>>>the government has done that proved more efficient and less costly than the same thing that is developed by private enterprise. I'm waiting, and waiting, and waiting,
>>>
>>>They did a pretty good job of preventing a banking collapse after the dumbos panicked and ran. ;-)
>>
>>Um, John.
>>
>>The financial crisis was started by government interference in housing and changing of decades old lending and financial rules.
>>
>>To "fix" the disaster they created the feds have committed $4.7 trillion, so far, which has a potential to expand to $24 trillion if all does not go well.
>>
>>This recent bout of government interference has been the least efficient and most costly in history.
>
>That $24 trillion is such a worst case scenario it really could not happen. It would include the Treasury itself going bust and defaulting on T bills. This is the kind of phony number that gets thrown around in the heat of debate.

What part of "potential" wasn't clear? My guess is that somewhere between the currently allocated $4.7 trillion and the potential $24 trillion worst case is where the final cost will settle. Regardless of the final figure, it will still represent the least efficient and most costly in government caused F-up in history.

>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/business/economy/21bailout.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=floyd%20norris&st=Search
>
>But in the report accompanying his testimony, Mr. Barofsky conceded the number was vastly overblown. It includes estimates of the maximum cost of programs that have already been canceled or that never got under way.
>
>It also assumes that every home mortgage backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac goes into default, and all the homes turn out to be worthless. It assumes that every bank in America fails, with not a single asset worth even a penny. And it assumes that all of the assets held by money market mutual funds, including Treasury bills, turn out to be worthless.
>
>It would also require the Treasury itself to default on securities purchased by the Federal Reserve system.