I didn't say it was I said the BANKS ultimately control it, that is why credit is frozen and the fed has to come to the taxpayer for more. You would have realized that if you understood what I meant by saying "The Fed only control monetary policy" But as usual you once again jump the gun only to shoot yourself in the foot.

Who says im worried? Like I said before I've been playing the downside for a while now. No worries here. But I do know that it is much more constructive when there is an upside to play. But until recently there was no upside, and there are still problems looking for the upside because there is no transparency.

Hopefully but we will see what happens when they reveal what exposure they have to the various derivative markets and what is to be had as they sell off the various pieces of it.They were leveraged 11 to 1. If you look at a good Ins. business you will see 2 to 1 without it being leveraged by hard to understand non liquid assets.

Buffett did a very diffent thing. He kept them liquid and expects the taxpayer to buy some of their bad assets.

I think you need to reread what you wrote.  And stop "fool"ing yourself.

The only difference is that it is not the government doing it.  It is the same deal.  A smart investment.  So far (and note the tense) that is all AIG is as well, not a bailout.  That has yet to be passed by congress.

Theres a huge difference. AIG insures a lot of things INCLUDING mortgage backed securities, It also has a subsidiary that wrote insurance in the form of CDS's which basically insures losses on loans and debt. I believe these policies run to the tune of about 500 billion. This is what the Fed needed to keep solvent. The same goes for Bears Sterns. They are also in the business of selling insurance in the form of CDS's. These CDS are what  banks use to hedge against loan losses.

http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/04/02/credit-default-swaps-a-50-trillion-problem/

This is what the Treasury is trying to keep from unfolding, by getting the mbs's out of the banks and essentially off book while the housing market stabilizes so they can figure out what needs to be done for the long term. 

No, as I was not talking about their types of business, only the form of the rescue (neither was a bailout - they both have to get their crap together with the good and the bad).

Both were kept solvent not through a bail out, but by what amounts to a bunch of junk bonds.  That apparently not only wall street, but savvy investors think is worth the risk.

Bailout in economics and finance is a term used to describe a situation where a bankrupt or nearly bankrupt entity, such as a corporation or a bank, is given a fresh injection of liquidity, in order to meet its short term obligations. Often bailouts are by governments, or by consortia of investors who demand control over the entity as the price for injecting funds.

DOH

r

Now prove it.

Why don't you do some research on what was happening to AIG before they were bailed out. Not only will you answer your own question but you just might start to understand what the current bailout plan is all about