With apologies to actor William Shatner, How big could the bailout of AIG get? Really big.

The U.S. government -- which is all of us, citizens and taxpayers -- may have to increase its investment in American International Group (NYSE: AIG) by still another $70-80 billion to keep the insurer solvent through the end of 2009.

Just call it USG-AIG

AIG, which reported $43 billion in losses tied to home mortgages in the past quarter, "will probably not function properly if it doesn't receive another cash infusion by September 2009," economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks Tuesday. Wang based his forecast on his projection for cashed-in credit default swaps stemming from home mortgage defaults.

AIG is a major issuer of credit default swaps, actually a type of credit default insurance, which many holders of mortgage backed securities and bonds purchased to hedge against bond issuer defaults.

"If we project a rise in home mortgage defaults through Q2 2009, that will likely take credit default claims to levels that will require more money for AIG in late 2009," Wang said, although he qualified his projection by stating that it is contingent on negative U.S. GDP for Q1/Q2 2009. A U.S. economic recovery in Q2 2009 is possible, but not likely, Wang said.

AIG's shares fell 15 cents to $2.14 on Tuesday at mid-day, amid a broader market sell-off.

Bonuses for a U.S. Government-rescued Wall Street should take on a 'slightly' leaner tone, according to a sampling of U.S. taxpayers by Bloomberg News. The taxpayers' judgment regarding how large the bonuses should be? Zip. Nothing. Nada. Niet.

Wall Street, which created many of the Frankenstein-like financial instruments that either distorted and/or hid loan risk, and also in some cases encouraged the issuing of problematic mortgage forms, is not justified in paying bonuses, and certainly should not award them following the government's massive $700 billion bail-out of the industry, a sampling of U.S. taxpayers indicated.

One U.S. resident, Ken Karlson, a 61-year-old Vietnam War veteran who lives in Illinois told Bloomberg News, "I may not understand everything, but I do understand common sense." He added, "the bailout money should not have been given to them in the first place."

Economist Richard Felson told BloggingStocks Tuesday acrimony from U.S. citizens is not outlandish or unreasonable given the facts to-date of the current financial crisis.

New York Times (NYSE: NYT) Columnist David Brooks draws attention to a U.S. economic discussion and reality that's been all-but-sidelined in the past three decades, particularly among younger investors and others who believe that history began in 1981. Namely, that there's been a distinct cyclicality to the nation's economic / public policy history.

Is a new progressive era ahead?

That may come as a surprise to market absolutists and others who see economic history and their view of economic progress as a straight line towards privatization. In fact, periods of economic conservatism and liberalism -- the latter also known as progressive reform -- have cycled for much of the nation's history.

For Brooks, those economic blinders help explain both the market absolutists' befuddlement at the financial crisis around them and their inability to adapt to the electoral demands brought on by the crisis. Market absolutists are in a straightjacket of a party that is ailing and part of a conservatism that is behind the times, he says.

On the cycle's timing, economist David H. Wang argues that the old era ends and the new era begins not when social pressures build from the bottom-up, but when institutions -- like investment banks, mortgage lenders and credit default swap issuers -- fail from the top-down.

In the accounting business, helping clients improve earnings is not that hard, if you can change the rules. Banks would like the boring green eye-shades to alter how they value assets on bank balance sheets, a pretty nifty way to cut losses without doing anything meaningful to balance sheets.

According to Reuters, "Fair value accounting, which requires assets to be valued at market prices, has been blamed for billions of dollars in write-downs by some U.S. banks and policymakers."

Yes, but wouldn't all their investors like to see how badly banks were managed? How big the gambles were on toilet paper assets like mortgage-backed securities?

While it is fine to sweep the dirt under the rug, the rules are the rules and have been the rules for some time. Changing them now would cause a dislocation in reporting, For 2008, losses may be accounted for under one set of criteria. Next year, that may change. How do shareholders see the actual difference in earnings from one year to the next if the way that assets are valued is changed?

It is always nice to re-write the rule book. Why shouldn't a basketball player who is active now be able to score 100,000 points because he gets credit for a point every time he blows his nose? Just a year or so ago, he actually had to put the ball into the hoop.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Just call it a case of a need to strengthen a hospital patient with IVs to make him strong enough for a much-needed operation. The Treasury and FDIC need to do more to stem the tide of home foreclosures -- foreclosures that are a major source of the currently afflicting credit markets -- so says an economist.

