IMF Report on US Bailout Costs

May 6, 2009 by TFB

Financial Times reported last week that the IMF estimated the total bailout cost for the U.S. in the next five years at $1,900 billion or $6,200 per head.

Efforts to stabilise the financial system could end up costing US taxpayers about 13.3 per cent of annual output, or $1,900bn over the next five years, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund.

The dollar estimate, calculated by the Financial Times, equates to about $6,200 (€4,650, £4,200) per head of the population.

US taxpayers face bill of $1,900bn, fears IMF

Although the newspaper article didn't say which IMF report gave that figure, I think it's this one:

Global Financial Stability Report

Table 1.8 On page 44 shows the cost for financial stabilization at 12.7% of GDP. That number must have been updated to 13.3%. This companion paper produced in March shows how they came up with 12.7% GDP number.

Companion Paper – The State of Public Finances: Outlook and Medium-Term Policies After the 2008 Crisis

$1,900 billion is huge. I wonder where the money comes from. Not really. It's pretty obvious.

Software picked, likely related posts:

Keywords:
Filed under: News | Leave a comment

Comments

8 Comments on IMF Report on US Bailout Costs

  1. SJ on May 6, 2009 | permalink
    2.  

    Oh where does it come from? Can I get $6,200+ from it to cover my future tax hike?

    I read the first article, but the others just gimme a headache; is the companion paper interesting or just random #'s?

  2. dave on May 6, 2009 | permalink
    3.  

    Question: is it possible that they won't be able to spend it all since it might become clear soon that "there is not enough money in the world" (i.e., no one is willing to loan US the money)?

  3. TFB on May 7, 2009 | permalink
    4.  

    SJ – I don't blame you for not wanting to read those IMF reports. The relevant numbers in that companion paper are on pages 16 and 17. Basically they estimated the net cost after recovery will be 3.2% of GDP for upfront fiscal expenditure, plus 5.8% of GDP for guarantees, plus 3.6% of GDP for liquidity programs. In case you didn't get the letter, the money comes from you. Because the $6,200 number is for every man, woman, and child, if you are in the workforce, multiply that number by a factor of 3.

    Dave – Right now they are still able to sell debt to others. Apparently there are worse debtors than the United States government. So don't worry, that money will be spent.

  4. dave on May 7, 2009 | permalink
    5.  

    Well, if it is a fact that they are going to spend it all, then the only way they can possibly "pay" for it is to make our money worth less (not necessarily worthless, but close to it), to the point where the dollars that they pay it back with won't be worth anything like they are today. In other wods, inflation big time. I am old enough to remember LBJ's guns and butter and Jimmy Carter. But that was nothing compared to this.

    Is there any possible way that this will not happen?

    – dave

  5. TFB on May 7, 2009 | permalink
    6.  

    Terry Gross of NPR asked that question to Nobel winner Paul Krugman back in November. It's linked in this previous post. Whether you agree with the answer is a different question.

  6. dave on May 8, 2009 | permalink
    7.  

    OK — I checked that out the Paul Krugman thing and the line seems to be that the US is such a healthy economy, and our taxes are so low, that it will be fairly easy to pay for it by raising taxes. I do not believe that it will be politically possible to do that. If it is a choice between allowing inflation or raising taxes, I would think that they will go with inflation. For that matter, when all of this stim money gets into the handes of the real joes out there and they try to spend it on the same finite set of goods and services, the prices have to go up. That's inflation and it will not be controlable at that point. Is that the plan?

  7. TFB on May 10, 2009 | permalink
    8.  

    Dave – I don't know. The cost has to be paid somehow: more taxes, more inflation, dollar devaluation, or a combination thereof. None good for me personally.

  8. dave on May 10, 2009 | permalink
    9.  

    I understand the concept of getting those caught up who are perceived to have been "left out" of the American dream. This in my mind is the underlying Administration objective. I really do not have as big a problem with that as I have with the way that they are going about it. The stimulus money is going to those who are like me — already well off. I am a grants writer and am applying for it on behalf of others who are fairly well off. Question: how does the wealth get down to the average joe? Proposed answer: it absolutely cannot if we do not produce more goods and services for joe. Otherwise, even if some paper stuff does get into his pocket, there will not be anything to spend it on.

Tell me what you're thinking, but please don't spam. See comments moderation policy.