300 million spent to eradicate smallpox; 4 trillion to save Wall street

That 300 million isn't inflation-adjusted, is it?

Also, most of the $4-trillion-range figures are of guarantees, not actual dollars spent or committed - a good deal of that money has been or is going to be repaid. If the banks default on literally all of it, we're going to have much bigger problems; certainly, some of that money is truly at risk and is likely to never be repaid - but hardly all of it.

Now, that doesn't mean any of it is a great idea - a government guarantee of your debt is certainly a valuable give-away! - but it's not as if "we the taxpayers" wrote a $4 trillion check to Citibank. Distinguishing between a line of credit and a "gift" is pretty important (even though the LOC itself undoubtedly has value).

Edit: just to be clear, I actually agree with the broader point that our priorities are pretty screwed up and that there's a whole host of problems with the way these "bailouts" and whatnot have been handled. That said, exaggerating or making "truthy" comparisons just makes the whole thing less credible, which is unfortunate because the broader point is valid. Call it "the Michael Moore effect."

'Saving Wall street' was intended as 'saving the financial system'.

A collapse of several banks/insurance companies would trigger a run on the remaining banks, complete break-down of business lending, mass bankruptcies among non-financial companies, mass layoffs, civil unrest, sky-rocketing costs of servicing state debts, drop in foreign capital inflows, currency devaluation and likely default on government bonds leading to more misery. The crisis would be world-wide, affecting international trade and investment and well-being of billions. The costs of doing nothing would be enormous.

Markets is a complex nonlinear system that can go into a state of positive feedback -- trouble would breed more trouble. So US central bank tried to stop this vicious circle from developing by preventing Wall street from collapsing.

These measures may still fail, primarily because earlier the Fed did not do anything to prevent said positive feedback when markets and investment risk appetites were going up (also known as 'the bubble').

Populist soundbites on HN always surprise me.

Just to play devil's advocate, it's worth noting that if Wall Street collapsed there wouldn't be any money available for public health campaigns in the third world. Having said that, it's still a good rant and provides an interesting perspective on the financial crisis and the priorities of the world's governments.

I have serious doubts about the 300 million figure quoted here. He gives no details of how that figure was arrived at, nor whether it is adjusted for inflation or is in 1960 dollars. It doesn't say if it is money spent by america or world wide (although he implies it is the worldwide cost). It makes for a nice sensational headline though, I suppose.

Smallpox was eradicated. If it wasn't they probably would have spent more, that's just one reason this isn't a valid comparison.

I highly doubt the accuracy of the 4 trillion figure. Could anyone provide me with a detailed list?