"Stress and fear, although at lower levels, remain a pervasive feature of credit markets, with above-normal, short-term interest rates, and bank-to-bank suspicion," economist Richard Felson said Monday. "This stressed condition in credit markets is just going to linger until we shut off a major portion of the source of toxic assets -- home foreclosures."

Felson said the U.S. Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury, in conjunction with their companion major central banks and governments abroad, have done "a decent job" addressing two, key dimensions of the financial crisis: maintaining market liquidity and lowering interest rates to assist the recovery.

Progress in two other areas -- buying toxic assets and ending the pattern of home foreclosures -- has been less impressive, he said.

The Treasury has decided that just bailing out American International Group (NYSE: AIG) to the tune of $122.8 billion and counting is not going far enough. Now it's time to use our money to bail out more insurance companies. As it turns out, the insurers that are likely to get the money are the same ones that took a blood bath earlier this month. The companies seeking a bailout include Met Life (NYSE: MET), Hartford Financial Services (NYSE: HIG), and Prudential Financial (NYSE: PRU).

You may be wondering, what crime did I commit that makes it socially acceptable for my money to be used to bailout the insurance industry? Aren't my home, auto, and life insurance premiums up to date? If so, what gives the insurance industry the right to use my taxes to pay for their investment mistakes? Because that is exactly what the insurance companies are doing.

How so? Their books are loaded down with asset-backed securities such as mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that vastly exceed their shareholder's equity. These securities are not worth much -- in fact, a recent report suggested that CDOs were worth 10 cents on the dollar at best. If the insurers have these stated on their books at 60 cents on the dollar, the mark to market process could wipe out a significant portion of their capital.

Every once in while during a crisis or history-altering event, you run across a quote or an observation that sort of summarizes events on the ground, in a nutshell. Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker articulated one such observation during a recent chat he had with PBS's Charlie Rose.

"It seems to me what our nation needs is more civil engineers and electrical engineers and fewer financial engineers," Volcker said.

U.S.: a decade of descent

And there you have it -- the United States' decade of descent, in a nutshell. Volcker's observation speaks volumes about where the United States economy -- and the nation, at large, for that matter -- is today.

For reasons that historians will undoubtedly debate for decades (globalization, automation, flawed public policies, inadequate regulations, overconsumption, the availability of foreign capital, greed) the United States embarked on a financing boom -- creating an increasing array of creative and untenable mortgage types, accompanied by an equally problematic set of mortgage backed securities. It generated an unsustainable housing bubble, which ended as all bubbles do -- badly -- triggering the global financial crisis.

And yet, all the while, as Volcker observed, public investment in infrastructure -- the physical backbone of the economy, of the nation, really -- declined. That infrastructure is now in a state of disrepair. The nation's schools, hospitals, roads/bridges/mass transit systems/air travel system and even our electric grid are inadequate to meet the nation's current requirements, let alone the requirements of an expanding, vibrant, dynamic, twenty-first century economy.

Most economists agree that keep global financial markets liquid - - and filled with dollars - - is an important part of the effort to end the global financial crisis.

Further, along with the removal of toxic assets from bank and financial institution (FI) balance sheets, stemming the rise in home foreclosures among borrowers capable of servicing their mortgages is another key to ending both the financial crisis and the home foreclosure/asset price decline cycle, many economists agree.

Moreover, it looks like federal officials and banks - - after a slow start - - will launch a new, major program to keep more families in their homes. The federal government may start guaranteeing home mortgages to persuade lenders to modify home loans, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said, Reuters reported Friday.

FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair said that under a program her agency and the U.S. Treasury Department are working on, a bank/lender would be required to significantly drop the interest rate, reduce the principal or extend the life of affected loans, The Washington Post reported Friday. In return, the bank/lender would get a government guarantee that the mortgage would be repaid.

Bair, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, could not provide an estimate regarding how much the program would cost, but underscored that the bank rescue program passed by Congress earlier this month give the Treasury power to use loan guarantees and credit enhancements to modify loans to prevent avoidable foreclosures, Reuters reported Friday.

Congressional investigators repeatedly, verbally pummeled former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Thursday, for what lawmakers charged was a lack of oversight for a mortgage and housing market run amok - - a lapse they believe encouraged a subprime financing boom and collapse that led to the global financial crisis.

Greenspan, looking subdued but characteristically composed as he testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, conceded that a flaw in his free-market ideology contributed to a "once-in-a-century credit tsunami," Bloomberg News reported Thursday.

