There seem to be as many economists concerned about deflation as inflation. The Fed, as always, focuses on inflation, but it is not a unified chorus, at least not from what I have seen.

A year from now it will be amusing to look back on all the fear of the federal government controlling financial institutions. More oversight, yes, which I think is a good thing. But control? No way. As soon as the sick banks are out of peril they will be back on their own. Already some of the biggest bailout recipients are making money hand over fist. "What was TARP?" will be a trivia question.

>You are right, Mike, the $24T number is an extremely unlikely worst-case, Armageddon scenario. However, it is exposure using public funds that could aid and abet inflation or bond mark-ups. Let's not make all sweetness and light out of this.
>
>I am less concerned wih the funding than I am the overt control given to the Federal government over key financial institutions. Jefferson must be spinning at warp speed in his grave about now.
>
>When comes the time we legally enforce the 10th Amendment?
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>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.