One can only hope Miami taxpayers teach the politicians who did this a lesson and slaughter them in the next election - every last one who voted for this white elephant should lose and lose big. Taxpayers in other areas should pay attention and anytime a politician even considers using tax dollars to build a new park they should scream and kick the politician out of office first chance they get. Major league stadiums are not a necessity, nor have they been shown to be 'profitable' by any study done by a 3rd party study (ie: one not done by a city or team). Force the leagues to build their own stadiums and if a team moved due to it, well, so be it. Better than tossing a billion dollars of debt onto your kids.

Better than tossing a billion dollars of debt onto your kids.

I'm all for "slaughtering" Miami politicians, but unless Miami-Dade's hotel-tax revenue plummets and the locals have to start paying down the ballpark debt, the kids of Miami aren't and won't be paying for the Marlins' stadium. Almost all of the "taxpayer money" being spent on this is coming from hotel taxes (i.e., money paid by visitors rather than locals), which, by Florida law, must be spent on projects that are at least ostensibly tourism-related rather than on roads, schools, etc.

Of course, if they are short on money for stuff that is tourism related guess where they'll take it from? Plus, of course, a hotel tax means that profits the hotels could've made (thus leading to the ability to build more/better hotels which would've created jobs) is instead going to the stadium and the financiers of that stadium.

Taxes that appear 'safe' are always costing someone and will lead to less economic activity. The question is, does the gain from use of that money exceed the loss of taking it. In the case of stadiums the general answer is 'no'. I'm sure at some level it could be 'yes' but it is a lot less than the level this one is at.

Taxes that appear 'safe' are always costing someone and will lead to less economic activity.

Careful, now. We don't want the BBTF liberals to run you off the site.

Nice selective quote there, Joe. Did you happen to read the sentence directly behind the one you cut and pasted? You know, the one that completed the thought experiment and added critical nuance to his argument?

Nice selective quote there, Joe. Did you happen to read the sentence directly behind the one you cut and pasted? You know, the one that completed the thought experiment and added critical nuance to his argument?

Ha ha. I knew that was coming. It's funny how spending tax money on sports stadiums is the only use of tax money that BBTF's lefties don't like.

According to BBTF's lefties, Obama's trilion-dollar "stimulus," which could have paid for almost 1,500 (!) Marlins stadiums, was such a great idea that we should have another one that's even bigger. But spending money to build a sports stadium — in a dying Miami neighborhood in a city with high unemployment, which will keep a high-profile sports team in town for 30 years — was a horrible, horrible idea.

The linked article is consistent with Mike Ozanian's political views, but the outrage shown by the liberals here is more than a little "selective" in nature. If only liberals were as judicious with taxpayer money in scenarios not involving sports teams.

The linked article is consistent with Mike Ozanian's political views, but the outrage shown by the liberals here is more than a little "selective" in nature.

How many liberals is John Northey?

Are you kidding? This seems like the hundredth thread we've had on the Marlins' new stadium.

It's funny how spending tax money on sports stadiums is the only use of tax money that BBTF's lefties don't like.

So I take it that, since you reflexively disagree with anything that smacks of a liberal POV, you approve of using tax dollars this way?

Or don't you? It's not clear from what you have written so far.

So I take it that, since you reflexively disagree with anything that smacks of a liberal POV, you agree with using tax dollars this way?

I'm generally against taxpayer subsidies of anything related to the private sector, but if the trillion-dollar "stimulus" was a good idea, then building this stadium was a great idea.

On the list of things on which taxpayer money is being spent unwisely and/or inefficiently, sports facilities don't crack the top 100.

On the list of things on which taxpayer money is being spent unwisely and/or inefficiently, sports facilities don't crack the top 100.

And you're saying this because you're a baseball agent and indirectly benefit from subsidized stadiums.

And you're saying this because you're a baseball agent and indirectly benefit from subsidized stadiums.

No, I'm saying it because it's the truth. The people who got stimulus money didn't perform the work at or below cost, and some of them probably didn't do any work at all. Why is it OK for one set of well-connected cronies to be enriched with taxpayer money but not some other group?

(Also, I haven't worked much as an agent since before I started posting at BBTF. Most of my baseball business these days is on the ownership/management side. You might see this as bolstering your argument, but it really doesn't. As we all know, there are only two facility issues in all of MLB, and I have zero ties to OAK or TB.)

