Display:
I would think that the point here is that the 30 bn are the minimum, and the 13 tn are the maximum. Hell, let's take an order of magnitude off of that maximum, on account of sloppy accounting from the alarmists. Make it a round 1 tn as a maximum.

It will probably land somewhere in between, though precisely where is impossible to forecast with any degree of precision.

You are right, of course, that in the event of a total collapse, the fact that the Treasury is on the hook for a trillion North American Pesos won't matter. But there's quite a broad range there. An order of magnitude and a half, in fact. So there's plenty of room for it to go plenty wrong even if the real economy only collapses a little bit.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jan 25th, 2010 at 09:16:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No. The numbers are quite clear. On the PPIP, Treasury forecast up to $1T but has actually committed under $40B. You can't round that up. This is my complaint against the MJ article and all the people who decided Bush appointee Barofky was the word of God. The PPIP exposure is in the tens of billions. Let's get some reality principle going here.
by rootless2 on Mon Jan 25th, 2010 at 10:57:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And does that include contingent liabilities and counterparty risk?

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jan 26th, 2010 at 08:54:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As far as I can tell, yes.
by rootless2 on Tue Jan 26th, 2010 at 09:21:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series