The total bill for the US bailout package, which started at US$250 billion only four weeks ago before the headline figure of US$750 billion was added on, "comes to $2.25 trillion, triple the size of the original $700 billion rescue package.
Money spent buying up "distressed assets" so that (given the laws of fractional reserve banking) banks can manufacture credit worth around ten times that amount-- which, the "experts" vainly hope, will end the credit crunch.
Money spent partially-nationalising banks by buying up their shares -- even if some of the stable banks themselves don't want a bar of the plan:
The chairman of Wells Fargo, Richard Kovacevich, protested strongly that, unlike his New York rivals, his bank was not in trouble because of investments in exotic mortgages, and did not need a bailout...
Why, you might reasonably ask, would the government twist executive arms when they know that several around the table had no need of the money? For the simple reason that the dictators are concerned that if the stable banks didn't accept the money, the weak banks would be revealed for what they are: weak. That, they fear, would upset their plans.
There is a reason that in some circles Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's nickname is "Mussolini."
Where does the money come from? Essentially it involves us lending the money to ourselves so they can lend it back to us in interest, or in bankers' talk,
the US government is going to have to churn out bonds and simply print money on top of that to cover the cost of its continuing bank rescues.
Analysts at Pimco, the world’s largest bond manager, say
"It is a fair bet other countries engaged in socialising bank losses will have to do the same."
With the result being "devalued bonds and debased currencies," a world "headed for higher inflation and rising long-term interest rates."
The real payers will be all those who bear the costs of this impending inflation and interest rate explosion – in other words, just about everyone.
This is the result of people doing "something," simply because they've heard that something must be done.
Will it work? Not economically. But as Arnold Kling says, that's the wrong question.
Whether the economy needs a "plan," or whether the plan will help the markets, is beside the point. The plan serves to consolidate power... This American Mussolini has captivated Washington by demonstrating the exercise of raw power.