The people who got stimulus money didn't perform the work at or below cost, and some of them probably didn't do any work at all

Oddly enough, one major use of federal stimulus money in Arlington TX was to improve road and bridge infrastructure around the then-new (local-taxpayer-supported) Cowboys Stadium. (And the work really was done.) I reckon this means the stadium district in Arlington is something we can all be happy about :)

Oddly enough, one major use of federal stimulus money in Arlington TX was to improve road and bridge infrastructure around the then-new (local-taxpayer-supported) Cowboys Stadium. (And the work really was done.) I reckon this means the stadium district in Arlington is something we can all be happy about :)

Spending taxpayer money on anything related to football is nothing short of an outrage!

On the list of things on which taxpayer money is being spent unwisely and/or inefficiently, sports facilities don't crack the top 100.

I live in DC and I think it's quite apparent now that the investment in the new Nationals Stadium is proving to be worth it for the district. The area immediately around the new stadium has drawn enormous amounts of investment dollars and has totally revitalized what was a moribund area in the southeast. This redevelopment/renewal has even trickled over into the southwest area several blocks away near the river, where building is scheduled to start later this year, and new retailing, hotels/restaurants, and high-end urban dwellings are planned. It's now pleasant to live here, and things look like they are going to get better still.

I live in DC and I think it's quite apparent now that the investment in the new Nationals Stadium is proving to be worth it for the district. The area immediately around the new stadium has drawn enormous amounts of investment dollars and has totally revitalized what was a moribund area in the southeast. This redevelopment/renewal has even trickled over into the southwest area several blocks away near the river, where building is scheduled to start later this year, and new retailing, hotels/restaurants, and high-end urban dwellings are planned. It's now pleasant to live here, and things look like they are going to get better still.

And if DC invested in a shopping mall, it would have been far cheaper and generated more economic activity. The Nats stadium is empty most of the year, and staffed mostly by minimum wage employees when it is hosting an event,

The idea that government spending "stimulates" activity is no duh. The idea that it does so efficiently is ludicrous. Its easy to see the effects of concentrated spending, but hard to see the greater economic benefits had that money not been appropriated from taxpayers, and spent on actual products/services that are valuable enough they don't need a handout get funded.

And if DC invested in a shopping mall, it would have been far cheaper and generated more economic activity.

The "cheaper" part is assuredly correct, but the latter part seems dubious. I doubt there's anyone in D.C. who's holding onto his or her money because of a lack of stores at which to spend it.

The idea that government spending "stimulates" activity is no duh. The idea that it does so efficiently is ludicrous.

Any economist will tell you that the economic multiplier attached to government spending varies widely depending on circumstances. Sometimes it is less than 1. Sometimes it really is more than 1. Private-sector spending might be more efficient, but there are times where the private sector simply doesn't spend, such as was the situation over the last 4 years or so.

Part of the problem with the Marlins Stadium project is that the financing was so foolish. The U.S. government can borrow currently at negative real interest rates. It's clear that the rates Miami-Dade were getting were far more usurious, which completely changes the context. Circumstances are everything; there is no set rule that applies in every situation. Life is complicated.

Its easy to see the effects of concentrated spending, but hard to see the greater economic benefits had that money not been appropriated from taxpayers

According to D.C. Mayor Williams at the time, this was "but for" money, money that would not be available but for the construction of Nationals Park. I believe they set up a special tax district that would tax involved businesses specifically to fund the ballpark, at least that is how it was sold. It was not supposed to come from the general fund.

I live in DC and I think it's quite apparent now that the investment in the new Nationals Stadium is proving to be worth it for the district. The area immediately around the new stadium has drawn enormous amounts of investment dollars and has totally revitalized what was a moribund area in the southeast. This redevelopment/renewal has even trickled over into the southwest area several blocks away near the river, where building is scheduled to start later this year, and new retailing, hotels/restaurants, and high-end urban dwellings are planned. It's now pleasant to live here, and things look like they are going to get better still.

Washington is somewhat of a special case, in that most of the fans attending the games come from Northern Virginia (estimated to be 60%) & Maryland (25%), so the Stadium operates as a de facto commuter tax, sucking up suburban revenue that wouldn't otherwise be spent in DC. That's not to say that there aren't other benefits as #15 suggests, but it's easier to do when you're attracting new money rather than just moving existing entertainment spending around a single jurisdiction.

Any economist will tell you that the economic multiplier attached to government spending varies widely depending on circumstances. Sometimes it is less than 1. Sometimes it really is more than 1. Private-sector spending might be more efficient, but there are times where the private sector simply doesn't spend, such as was the situation over the last 4 years or so.


And when the private sector won't spend it's almost always b/c the gov't has effed up its more basic responsibilities.

The economy would be in much, much better shape today if we had used that $1T stimulus to break-up and recapitalize the "too-big-to-fail" banks into smaller, well capitalized lenders; after wiping out the equity holders, and forcing the long-term debt holders to take a haircut on face amount in exchange for equity in the new entities, of course.

According to D.C. Mayor Williams at the time, this was "but for" money, money that would not be available but for the construction of Nationals Park.

"But for" taxes are just a way for politicians to justify it. It's a ######## term. The powers that be have decided that a group of people (generally, tourists) are going to be taxed. Fine. They could instead chose to use it on things that the tourists actually get use out of, such as transit and road maintenance and improvements, which also positively effects far more people that live and work in the area than go to ball games. But instead they use it to build a stadium that only a fraction of people use for a fraction of the time. It's crap.

And when the private sector won't spend it's almost always b/c the gov't has effed up its more basic responsibilities.

Article of faith.

The economy would be in much, much better shape today if we had used that $1T stimulus to break-up and recapitalize the "too-big-to-fail" banks into smaller, well capitalized lenders; after wiping out the equity holders, and forcing the long-term debt holders to take a haircut on face amount in exchange for equity in the new entities, of course.

Nobody on BTF supports massive government action like Snapper does.

Part of the problem with the Marlins Stadium project is that the financing was so foolish. The U.S. government can borrow currently at negative real interest rates. It's clear that the rates Miami-Dade were getting were far more usurious, which completely changes the context.

This. I wouldn't make it since I thought Miami should have let the Marlins burn, but there's a real argument to be made for the public funding of the new stadium. The Marlins did what any private agent wants to do: make money any way possible. The public interest doesn't enter into the equation.

It's clear that the rates Miami-Dade were getting were far more usurious, which completely changes the context.

But this isn't really clear at all. If you build a new house in 2013 but either can't or don't want to make the first payment until 2028, the lenders are taking on a lot of risk, and the borrower should expect to pay a lot more than usual in interest.

This isn't to say I believe the Miami-Dade politicians handled this deal in an intelligent manner — I don't — but "usurious" seems like a stretch, and that's before getting into the effects inflation could have on the yield (as discussed in the last thread a couple days ago).

DC didn't need the park to revitalize DC or parts of DC. That was going to happen with or without a new park. If they can create a special money that can only be spent on a ballpark they could have created special money that could have only been spent on things besides a new ballpark. The park was/is a waste of taxpayer money and the Nationals have been trying to gouge the taxpayers and the fans of their team ever since.

Washington is somewhat of a special case, in that most of the fans attending the games come from Northern Virginia (estimated to be 60%) & Maryland (25%), so the Stadium operates as a de facto commuter tax, sucking up suburban revenue that wouldn't otherwise be spent in DC. That's not to say that there aren't other benefits as #15 suggests, but it's easier to do when you're attracting new money rather than just moving existing entertainment spending around a single jurisdiction.

Except all those commuters would have been spending that money in DC anyway and it would probably help fund more jobs and better jobs than 81 days a year at low wages.

I work in a hotel that generates almost 30 million dollars a year in revenue and employs about 150 full time employees at good wages. I used to work at a hotel that did about 80 million or so a year and employed over 500 people at good wages. The tourists taxes that target hotels and restaurants raise the cost of going to these establishments which costs the city jobs all so a billionaire can get a cheap ballpark and employ a handful of people.

Nobody on BTF supports massive government action like Snapper does.

We had the massive gov't action, and all it did was bail out bank shareholders and executives, and provide political cronies with tasty contracts.

The $1T is gone now. If the gov't had used the $1T to recapitalize banks, they would have had a ton of equity in the banks that could be sold (at a likely profit) when the banks were stable.

It's amazing that anyone thinks the equity holders and executives of companies that need Federal bailouts should be left in place to profit off the taxpayers' subsidies. If you need Gov't capital, you're bankrupt. Equity should be wiped out, l.t. debt written down, and senior management dismissed.

