BS: getting a handle on perspective

Subject: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 10:58 AM

If Hawaii were devestated by a catastrophic volcanic eruption it is estiamted the cost of possible reconstrution would be 10 billion dollars.

The amount of money said to rebuild after Katrina was 24 to 50 billion dollars.

AIG just got another $40 billion dollars today.

If one were to look at a crate of a million dollars in one dollar bills to crates of a billion dollars and the 10 city blocks of crates it takes to hold a trillion dollars one gets a handle on perspective.

The biggest treasury robbery in history now stands at a trillion and change yet getting this in visual perspective is something that has still not been shown in stark reality.

There used to be the national debt clock. The debt clock has been shut down due to a lack of spaces in the trillion column.

Pie charts don't do if for me.

I need to see what I am expected to pay back in visual terms.
I need to see what what the fat cats got.

The PTB powers that be maight not want us to see, but if no one else is going to show us, we'll have to do it ourself.

maybe a video of driving past piles of cash? A highway of one hundred dollar bills one foot thick going X miles?

Have you seen something that gives a true comprehensible perspective on the money being taken and lost?

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:17 AM

Let's see, no dollars here but the four £20 notes in my wallet, folded three times, are just 3.9mm thick. That's 4x8=32 notes, so one note is 0.122mm thick.

The exchange rate has gone wild lately, but is currently about $1.57 to the pound, so $40b is about £25.5b. Divide that by 20, multiply by 1.22 and you get 1554140 metres, or 1554 kilometres. That's 970 miles, from my house to Warsaw, or from Washington to Miami.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:27 AM

$40 billion come on. We're talking real money:

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:44 AM

say that again heric.

Its secret?

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:54 AM

Bloomberg has filed a lawsuit to force disclosure. Bernanke and Paulsen say it would reveal too much about the companies in question and about the "fair" value of these assets. Apparently they need to strike a balance between getting a good value for our money, as hey buy the worst crap, and maintaining confidence in the value of what they leave behind. But I think that just applies to the $700b TARP. I'm not sure what the rationale is for the loans. I guess they don't want the collateral to be priced either. Barney Frank tries to explain it in the article.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahdVHk_Ccoeg&refer=home

Excerpts:

The Fed made the loans under terms of 11 programs, eight of them created in the past 15 months, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. . . .

The Fed's lending is significant because the central bank has stepped into a rescue role that was also the purpose of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailout plan -- without safeguards put into the TARP legislation by Congress.

Total Fed lending topped $2 trillion for the first time last week and has risen by 140 percent, or $1.172 trillion, in the seven weeks since Fed governors relaxed the collateral standards on Sept. 14. The difference includes a $788 billion increase in loans to banks through the Fed and $474 billion in other lending, mostly through the central bank's purchase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds. . . .
Before Sept. 14, the Fed accepted mostly top-rated government and asset-backed securities as collateral. After that date, the central bank widened standards to accept other kinds of securities, some with lower ratings. The Fed collects interest on all its loans.

`We Need Transparency'

The plan to purchase distressed securities through TARP called for buying at the ``lowest price that the secretary (of the Treasury) determines to be consistent with the purposes of this Act,'' according to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the law that covers TARP.

The legislation didn't require any specific method for the purchases beyond saying mechanisms such as auctions or reverse auctions should be used ``when appropriate.'' In a reverse auction, bidders offer to sell securities at successively lower prices, helping to ensure that the Fed would pay less. The measure also included a five-member oversight board that includes Paulson and Bernanke.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:40 PM

I think the math in perspective comes to:

Undisclosed banks and others have been borrowing $171 billion dollars of our money per week for each of the past seven weeks.

($171,000,000,000 each week.)

Collateral put up is secret, too, of course.

We must care well for our banks because they feed us. Or something.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:46 PM

(but I'm not good at math. best check it.)

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:58 PM

In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.

But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.

The sweeping change to two decades of tax policy escaped the notice of lawmakers for several days, as they remained consumed with the controversial bailout bill. When they found out, some legislators were furious. Some congressional staff members have privately concluded that the notice was illegal. But they have worried that saying so publicly could unravel several recent bank mergers made possible by the change and send the economy into an even deeper tailspin.

"Did the Treasury Department have the authority to do this? I think almost every tax expert would agree that the answer is no," said George K. Yin, the former chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional authority on taxes. "They basically repealed a 22-year-old law that Congress passed, as a backdoor way of providing aid to banks."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/09/AR2008110902155.html

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 11:07 AM

From today's news:

"[I]n a striking admission, Paulson said that buying mortgage assets "is not the most effective way" to use government funding."

