Every time I see State comedians tell this joke, I get offended. They say "TARP was profitable for the taxpayers. Hooray for the State!" The banksters profited from TARP, nobody else.
According to this page, TARP's cost was $25B. That's still misleading. You have to account for the "time value" of money.
State comedians say "TARP paid out $n and collected $m. m>n. Therefore, TARP was profitable." Or, they say "m
The fallacy is that you should look at returns and not absolute gain. If you spend $700B and collect $770B two years later, your actual return is 5%. That's a pathetic return compared to gold or silver. If you spend $700B and collect $675B two years later, that's pathetic compared to true inflation.
Suppose a business is in really bad shape. They can't raise money from any private investors. They beg/lobby/bribe/threaten the government and get a bailout "investment". By definition, that investment is on worse terms than what any private investor would get. Even if it turned out well, the investment was still a bailout/gift.
I get very offended when State comedians proclaim "Taxpayers made a profit off TARP!" or "TARP didn't cost much!" They are looking at nominal gain and not rate of return. Compared to a real investment, TARP returns were pathetic, even if there was a nominal gain.
It's amusing how State parasites give evil things nice-sounding names. "TARP" makes it sound beneficial, like covering a baseball field when it rains. "TARP" means "Troubled Asset Relief Program". Why don't they call it the "Financial Underwriting Contingency Kitty"? That would be a more accurate name. Fancy names like "TARP" and "quantitative easing" hide the fact that they're printing new money and giving it to the banksters.
TARP was a huge ripoff. I'm offended when State comedians say "It wasn't that bad."
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
How Much Did TARP Really Cost?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
> I'm offended when State comedians
> say
I'm offended by the fact that Swedish goons are in the UK and harassing Julian. And the British taxpayer is picking up some of the tab.
When the goon in court argued today that the "evidence" against him should only be shown in Sweden and not the UK, what the goon really meant was:
"One of the two women is refusing to co-operate with us and has destroyed evidence (she deleted her tweets) and has left the country. Our case is so bad one prosecutor refused to touch it. Our case is so bad we can't even express it in writing. All we can do is leak snippets to the press. We don't have a real case and that is why we can't present any evidence in the UK."
Lawyers are professional "liars". Lying by omission is also a lie.
If the Swedes had a decent case they could easily present their case in the UK.
If the Swedes have a decent case and are telling the WHOLE TRUTH they have nothing to fear by presenting the whole case and evidence over in the UK.
Only scumbags don't want the whole details to be opened up.
Honest people have nothing to fear and would tell the whole story from beginning to end.
But the Swedes aren't.
** So Swedish paid lawyer please produce written and signed statements from these two women detailing what happened from beginning to end. **
If you are honest you have nothing to fear by doing this.
Let me add another point to this comedy of TARP. There is a second fallacy in their reasoning.
Let us suppose that there were only you and I in our society. You got taxed to create TARP that I used for my business. Then I repaid with interest and even significant ROI. We both received some services as a result of spending the returned TARP.
I suppose, we both should be pretty happy about TARP, huh? The fallacy is that you paid for it, and I didn't. Secondly, my business survived, and will provide an income for me many years from now, but you got stiffed on your chance to buy my business from the auction. Third, we both received services as a result of spending of the returned TARP money, but I received what I never paid, and you received less than you paid.
These state assholes comedians aren't even close to the disgusting truth.
Post a Comment