This Forbes article sure is riddled with spelling and typing errors. The editor should be embarrassed.

The tourists taxes that target hotels and restaurants raise the cost of going to these establishments which costs the city jobs all so a billionaire can get a cheap ballpark and employ a handful of people.

So if the tourist taxes were eliminated, room rates would go down? That seems dubious.

So if the tourist taxes were eliminated, room rates would go down? That seems dubious.

Are you kidding? Without the additional taxes, the rates wouldn't be that high in the first place.

Except all those commuters would have been spending that money in DC anyway and it would probably help fund more jobs and better jobs than 81 days a year at low wages.

No, that's not true. There are a lot of suburbanites that rarely go into to DC for entertainment anymore. Too much of a hassle. There are movie theaters &'restaurants in the suburbs now. Many people come into DC, and bring their family, mostly for baseball. Or the Capitals. Perhaps the Wizards, too, if they improve a bit more.

Are you kidding? Without the additional taxes, the rates wouldn't be that high in the first place.

Did the Red Sox lower their ticket prices as soon as they traded Gonzalez and Crawford?

Hotel rates, like MLB ticket prices, are based on what the market will bear. Hotel taxes are much more likely to represent lost profits for the hotel owners than potential savings for hotel guests.

Yeah, DC is hurting for tourists.

Those people that live in NoVa and MD commute into work everyday and spend money in DC everyday regardless of whether or not the Nationals exist.

If the tax rates weren't as high the demand for the supply of rooms would be greater leading to more rooms and more jobs. Seems like pretty simple supply and demand.

If the tax rates weren't as high the demand for the supply of rooms would be greater leading to more rooms and more jobs. Seems like pretty simple supply and demand.

Again, this assumes that no hotel tax = lower room rates, but that's not necessarily true, as we've seen with everything from MLB ticket prices to (expired) airline surcharges.

Those people that live in NoVa and MD commute into work everyday and spend money in DC everyday regardless of whether or not the Nationals exist.

Getting the lunch business from a captive audience during the work week is entirely different from their discretionary spending on nights & weekends. The money that suburbanites spend at Nationals Park is mostly money that would NOT have otherwise been spent in DC.

The fundamental fallacy in the anti-liberal screed introduced here in post #2 (gosh, we got 1 honest post before the talking points!?) is that conservatives haven't and don't spend more than liberals. It's been proven (you know, how the rate of growth in federal spending under Reagan and Bush has far outstripped the others over the past 30 years). It's just a question of taxing or borrowing. All the rest is red herring as far as the eye can see.

The "cheaper" part is assuredly correct, but the latter part seems dubious. I doubt there's anyone in D.C. who's holding onto his or her money because of a lack of stores at which to spend it.

It's almost as dumb as a stadium to build more malls with the public money, but if you do at least you are providing full time jobs every day of the year.

Any economist will tell you that the economic multiplier attached to government spending varies widely depending on circumstances. Sometimes it is less than 1. Sometimes it really is more than 1.

If the mythical concept of the "economic multiplier" actually existed, it still has near zero impact on where government spending is directed, it's nearly always directed to the benefit of the most effective and active political supporters regardless of efficiency or "multiplier". But yea, the entire concept of a "mutiplier" is just another keynsiastic economic concept lacking any logical base, just like Krugmans assertion that the economy can be "stimulated" merely by having people dig holes in the desert and fill them back in.

Private-sector spending might be more efficient, but there are times where the private sector simply doesn't spend, such as was the situation over the last 4 years or so.

If private business isn't spending, the solution is to remove the obstacles that are causing them to pull back on spending and investment. Lack of spending was a symptom of the unwinding of a greater problem, ironically caused by an orgy of government intervention in the housing and banking industries, subsidizing uneconomic levels of housing, excessive risk taking by banks, etc.

Part of the problem with the Marlins Stadium project is that the financing was so foolish. The U.S. government can borrow currently at negative real interest rates. It's clear that the rates Miami-Dade were getting were far more usurious, which completely changes the context. Circumstances are everything; there is no set rule that applies in every situation. Life is complicated.

There are set rules that apply to every situation.

