General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sanders Releases Explosive Bailout List [View all]econoclast
(543 posts)True, Saunders original number was 16 trillion and it was inflated exactly as I stated above. This new 4 trillion number is trimmed down indeed but not to remove the egregious over counting. This time around Saunders is using the same over counting sleight of hand, but only reporting it for banks whose managers were once part of the Fed.
It is the same old regurgitated, BS number, but reported for a smaller number of firms.
I can only suppose that the original iteration of this exercise using the 16 trillion figure was so clearly inflated that it got no traction. 16 trillion dollars is bigger than US GDP so it is clearly beyond the realm of credibility.
This new exercise uses the same discredited tecchnique, but I guess the thought is that by reporting it for a limited number of banks makes the 4 trillion number more believable. It's not. Still BS.