With or without the bailout, the government is already the biggest player. But player is not manager. BIG difference. And that 700 billion (not in one year, but over several)?
Are we talking numbers? I love numbers! One that must be taken into consideration is the national debt. Soon to be 11.3 trillion if this bailout occurs. So, really, the U.S government doesn't actually have the money, but if approved they'll give it out anyway with the hopes that foreigners and investors will continue to buy U.S debt (T-bills). In essence, this will be 700 billion that is going to go on a VISA with over 10 trillion already on it. Also on this VISA bill is the 3-trillion some adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan (at present it's something like 600 or 700 billion but by the time they get the troops home plus cost of permanent garrisonning plus VA costs, medical for the 28,800 wounded servicemen, replacement of equipment etc etc)
This at a time that many major foreign investors want to unload their T-bills and China is talking about trading oil in a currency other than the greenback. Hhhmmm.....
They have before. But you are probably too young to remember - The S&L buyout. But now you are just throwing up smokescreens.
The S&L buyout was fundamentally different. The RTC (was it the RTC? Forgive my ignorance if I've got the name wrong) directly took ownership of a bunch of land and then sold it to folks. In this case, the government will be taking ownership of a bunch of toxic debt that no one will want to touch with a ten foot pole. And there's all the "innovative" ie, ridiculously complicated and obscure, financial products that were created from this mess and there's derivatives. It's not by any means a straightforward affair at all, but rather the complete unravelling of the shadow banking system.
Shadow banking system you say? No, it's not a conspiracy theory. What it is is an entire sector of the banking industry that has been:
1) Completely unregulated. Banks didn't have to report to anyone on who or how much money and where it went. This led to 'innovative' financial products which are so convoluted even the major players can't accurately say what their exposure is to toxic debt.
2) Completely opaque. This means no transparency. This means an investor had no way of knowing just what in the hell they were buying or the kind of risk they were exposing themselves too.
3) Based on complicated computer models that calculated supposed risk and profit margins. In essence, a mathematical formula used to predict the 'science' of this particular area of economics. Well, that science turned out to be smoke and mirrors as the house of cards is indeed coming down.