1) If investors invest their own monies, they'll make far better and smarter decisions than politicians and bureaucrats spending other peoples monies.
2) If an investment can't get privately funded, it's very likely it's not an economically viable investment.
3) If a business is publicly funded, it's very likely a drain on the economic output of the country.

So if the tourist taxes were eliminated, room rates would go down? That seems dubious.

So you don't believe in the law of supply and demand? Or you believe pricing is (illegally) coordinated in a market with hundreds of different businesses owning hotels and motels in the DC?

If you owned a hotel in the area, and the tax was removed so your profits went up significantly, you wouldn't lower your rates and try to increase occupancy to see if profits could go up more? Ok, so what do you do when the competitor across the street lowers their rates to steal your customers? Or someone builds a newer hotel down the street, attracted by the now higher return on investment in your business the tax removal creates?

Did the Red Sox lower their ticket prices as soon as they traded Gonzalez and Crawford?

Did you just compare a monopoly to a competitive business? The Sox have a fixed suppy of tickets regardless of what they spend on the field. Hotels can be built, and can be demolished or converted to other uses.

Again, this assumes that no hotel tax = lower room rates, but that's not necessarily true, as we've seen with everything from MLB ticket prices to (expired) airline surcharges.

I guess you don't understand the difference between monopolies and competitive businesses, since airlines function in a highly regulated industry even in "deregulation", they can't just start dozens or hundreds of flights any time they choose. They have to negotiate or buy gates (which none may be available), landing slots (again none may be available), government approvals, etc. Every airline has a fixed supply of perishable tickets, and it's difficult for them to increase that supply quickly, and your government is mostly to blame for the lack of competition since the entire system is government planned, run and operated from airports to air traffic control, etc and they limit competition at every step.

To give you a hint about how truly competitive markets work, if room rates in DC decline, more people will rent rooms in DC. More new hotels will be built to take advantage of the greater demand and lower costs. It doesn't matter if some hotels try to hold out and keep their prices the same, every time a competitor lowers their rates, the holdouts will take a beating. What determines room rates is ROI, return on investment. If ROI goes up, more competitors want to come in or expand, if it goes down, fewer do, if it goes down enough some competitors close up shop and convert their hotels into something else.

Re 39

Highly dubious. It supposes that dc is not a journey that nova and md citizens would make if it wasn't for the nationals which is quite obviously false. Week nights, weekends, daytime, holidays, whatever the city is full of non dc residents.

The fundamental fallacy in the anti-liberal screed introduced here in post #2 (gosh, we got 1 honest post before the talking points!?)

Actually, I held off on the "anti-liberal screed" until post #4.

is that conservatives haven't and don't spend more than liberals. It's been proven (you know, how the rate of growth in federal spending under Reagan and Bush has far outstripped the others over the past 30 years). It's just a question of taxing or borrowing. All the rest is red herring as far as the eye can see.

LOL.

Taxes that appear 'safe' are always costing someone and will lead to less economic activity.

This is not true.

We had the massive gov't action, and all it did was bail out bank shareholders and executives, and provide political cronies with tasty contracts.

The $1T is gone now. If the gov't had used the $1T to recapitalize banks, they would have had a ton of equity in the banks that could be sold (at a likely profit) when the banks were stable.

What is this 1T you mention? TARP was around 450b and has been repaid...

But yea, the entire concept of a "mutiplier" is just another keynsiastic economic concept lacking any logical base, just like Krugmans assertion that the economy can be "stimulated" merely by having people dig holes in the desert and fill them back in.

This is an odd assertion, particularly since you could substitute 'a whole lot of military spending' over the last x years for digging and filling holes. Much of the spending on armaments is no different than building various ships, tanks, and guns, towing them to the middle of the ocean, and letting them sink. Or rust in the desert. Your pick.

1) If investors invest their own monies, they'll make far better and smarter decisions than politicians and bureaucrats spending other peoples monies.

You can't expect to say things like this and be taken seriously.

Funny stuff on private investment at

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704104104575622933390524688.html?KEYWORDS="just+say+no"+please

It's almost as dumb as a stadium to build more malls with the public money, but if you do at least you are providing full time jobs every day of the year.

The Nationals probably offer more good full-time jobs than even the best shopping malls.

Did you just compare a monopoly to a competitive business? The Sox have a fixed suppy of tickets regardless of what they spend on the field. Hotels can be built, and can be demolished or converted to other uses.