But don't worry, he has a new plan today. They're on it. They know what they're doing.



"That program was once the cornerstone of the rescue plan for financial markets and was almost the entire focus of Congress when the package was being debated. But almost as soon as Treasury received the money, it decided that giving capital to banks in return for preferred stock was a better use of the funds.
Some of the money saved from not buying mortgage assets will now be used to shore up the market for credit card receivables, auto loans and student loans, Paulson said."

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 11:22 AM

They never wanted to give us our money back, that $7,000 or $14,000 or whatever it is per homeowner or renter, because they couldn't trust us to spend it. They thought we would just pay down debt, or save. Not good enough as a stimulus.

No, they gave our money to the banks, who would then loan to us and then we would spend it.

But the banks didn't. They paid down debt, saved it, or made acquisitions within the industry.

They could have given it to us instantly, by stopping federal tax withholdings in an amount equal to a credit on 2008 taxes. Then we could have saved it or paid down debt, in either case giving money to the banks which they could use to free up credit (or whatever they are doing now) to now more-creditworthy borrowers. And taxpayers could spend some of it, which is supposedly the best goal.

I'm no expert. But clearly the experts are not, either.

Now they are going to "free up" credit markets.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 12:06 PM

Remember, they told us that short term lending between banks, and from banks to companies, was crucial to keep the world in motion. That was the entire point when they sold this to us.

They haven't succeeded. Nevertheless, they say it is fine to switch to a different approach, "freeing up" retail credit.

You can be sure they won't just let us use our own money to pay down credit, making us and our creditors safer.

I can't help but wonder whether the first (and second) approach(es) was really intended to cut the risk of banks defaulting on their direct or indirect (insuring) obligations to the wealthy (including institutional investors on behalf of the not-so-wealthy.)

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 12:06 PM

This is taking on some very Republican hues of dishonorable dealings. I do not like it, no, not I. I do not trust them with our pie.



A

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 01:32 PM

It seems that the Federal Reserve Loans are the big bugaboo on secrecy. This is a page that lists a lot of (I don't know what perecntage) the TARP funds so far:

http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/200811121245DOWJONESDJONLINE000684_univ.xml

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 06:37 PM

In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.

The article cited, at the link given, is as quoted.

The article, however, gives no clue as to what the "five sentences" actually said. Multiple links in the article are the "automatically inserted" kind that some sites provide, in case you don't know what a term means, or want some info about a named person or agency, but after clicking them all just to make sure, I still don't know what those five sentences said.

The author, Amit R. Paley, is noted as a "Washington Post Staff Writer." I was not aware that sophomore journalism students (High School variety) were "staff writers" at this prestigious(?) publication.

It ain't "news" unless it is based on verifiable FACTS. There is lots of inuendo, but NO TRACEABLE EVIDENCE to substantiate the foaming-mouthed ranting in the article. Lots of people are "quoted" but there is not a single link or other citation leading to actual comments by any person speaking to the subject claimed to be found in the article - or at any of the links from the article.

Does anyone have a source that actually says what happened to elicit Mr(?) Paley's rant?

John

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 08:24 PM

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-83.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 08:42 PM

I mentioned this on an earlier Donuel financial meltdown thread about a month ago, when Wells Fargo started looking at Wachovia in light of this huge tax break (from us), but I didn't know at the time the rule was possibly illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:21 PM

Oh, dear. It seems likely that that middle thing Paulson decided, buy preferred shares because the Germans and Brits said that's smarter, wasn't the right thing to do. Now private investors STILL don't know what crap is on the books at financial institutions, and they don't want to invest as lesser creditors, absorbing the real losses.


Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. may need to spend another $1.2 trillion to recapitalize the eight largest financial institutions and stabilize the markets because private investors won't take the risk, an FBR Capital Markets analyst said.

``The sheer size of the capital deficiency, coupled with the opaque nature of credit risk, will keep private capital sidelined,'' Paul Miller said in a research note yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 10:39 AM

I gave Citigroup 25 billion dollars under TARP, and today its total market capitalization is 23.3 billion.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 10:46 AM

On November 10, Citi was shopping around to buy regional bank TARP recipients. Today is November 21, and Citi is shopping around for someone who will buy THEM. No one wants to.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 11:10 AM

12 months ago, Citigroup's total market capitalization was $179 billion.