Greenspan: mortgage risk was miss-priced

The flaw, Greenspan said, was the failure by banks and mortgage lenders to properly price risky mortgage assets, including subprime / Alt-A mortgages, The Washington Post reported Thursday. Further, Greenspan said he saw "no choice" but to force the financial firms that package mortgage loans to "retain a meaningful part of the securities they issue" - - thus mandating that if the loans go bad, they will lose money, as well.

Further, Greenspan said he was "partially" wrong in his opposition in recent years to the regulation of derivatives, Bloomberg News reported Thursday - - in stark contrast to his May 2005 speech opposing derivatives regulation.

Economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks Thursday that the failure to regulate and review lending practices by banks and mortgage lenders was a bipartisan failure.

"Both political parties are responsible because neither Democrats nor Republicans, not just Republicans, cared about the quality of mortgages banks approved during the housing boom," Wang said. "It was like grade inflation in college where the professor gives 'C' grades to students whose work only deserves a 'D.' No one cared about the quality of the loans as long as they were sold and no longer on their balance sheet. In the future, loan originators must retain partial equity in the loan to make them accountable for mortgage defaults."

Here's an icebreaker for your next cocktail party or dinner party. (This one is sure to impress your friends and colleagues even more than explaining the market and economic significance of credit default swaps.)

Q: What's the strongest currency in the world?

Well, let's evaluate the world's major currencies and hone in on the answer.

• The dollar -- For the last few decades, the dollar was the world's strongest currency. After all, it is the world's reserve currency. However, recent history has not been too kind to the dollar -- the dollar's value has declined throughout the decade -- and the near-term outlook does not look good, either. Massive government spending to both end the financial crisis and put the U.S. economy on a sustainable growth track means additional inflation, if not dollar devaluation, is likely. Nix the dollar as the world's strongest currency.
  

• The British pound -- At one point in history, the sun never set on the British Empire, and the pound was the world's reserve currency. Although the pound has been strong this decade, likely additional interest rate cuts and fiscal stimulus to jump start the economy of Her Majesty's Kingdom, as John Lennon would refer to his native land, means the pound is likely to lose value in the year ahead. Nix the pound as the world's strongest currency.
  

• The euro -- The euro has challenged the dollar for reserve currency status this decade, and has gained versus the buck for most of that time, but you guessed it: the heavy hand of the financial crisis is beginning to take a toll. For example, Germany alone has approved a 650 billion euro (or $500 billion) bank rescue plan. That's equivalent to the U.S. putting in place a $2.5 trillion plan. Wow. Let's hope Germany doesn't have to use most of it. Of course, the euro zone is more than Germany, but severe stagnation in Germany suggests several more interest rate cuts by the European Central Bank. Nix the euro as the world's strongest currency.

Nouriel Roubini, the once obscure New York University economics professor who two years ago predicted the current global financial crisis, now says the world's largest economy will need a large fiscal stimulus from the federal government to avoid a serious economic downturn.

Further, failure by Congress to pass a large fiscal stimulus, as well as undertake other measures, will lead to a 18 to 24 month recession, which will push unemployment above 9%, Roubini said on his website, the RGE Monitor.

Sees need for large fiscal stimulus

"Much more needs to be done including further monetary policy easing, a large fiscal stimulus program to boost demand at the time when private aggregate demand (consumption and investment) are sharply falling; and a plan to reduce the mortgage debt burden of millions of distressed households," Roubini said.

Further, Roubini said the U.S. government will have to double its purchase of bank stakes and require these banks to eliminate dividends to save them from bankruptcy. He also now sees bank/financial institution credit losses stemming from the collapse of the subprime mortgage market of about $3 trillion, up from his earlier estimate of $1-2 trillion.

The above statistics paint a sobering prospect/picture of economic contraction, but Roubini does see a ray of light:

Economist Allen Sinai, founder of Decision Economics, Friday underscored a dimension of the financial crisis that appears to be getting short-shrift: namely, that U.S. home foreclosures continue to erode the asset base of the U.S. financial system.

Efforts by the Fed, ECB and other major central banks to keep credit markets supplied with dollars, as well as bank recapitalization efforts, are critical to ending the financial crisis, but they won't achieve their goal if more is not done to get at the root cause of the crisis: mortgage foreclosures, economists generally agree.

As Sinai and BloggingStocks' Peter Cohan have noted, home foreclosures are the source of the bad bond problem -- at once both turning selected mortgage backed securities to notes barely worth the paper they're printed on and also weakening banks' balance sheets.

