Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems marginally better than the bail-out proposals so far. The Geithner version of Paulson's plan in essence takes tax-payers' money to pay Pimco and others to buy the banks' worthless paper, in hopes of reviving the banking system. What this does is to take tax-payers' money to pay _taxpayers_ to buy the banks' worthless paper, in hopes of reviving the banking system.
Of course, it's quite likely that the taxpayers most likely to win from this win-win (taxpayer lose) deal are the very rich. Marginally better, but not sufficiently better. On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Jayson Funke <[email protected]> wrote: > > April 9, 2009 > U.S. Imagines the Bailout as an Investment Tool > By GRAHAM BOWLEY and MICHAEL J. de la MERCED > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/business/09fund.html?_r=1&hp > > During World War I, Americans were exhorted to buy Liberty Bonds to help > their soldiers on the front. > > Now, it seems, they will be asked to come to the aid of their banks ‹ with > the added inducement of possibly making some money for themselves. > -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