Where did ALL of our money go?

It appears to me that ALL of our money went instantly to softening the blow to investors getting the hell out of Dodge.

Picture water droplets sprinkling onto a hot frying pan.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 11:33 AM

Picture spending $350 billion dollars to build emergency plywood windbreaks as Katrina advanced. Heckuva job, Pauly.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 07:14 PM

The $350 billion dollars that seemingly evaporated could have filled in the budget deficits of all fifty states for the next three years, at least, providing jobs, infrastructure, and services.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 01:27 PM

"Just last week, new initiatives added $600 billion to lower mortgage rates, $200 billion to stimulate consumer loans and nearly $300 billion to steady Citigroup, the banking conglomerate. That pushed the potential long-term cost of the government's varied economic rescue initiatives, including direct loans and loan guarantees, to an estimated total of $8.5 trillion -- half of the entire economic output of the U.S. this year."

LA Times 12/1/08

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 03 Dec 08 - 02:13 PM

and note - although they can say "all economic output" is around 17 trillion dollars, ALL corporate profits are about $3-4 trillion per year, and around half of that used to be from the financials!



"Aggregate profits of S&P 500 companies may decline 15% in 2009 after dropping an estimated 12-14% this year, according to Oxford Analytica. This is in stark contrast to consensus Wall Street expectations of a profit gain of 17% next year after a drop of 6% this year. OxAn believes current consensus estimates are far too optimistic given the weak global economic outlook."

http://www.researchrecap.com/index.php/2008/11/19/us-corporate-profits-could-decline-15-in-2009/

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 08 Dec 08 - 11:07 AM

GM has a total market capitalization of $2.8 billion. We want to spend $15 billion this year, who knows what next year, and God knows what in the years thereafter, to use this entity (and Ford; $4.3 billion) as a way to supply jobs for two to three million Americans. (14 million people according to the automakers.)

General Electric has a total market cap of $185 billion.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: semi-submersible
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 05:35 AM

Most of the money that evaporated only existed on paper or computer files anyway, no? As I understand it:

1) Since ancient times, the Crown or state acquires valuables such as scarce metals, and shapes them into bullion or coin to certify their value, so the state can use them to buy or hire what it needs. Citizens use the coins for trading and paying taxes too.

2) Comes a day when reserves run short, but the state doesn't want to cut back its spending. So, they debase the currency or issue paper money representing reserves they don't have. By law, the citizens must accept the "legal tender." Like a counterfeiter, the government is buying at regular price with the newly introduced money, but if the total value of goods and services has not increased and the supply of money has, then the price goes up and everyone who isn't on the gravy train will pay more for increasingly scarce goods and services. The money most people are holding shrinks in value, as the counterfeit or newly printed money takes its value from the total pool of money already in circulation.

3) Banks get into the act with fractional reserves. Any time the state or any citizen deposits $10 to a bank, the bank can then lend out $9. If that $9 is deposited again somewhere, then $8.10 can be lent out. And so forth. I've heard the original deposit can theoretically become nine times as much when you add up all those deposit accounts, but even if the figure is inaccurate the trend is clear. (The mint doesn't print enough money for us all to do those loans and deposits in cash, so we use cheques or bank transfers, to record what sums we and the banks owe to each other and the government. This system is very convenient for trade, as long as everyone trusts it.)

4) Those loans, totalling umpteen times all the bullion in Fort Knox and similar institutions together, owed by innumerable people (and corporations, and governments) are expected to be paid back with interest. The amount borrowed, largely created by a mathematical fiction, accrues interest out of thin air to add to the lender's recorded assets. We borrowed from banks some money they never had, agreeing to pay them back as much and more by selling our work or other products of value until our account be settled. They can't lose as long as we produce real value to pay back loans of fictional money.

5) In years when a nation's products from nature and industry increase, that growth may for a while mask the inflation of the currency. During these years, people who are squeezed out of this musical-chairs scene (being neither recipients of newly-printed inflation-indexed government payments, nor lucky and smart enough to win in the commercial game) can be blamed for their own poverty: "They didn't work hard enough." Of course, their expenses were going up due to inflation and scarcity, and their income wasn't. This system ensures there will always be losers.

6) If the gap between what is owed on the books, and the goods and services available in the nation to pay those debts, keeps growing, then eventually the paper debt will get so big that the bubble bursts; or else poverty will engulf so many people that trade stops. (The Great Depression was the latter; the situation they're now trying to prop up looks to me like the former.)

How's that for perspective? Is this a fair and comprehensive description, or have I distorted it? I am willing to learn from my mistakes.

At the risk of thread drift, if I may ask, what are our options now?

We might prop up the current system for a few more months. (Even another war probably couldn't prop it up longer this time.)

We could write off bad debts and start the same cycle again, with or without a new, less-depreciated currency replacing the old dollar. (Why are trade and capitalisation more active within an inflationary economy?)

We could in theory abandon inflation and return to barter and silver coinage, but that's difficult and complicated, so I doubt the public will accept living within our means until there are no other choices.

I'd like to hear about other options, please!

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 10:59 AM

Thanks, s-s. I can't critique that as it's beyond my skill sets , but I think I can follow it all the way through point (5), and to parts of (6). However, I can't really get my head around persistent deflation yet, and that seems to be the immediate concern of the economists, despite the high inflation that would seem to be unavoidable in the longer run.

I also think that not only would the public reject the notion of living within their means, but that the governments can't let us go there. The payouts and stimulus attempts are not intended as rewards to the large influential players, but to grease the wheels for continued borrowing and spending, and in fact, inflation. Maybe they want our home prices to go up so they have appeared to increase in value, and maybe they want to have the crushing debt mitigated by a debased currency over time. (?)

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: Amos
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 11:22 AM

THe core premise seems to be that if enough assertion and enough impressive authority is placed behind a lie, it will thereby take on the apparency of truth. This is a sad and treacherous error.

A

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 01:54 PM

>Maybe they want our home prices to go up so they have appeared to increase in value, and maybe they want to have the crushing debt mitigated by a debased currency over time. (?) <

More likely they are so scared they are willing to postpone inflation and all other worries while they inflate into a burst tire just as fast as they can.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 02:06 PM

Better said: "More likely they are so scared they are willing to ignore all consequences while they pump into a burst tire as fast as they can."

Imagine it: Paulsen came barging in the door, without even knocking, never mind an appointment, screaming for $700 billion to spend any way he likes, and that he needs it in DAYS. I wrote at the time, why did he pick that number? Why didn't he just say "a gajillion," and take what came? No difference.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: semi-submersible
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 11:14 PM

My read on persistent deflation, for what it's worth (I'm not sure of my understanding):

If you trade your work for items of real value, you can use, trade, or save them. But when you have to take a lot of perishable coupons, dubious scrip, or inflated currency in trade instead, the motivation to save isn't there. You want to pass it on, get some value for it. If there's a risk it will turn into a pumpkin, you'd as soon it did so in someone else's hands. Ideally, you'd use it to pay taxes (redeem it from the issuer, in effect) but usually that's not an option so you have to pass it on to someone else. Because you're trying to get rid of this hot potato by trading it for goods of real value, you'll offer it for less than face value. That's how "bad money drives out good." You hoard the precious stuff and pass around the scrip. I guess that's how inflated currency encourages trade and investment.

This system works only as long as people believe they can trade their scrip for at least something of value.

When (paragraph 6, above) the gap between real and face value becomes quite incredible or buying power starts shifting faster than we can adapt, many people stop using the currency for trade. Or they will only accept it at really deep discounts, when they expect to get something of real value (e.g. a distressed business or its assets) in the bargain. The currency ceases to flow, so few people have money with which to buy or sell. In a buyer's market, prices fall (from sellers offering the "deep discounts" I mentioned.)

This behaviour is much the same at multinational corporations or corner coffee shops. Trade dwindles. Neither customers nor staff have income any more. So their suppliers and employees lose income, and so on...

Nice image, the governments pumping money into inflating a burst tire as fast as they can.

Now, if farmers or loggers or traders are putting in valuable goods from somewhere else into the system, then we can go on trading (perhaps not as much as before) as long as some of us still use currency to buy stuff of value somewhere. (This is what I meant in paragraph 5.)

As long as the farmers and fishermen believe they can still spend their money and make a living, they will thus keep the economy going, allowing nurses and teachers and bureaucrats to stay at their jobs. Prices can rise a lot, of course. The farmers need to cover their fuel and clothes expenses, for instance, so they have to ask a lot more money for their produce, so their customers need more money to buy it. That's inflation from "lots-of-money-not-enough-goods."

