasingly centralized, economic
processes. What threatened both, and changed them, was the growth of a
"conscious, self-seeking minority." And, it is now clear that systems transform
themselves without really noticing the fact. In the U.S. it is clear the
businessman corrupts, not simply himself, but the society as well. And what
technology can integrate, it can disintegrate creating a new pattern of wasted
human and material resources.

When economic collapse threatens eloquence is given to the questions: how can an
essentially social system of production be directed by essentially private
decision-makers? Who will and should direct the concentrated economic power and
with what priorities? Will cities simply sprawl and sprawl and sprawl,
abolishing the (ecological) landscape?" Will capitalism just continue destroying
itself to the bitter end through pursuit of an assumed unlimited growth? The
collapse makes clear that Western technological ingenuity subverted Western
economic, political and social assumptions.

What any potential Barocracy must cope with is undoing what preceded it. Where
ideas of freedom and reason became moot, and increased rationality was lost.
This probably resulted because as society became more complex in its activities,
and as its economic and political operations became more easily manipulated, the
individual became less and less able to grasp the totality of the world in which
he lived. Thus the environment of man becomes more puzzling than nature itself.
As a result the really crucial decisions are made by tiny groups of bureaucratic
strategists and the arenas of debate--the press, Congress, the unions--are
reduced to insignificance and democracy itself--especially now in the United
States-- became a masquerade for the impotent.

Because the "mass society" devolved from sociologist David Riesman's description
of "a conscious, self-organized group deriving common values from common
experience" into an "unconscious one, manipulated by demagogues rather than
self-organizing, a lonely crowd in the place of a community," it is now time to
not only achieve "community," but to gain a sustainable one; thus it becomes
ever-more necessary for a time for new pragmatic thinking to fill the
intellectual vacuum.

Public responsibility is mandated when social, economic dissolution occurs, and
after the George W. Bush years of corporate-elite determination, a move toward
collective and public interest must occur. Concerns about "socialism or
capitalism" no longer are viable.

Barack Obama's remarkable rhetorical skills may help muster the colloquy
necessary for any kind of collective solution to the chaos problems we now face.

We might call it our new-found "Barocracy" hope.

Richard Pelto

joe2baba's picture
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
Re: Is it now time for Something new? For Real Change? How ...

can i have some of the obama koolaid?

the jews are still waiting for the messiah. the christians are waiting for him for the second time.

maybe we should tell both that he is here and will be living in a big white house with a new puupy.

barocracy .....................oh that is good LOL.

try mad max and road warrior starring mel gibson. we can call it madocracy.

i seem to have misplaced my soma. krogoth did you take it?

krogoth's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 576
D.C. Vacation

You better stock up on the soma. I say we get to the Mad Max stage, we all load up our modified cars and take little road trip over to D.C. if you know what I mean.

I will make my way back to the US on a modified Somali pirated oil tanker. I hear the cost is cheap for tickets, and you just need to BYOB. Meaning with them bring your own bullets

I want Paulson and Cox strapped to the front of my car as trophy catches as I drive around

Then we take Bernanke and Greenspan, put dresses on them, and give them to the don't ask, don't tell members of our new society for a couple of years as bend over payback bitches

Also, a bar b q will be stoked with Paulsons half billion or better cash, and on the spit we will randomly select people from Congress for food

My hockey mask is ready, lets have a party



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments