http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-f…
I was having an argument with a friend stating that there was no way that the government totaled 7.7 trillion in loans to the banks in the U.S. and Europe in the last 5 years.
I have a feeling that the 7.7 trillion number is calculated in a way that really fudges up the real data. For example, someone on the comments below mentioned that if there is a $10,000 debt outstanding for 30 days, bloomberg would calculate that data as a $300,000 loan...which is complete horseshit.
Am I totally off base here thinking that there is no way the U.S. could have allocated more than half of its GDP to secretly bailing out banks?
Does anyone have anything to support either side?
It's like wealth managers claiming to have over 90+ years of total experience, but in reality its 3 money managers with 30 years experience each. So it's not false, but it is misleading.
The numbers are so obscenely large now - they don't add up anymore. Unfortunately, I just think this is the new par for the course. There is no way to de-lever all of those balance sheets out there. We just have to keep the Ponzi going for another day.
Lol, this is what happens when concepts like M1 M2 M3 are no longer part of the public system: people push all sorts of numbers into the same category and call it the same thing. It's bad, really bad, but that number is highly disingenuous.
^ Agree with both of you. Unfortunately Bloomberg didn't publish how they calculated their data, and its tough to sort through the actual government data.
Gee, I wonder if that's intentional...
Sit non aut velit ipsa. Dignissimos occaecati eos voluptates beatae hic libero. Sit deleniti nihil aut hic.
Ea exercitationem adipisci repellendus aut aspernatur. Blanditiis est dolor veniam optio.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...