But, when even the farmers can't buy with the money, because middlemen aren't paying them enough to live on or the currency is so worthless it won't buy what they need, prices go down but trade still doesn't pick up. There aren't enough goods of real value on offer to support trade. People wait, save, or hoard against future needs. That's deflation from "no-money-good-enough-to-buy-goods."

Please, can someone tell me if I got it right?

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: heric
Date: 17 Dec 08 - 12:56 PM

AIG using bailout cash to undercut rivals' prices, critics claim
December 11, 2008 ET

(Reuters)— . . .

In the wake of its federal bailout, which last month swelled to more than $150 billion, industry executives say AIG has been rashly lowering prices, and at a time when market fundamentals show insurance rates need to rise.

"AIG has intensified its effort to increase its market share, or at least preserve it," said Edmund Kelly, chief executive of Boston-based rival Liberty Mutual.

"I think it's fair to say they're doing some very stupid things in the market," Mr. Kelly told investors on a quarterly conference call last month. "If (AIG units) are not reined in, it could be very destabilizing for the market."

The New York-based insurer denies it is cutting prices.

But in one example of its aggressive rate-cutting, a unit of its commercial insurance division agreed to provide coverage for the Las Vegas McCarran International Airport at a price 60% below what was charged for the same policy a year earlier.

Last year the airport paid $3.54 million to a consortium of seven insurers led by Travelers Group for a property, boiler and machinery insurance policy worth $1.7 billion, an airport spokesman said.

This year the airport got its coverage from Lexington Insurance Co, a large AIG unit, for just $1.4 million. The insurer agreed to take on the airport coverage with one other insurer, compared with the seven that had been on the program the prior year, leaving fewer carriers to shoulder any potential losses.

By selling policies for less while taking on more risk, AIG is raising the chances that it will be hit by large losses. It also makes it harder for other insurers to sell policies that are priced high enough to cover potential losses.

"Cutting rates at a time when rates should be strengthening is a quick way to going out of business," AIG's former chief executive, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, a frequent critic of the company's management, told Reuters. . . .

"AIG has the money to do things that it could not do without it," said Thom Bradshaw, an insurance wholesaler in Monticello, Indiana. "With $150 billion of taxpayer money we could all be more aggressive, but a) it is irresponsible and b) it is unfair" to the rest of the industry, he added. . . .

Cliff Gallant, an insurance analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods in New York, noted that AIG's insurance units are highly rated and not at risk of collapse.

But if that changed, "it would cause considerable strain on the industry," Gallant said.

It is also possible that the U.S. government, as AIG's majority owner, would feel obliged to step in with more financial support for the insurance subsidiaries if underwriting losses become a problem.

About $15 billion of a $60 billion government loan to AIG had already been consumed by its insurance units as of November 5, according to the company's latest quarterly filing.

"One way or another, I don't see how it is avoidable: The amount that the government will ultimately apply to AIG will exceed the amount that it has provided so far," said Donn Vickrey, an analyst with research firm Gradient Analytics.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 10:20 AM

In California's Contra Costa County, 40,000 families are applying for just 350 affordable-housing vouchers. Church-operated pantries are running out of food. Crisis calls have more than doubled in the city of Antioch, where the Family Stress Center occupies the site of a former bank.

The worst financial crisis in seven decades is forcing thousands of previously middle-income workers to seek social services, overwhelming local agencies, clinics and nonprofits. Each month 16,000 people, including many who were making $60,000 to $100,000 annually just a few years ago, fill four county offices requesting financial, medical or food assistance. from here "We are in a critical situation and it's not likely to get better over the next several years," Twa said.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 08:49 PM

AIG is expected to post a roughly $60 billion fourth-quarter loss on Monday.

The loss works out to about $460,000 per minute.

So we're going to drop another $30 billion in there lickety split, after the $150 billion we just gave them.

If we can icrease their share value 10%, that would be almost a nickle more per share.

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 09:14 PM

That's 24/7:   They can do that in their sleep.

In their normal business hours when they are actively trying to make money at 40 hours per week, they are losing almost $2 million per minute (if you assume they diligently work though lunch.)

Subject: RE: BS: getting a handle on perspective
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 02 Mar 09 - 03:47 PM

CEO of AIG got on the cable shows today to say AIG will pay the taxpayers back.

I plugged the numbers into my calculator to find out how long that would take while earning -$460,000 per minute, and this little puff of smoke came up and now the calculator won't work.