LOL. One minute the anti-stadium people are arguing that a sports team is in competition with all other forms of entertainment in an area, and that such sports teams simply cannibalize other entertainment spending. The next minute, that same sports team is a monopoly with an iron grip on its fans' dollars.

To give you a hint about how truly competitive markets work, if room rates in DC decline, more people will rent rooms in DC. More new hotels will be built to take advantage of the greater demand and lower costs.

Based on the second sentence, I'm guessing you don't read Yglesias.

Somewhat similarly, I remember trying to find a room in DC that was "reasonably priced" and failing miserably. My vague impression was that way, way too many stay in DC with other people's money paying for their rooms.

This is an odd assertion, particularly since you could substitute 'a whole lot of military spending' over the last x years for digging and filling holes. Much of the spending on armaments is no different than building various ships, tanks, and guns, towing them to the middle of the ocean, and letting them sink. Or rust in the desert. Your pick.

Glad you agree with me, as Krugman would argue that the Military spending was highly "stimulative" when you and I both know it was a substantial negative for our economy.

You can't expect to say things like this and be taken seriously.

Funny stuff on private investment at

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704104104575622933390524688.html?KEYWORDS="just+say+no"+please

You got me. Since I didn't put "in aggregate" in my sentence I clearly must have meant that every private investing decision is superior to every public investment decision. I willingly concede that isn't true. And as someone who has actively managed client investment portfolios, I concede that most individual investors are horrible investors.

But if you allow me to put "in aggregate" back in, I'll stand by that assertion. I could cherry pick things like "the bridge to nowhere", TARP, Fannie Mae, Public Stadiums, etc to make my point. The vast amount of money invested by private entities is far more effectively invested because the vast majority is invested facing substantial penalties for failure. Factories, stores, startups, are almost always funded because the investors have good reason to believe they will succeed, or at least that their risk of failure is more than offset by the profits they'll earn when successful.

Someones "skin in the game" is an oft quoted truism that is directly related to the amount of care and due diligence they put into business decision. Making decisions with other peoples monies with little personal risk is almost always a recipe for unintended consequences, if not disaster, whether it's done by congress, local governments, or hedge funds.

The Nationals probably offer more good full-time jobs than even the best shopping malls.

LOL.

The most highly paid employees of the Nats don't have to live in the area half the year, and can spend most of their income and pay taxes on it in other states. Almost all of their scouts and coaches work elsewhere. Please tell us how many full time, year round good paying jobs the Nats have at the stadium.

A mall employees employs at least a thousand people year round, and every store in that mall has at least one person, if not many more, making good wages to manage it the store a shift or department. Then you have people managing security, maintenance, mall leasing, the financial department, HR, etc. Then you have highly compensated sales people at high end stores.

The most highly paid employees of the Nats don't have to live in the area half the year, and can spend most of their income and pay taxes on it in other states. Almost all of their scouts and coaches work elsewhere. Please tell us how many full time, year round good paying jobs the Nats have at the stadium.

I just counted 205 staffers who are likely to be both full-time and based in D.C., and I'm guessing that list isn't comprehensive.

Add in 25 players who make an average of $3.4 million* and spend 6-7 months or more in D.C. (and a manager, six coaches, and medical staffers who all make at least six figures), and I'm guessing the Nationals' payroll dwarfs that of the best shopping mall in the D.C. area.


(* MLB average; not WAS average.)

What is this 1T you mention? TARP was around 450b and has been repaid...

TARP is on track to lose $24B, so not totally repaid. TARP was a massive bailout of poor investment decisions, i.e. a subsidy of reckless investors so they could keep their companies and equity instead of being forced to refinance or reorganize in bankruptcy. Then execs at the bailed out banks paid themselves billions in bonuses made possible only by the TARP handouts.

The US government also bailed out foreign banks by taking over $50B in losses they had on money they lent AIG.

The actual loss will likely be much higher because politicians always hide or delay bad news. Banks are still trying to get out of repaying their warrants by lobbying congress, despite it's protestations Goldman Sachs will skate on up to $24B it owes the treasury when the ABA gets the warrants killed. When that bill passes the loss will probably increase as much as $100B.

But TARP was only a minor part of the foolishness. The fed gave out $7.7 Trillion(!) in cheap money to banks that significantly increased their profitability at virtually no cost, another massive subsidy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html