FHA, others must move 'at full-speed on refinances'

Further, economist Richard Felson said it's time for federal officials, in the Federal Housing Authority, Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM), and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) to "move at full-speed and get as many at-risk mortgages refinanced at lower, fixed rates."

Washington Post Business Columnist Steven Pearlstein does not 'hold it all in,' as they say, regarding who he thinks is most to blame for the financial crisis.

Pearlstein cites the ineptitude of Wall Street and the nation's financial regulators. The crisis would have occurred whether Lehman Brothers was saved or not, because bad debt had overwhelmed the global financial system. A government intervention was inevitable, essential, and an act of leadership, in Pearlstein's view.

Conversely, Wall Street's top executives have shown little leadership, if any, he said. Their silence and invisibility throughout the crisis "attests to their moral and political bankruptcy," Pearlstein said, a perfect match for the financial bankruptcy they caused for investors, creditors, and customers.

Further, Pearlstein is particularly angered by Wall Street's top executives unwillingness to commit to a plan to enable borrowers to refinance mortgages into government guaranteed mortgages set at 85% of current market value of the property, and at the executives' utter lack of comment before the cameras, particularly regarding credit lines to businesses.

Political & Economic Analysis: Columnist Pearlstein clearly lays the blame for the financial crisis at the feet of Wall Street's top officials. Still, the mortgage process -- and the failure of a substantial portion of the subprime/Alt-A mortgage market -- involved many players: bank executives/lenders, mortgage brokers, appraisers, securitization specialists, ratings agencies, and borrowers.

Gosh. Golly. Gee Whiz.

That was the reaction Monday of traders and economists to the European Union's coordinated decision to invest a staggering $2.4 trillion in interbank loan guarantees and bank recapitalizations, ft.com reported, to end the global financial crisis.

(Of course, 'gosh, golly' etc. were not exactly the reactions of traders and economists -- this is a family-appropriate financial blog -- but you get the point.)

Europe's decision sparked a global rally in stocks. The Dow closed up 936.42 points -- the largest one-day point gain in its history -- to 9,387.61.

Europe takes the lead

At minimum, Europe is saying that its economic stake in the current global financial system is so large that it's willing to err on the side of over-committing public funds, economist Peter Dawson said.

"Europe's response is very large, unexpected, and it could prove to be the pivotal move in this crisis," Dawson said. "Europe appears to be saying, 'well the United States is doing what it can do, given its political constraints' now let's do what our political culture allows. Basically, Europe is saying 'the storm of fear starts to lose its strength here.' "

The measures were both sweeping and unprecedented in size and scope, Dawson said. Germany said it offered about $680 billion in loan guarantees and will invest $108 billion in its banking system, ft.com reported. France said it would provide up to $435 billion in loan guarantees and invest as much as $52 billion. The United Kingdom has committed about $70 billion for investment in key banks, along with a guarantee for banks deposits and interbank lending. The Netherlands, Spain, and other nations announced similar plans.

Thus far, credit conditions remain a cold as Rutland, Vermont on a January night, but there are hints of a thaw in the making.

Interest rates for three-month loans in dollars dipped Monday, after policy makers in the United States and Europe offered unlimited dollar funds and Europe governments took actions to recapitalize and bolster banks.

The London three-month rate decreased 7 basis points to 4.75%, Bloomberg News reported Monday. Also, the euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor, for one-week loans dropped 26 basis points to 4.37%.

Short-term rates, including overnight rates, are key sources of cash for corporations and other large institutions, which use the cash to pay suppliers, make payroll, roll over debt etc. Hence, very high overnight and short-term rates will discourage corporations from conducting business, restricting commerce and slowing the economy, economists say.

Actions seen lowering banks' anxiety

Economist Peter Dawson told BloggingStocks Monday the actions taken this weekend and Monday by industrialized nations and their respective central banks will help loosen credit markets and decrease anxiety that's tightened the flow of money, globally.

"Central bank actions to supply dollars will help re-liquify the markets. I can't say if this one action will stop the pack-rat-like hoarding of dollars, but eventually players in the system are going to realize that no matter how many dollars they hoard, central banks have more to add," Dawson said. "Regarding fiscal policy, the guarantees by governments to banks will help reduce bank-to-bank fear that banks they lend to are insolvent, which should inch us back toward more-typical bank-to-bank lending."