But add up all the emergency loans the Federal Reserve distributed to banks between 2007 and 2009 (when the American economy lurched closer to collapse than anyone had previously thought possible) and it represents a much larger pile of money.
Bloomberg News recently made available the fullest version yet of its data on Fed emergency lending , a subject this news organization has written about numerous times in the past year. The Bloomberg release includes records of about 50,000 transactions the Fed made through seven different financial mechanisms.
At their peak, these seven programs represented $1.2 trillion in loans to banks and financial institutions -- the alleged high-water mark of a massive, systemic bailout whose details the country's central banking authority was, now quite understandably, very reluctant to divulge.
Even as critics have nailed the Fed for being less than forthcoming, few people claim that the central bank did the wrong thing by stepping in to backstop a financial system that seemed to be on the verge of imploding: "In the middle of the financial crisis, this is what you need. This is what a central bank is supposed to do," said James Wilcox, a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.
However, the utterly fake figures of $1.2 trillion and $7.7 trillion were both refuted on December 13th, 2011 by economist L. Randall Wray, who said the actual number is a full-on $29 Trillion.
Therefore the true total of Federal Reserve emergency lending to Wall Street is not the presstitute-reported $1.2 trillion, as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke contends, nor the $7.7 trillion figure reported by Bloomberg News, which Bernanke publicly contests. The real number, says economist L. Randall Wray, is a staggering $29 trillion. Wray writes that Bernanke's recent defense of the lower figure is "misleading" and that the chairman's claim that Fed bailouts do not constitute a form of spending is plain wrong.
So, Was the 26-To-29 Trillion Dollars Enough To Solve the Main Financial Problem Facing This Country?
There is simply no justifiable explanation for why this much money was needed. As we have seen, it had nothing to do with securing the assets of, or in any way benefitting, ordinary Americans.
But was this enough money to rescue banking institutions and restore them to full and lasting health? Or, did it merely keep them on life support a little longer, while greatly enriching senior bank officers and corporate CEOs, and also providing them with hundreds of billions of additional dollars with which to gamble in the derivatives market?
The answer is shocking. The $26 trillion was little more than a temporary gasp for air by companies that are still drowning in debt but which continue to gamble recklessly in the derivatives market.
Thanks to deregulation, such as the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, these institutions were allowed to hold just one dollar in the bank while they gambled in the derivatives market as if they had 5, 10, or even 30 dollars to backstop every hundred dollars of loans and gambling.
To put it into a kind of personal perspective, if you had ten thousand dollars in your checking account, you would suddenly become a millionaire if you could leverage it (borrow additional funds at 0% interest) at the "100X" rate for each dollar in your account.
Conclusion: These financial institutions have manipulated and abused "the system" in a way that allowed them to do casino gambling on a global scale -- with hundreds of billions of dollars of public money. And this reckless gambling, with public money, continues to this day.
Reference article from which most of the statistics, reasoning and links in this article were taken.