Davos: Russia’s anti crisis plan not delivering bang for its buck?
Published: 28 January, 2010, 18:15
Edited: 10 February, 2010, 11:04
Though the Russian government is beginning to see some of its anti crisis funds be repaid, questions are being asked about how well the bailout money was spent.
I totally agree on the need for audit and transparency. I think I can follow the idea of line of credit and an interest to be paid. I am not so sure I follow the application process for TARP money, and how exactly is that money characterized. When Obama said that money is being returned, I get confused, since many analysts say that in fact it is not true. The money returned is actually taxpayers' own money, as Banks got some tax breaks. So those taxes that will not be paid, became "returned" money. It is a mess. Since most of the money that went into stimulus has not been yet spent, and if and when spent, it will not be clear how will such stellar performance be assured. How does this "expert' know what kind of return exists in different economies. This "data" is nonsense, as it is absolutely not possible to make any comparisons, let alone actuarials. Inventing stuff seems to be a well paid job. How can I get one? No, I would rather go into climate change, and tell everyone of some other glaciers melting (Hymalaya's have been spoken for).










Of course any government program should be questioned and audited, especially ad-hoc programs to address emergencies. Otherwise you get the free-for-all we had in USA in late 2008, when Congress was stampeded over a cliff by hysterical Treasury and Federal Reserve officials (the same people are now in charge of Treasury - ugh). Better to have an audit built into any government program (even after the fact) to determine whether it was effective and least cost, and to prevent all the money being funneled to one bunch of crooks.