Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com

Wealth of Nations

SPONSORED BY
  • Q: How Much Have the Bailouts Cost Us? A: All of the Above.

    Barrett Sheridan | Apr 27, 2009 02:12 PM

    It's a sign of exactly how complicated our current situation is that even as straightforward a task as tallying how much money the U.S. government has spent so far on bailouts is nearly impossible. Last week, Paul Kiel over at ProPublica's very good Eye on the Bailout blog surveyed three of the latest estimates of the total bailout "cost" thus far. I put "cost" in quotes because, as the various analyses make clear, the true cost ranges anywhere from $3.2 trillion to $12.8 trillion--leaving a gap of $9.6 trillion.

    Part of that gap is easily explained away. Some studies look at just how much the U.S. has actually spent so far, others include funding promises and loan guarantees in the total, which results in a much higher figure. Here's a summary of the three recent analyses:

    • The equity research division of financial firm Keefe, Bruyette & Wood estimates that the U.S. has spent $3.2 trillion and allocated $10.8 trillion. This includes bailouts financed by the Treasury, the Fed, the FDIC, and HUD.
    • Bloomberg says the U.S. has spent $4.17 trillion and allocated $12.8 trillion. Kiel says that "Bloomberg’s total is higher because it includes things like tax breaks for banks and both stimulus packages (President Bush’s 2008 tax rebates and Obama's 2009 bill)."
    • The Congressional Oversight Panel chaired by Harvard's Elizabeth Warren tallied things slightly differently and says the U.S. has spent $4.4 trillion so far.  (They didn't offer an allocation figure.)

    There are so many numbers to quibble with it's pointless to even try. But that's never stopped us before! To take just one example, the COP credits Treasury with a $700 billion contribution -- that's the original TARP authorization. That leaves out the Fannie/Freddie bailouts, however, which add another $400 billion. Why was that sum left out? Who knows.

    All these digits make me nostalgic for the good ol' days of August 2008, before $700 billion started to sound like a small number.

     


  • The Return of Political Risk

    Rana Foroohar | Apr 27, 2009 12:43 PM

    Outside of oil countries, armed conflict around the world has been decreasing over the last twenty years or so. Basically, the end of the cold war and the growth of a new and more prosperous global middle class during the long bull run that preceded the financial crisis helped create an unusually peaceful era (again, that's aside from localized commodities related conflict in places like Africa and Middle East).

    That may now be changing, according to the folks at Eurasia Group. I recently had lunch with Eurasia's head, Ian Bremmer, who pointed out how irrelevant the old "BRICs" term to describe high growth emerging economies is, when at least one of the three letters (R for Russia) is endanger of falling out of out of the acronym altogether thanks to recession related economic and political turmoil. China, too, is at risk longer term for upheaval if it can't keep its economy growing at the magic 7-8 percent a year rate (no mean feat in this environment).

    To that effect, Eurasia just released a list of countries that are most likely to see regime change thanks to the financial crisis. Some, like Pakistan (the most likely, at 30 percent), Russia (20 percent) and the Ukraine (15 percent) are no brainers. Those in the mid-range, like Mexico, Nigeria, Turkey and Argentina, are also very plausible. But there are others on the list, like Japan (which is going into elections), UAE (weak institutions and increasingly ugly politics), and Poland (the return of nationalism and populism) that are more surprising. It doesn't really matter whether all of these countries end up with new governments or leaders -- the point is that political risk is back, with a vengeance. We've left a relatively peaceful and prosperous era, for something else. We don't know yet what the something else will look like. But its a fair bet that there will be plenty of unexpected political outcomes and alliances as it unfolds.

    For more on this, it's worth picking up Bremmer's new book, The Fat Tail. He argues that we're not thinking enough about the changes that might be caused by all these shifts, and what it will mean for our jobs and our lives.


  • Advertisement
  • Breakfast Buffet, Monday, April 27

    Katie Paul | Apr 27, 2009 08:18 AM

    I Iz in Ur Fed, Meeting Wit Ur Bank Execs:  Want to know exactly what Tim Geithner was up to the day Lehman failed? Or when Fed officials said the economy was sound? Courtesy of a FOIA request, now you can. Think retroactive Twitter. Here's one take on the company he kept.

    Spreading the Risk (and the Blame): Why just blame Wall Street when you can blame Washington, too? After re-reading minutes from the meetings of the Financial Stability Oversight Board, the WSJ thinks Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson, the "men who nearly ruined Bank of America," have some serious explaining to do.

    Cash, Gold, and Global Institutions: This story sounds familiar, no? The IMF and World Bank want more money for the poor. Skeptics are reliably skeptical. But what's different this time, the Economist says, is that it actually matters.

    Greedy Bankers, Part MMDCCXCVIII: Get your rage ready for action again. Fat Wall Street paychecks are back, and Paul Krugman thinks this is bad, bad, bad. Beyond that, he also thinks the justifications are utter baloney.

    The Business of Swine Flu: FT breaks down the economic impact of pandemic worries. Hey look, so do we!

    So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye: A memorial service for the staples of America's recently passed Gilded Age.