The blog of a North Country Swede!

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Keeping the Paulson-Bernanke bailout plan simple ...

A couple of things ... to help keep things simple on the $700 Billion Paulson-Bernanke bailout plan:

The bailout is the Wall Street/Beltway Gang holding a gun to the head of average hard-working citizens and saying give me your money or else. The gun and the "or else", of course, are all the calamity that will befall the average person if we don't turn over the money ... loss of jobs; loss of home, student, car loans; etc.

Well ... guess what? ... us folks were holding a gun on them ... "You're going with us, you bastards. And we'll see who can work their way out of this. 'Cuz if you think you can just keep robbing us blind, you got another think coming. We're ALREADY losing our jobs, our homes ... "

Hoo boy!, Americans still have grit!!! God, I love my country!

Next ... these so-called economic geniuses keep saying what they did to get us here is too complicated for common folks to understand. Well, it ain't. It's really quite simple. In fact it so simple that once you realize how simple it is, you (if you haven't understood it before) are going to be really, really pi$$ed off.

It's a concept called "leverage". And it's called that because it can be described as a pry-bar or teeter-totter ... using force on one end of a lever or plank to match the force on the other.

OK, let's think of the back-yard teeter-totter where you place a long plank over a drum or something in the "center" as the "fulcrum". If you have done this in the past with your kids, you know an adult can teeter with a child by giving the child "more plank" on his/her side of the fulcrum. That adds to their "leverage" to lift you easily. It also means the adult can hold them up when they are far out on their end of the plank ... and the more plank the adult gives the child, the lighter the child has to be to hold up a particular adult.

Now, say there was a rule that you the maximum multiply of plank you could put on the child's side was "adult side times 12". This was a safety rule, because if the adult had a heart attack and fell off, the child wouldn't be injured or even killed by their fall at their end.

Now, say the teeter-totter manufacturer came up with an anti-gravity braking device that countered gravity on the child's side so -- the manufacturer said -- no matter what happened on the adult's side, the child was safe ... even to a multiple of say, "adult side times 35". (And that put the child pretty damn high ... as they say ... What a feeling!)

Wow! Joy and celebration all around ... even little, little kids could teeter-totter with the adults! And even sickly adults could now teeter-totter with the little kids. So what if anyone they fell off? ... on either side? ... the system would NEVER crash! (So read the anit-gravity braking device manufacturer's sales brochure.)

And if you combined healthy adults with sickly adults on the adult side ... the system worked even better for sickly adults. (Now we were really rolling!)

That is until too many sickly adults started losing weight at the SAME time, then the system got overloaded in a hurry ... BECAUSE there WAS a flaw in the anti-gravity braking device system: each individual teeter-totter was hooked up to a central playground machine that could only handle a limited number of teeter-totters at a time ... and anybody with half a brain would have see the overload starting from the edge of the playground. Shouldn't they have screamed immediately: "STOP TEETER-TOTTERING!" ... BEFORE everyone crashed? (Just asking ... but I digress ... as is my wont)

The basic question in the design of this anit-gravity braking device system was (should have been?) "What would happen if the sickly adults started losing more weight than the anti-gravity braking device system could handle at any given time?" BECAUSE the plan was to allow sickly adults to teeter-totter, so the question SHOULD have been obvious ... don't you think?

Don't you think any playground supervisor would have asked that question? AND asked for proof from the anti-gravity braking device system manufacturer? Unless of course, the supervisor was being paid off.

The average American citizen can smell a pay-off (a rat?) from a mile off. Even if the Wall Street/Beltway Gang kept saying it was too complicated for us ordinary folks to understand. (Yeah, and I have a bridge to sell you ... [That bridge thinger takes on a whole new level of meaning ... don't you think?])

OK, the "adult side" of the teeter-totter is the bundled loan package of healthy and sickly instruments of debt. The "child side" is a combination of the "child" -- the investment bank or whatever -- and the "extended blank" -- the money borrowed by the "child" to help hold up the adult side.

In the Balance Sheet equation of Assets = Liabilites + Capital (aka Owner Equity), or also expressed as Capital = Assets - Liabilities, equation, the "adult side" is the Assets, the "child" is the Capital, and the "extended plank" is the Liabilities.

The "anti-gravity braking device" is the credit default swap designed to pay for the instrument of debt in case of default ... cover any loss.

No one had to know what is inside the "anti-gravity braking device" ... they just had to have proof that it would work. Kind of like any other brake ...

Unless ... like I said ... someone was being paid off to look the other way ...

Also like I say, doesn't take a genius to figure THAT out.


No comments: