Hey Dave (or anyone) this is all getting beyond my technical understanding but I've just seen a US professor saying a simple amendment to the proposal would break the deadlock - a clause specifying that the owners of toxic debts should indemnify the taxpayer against any losses above what are paid for them. The idea being that the taxpayer will be happy and the irresponsible lenders will suffer the consequences of their folly. What do you reckon, is there a fallacy there?
The fact this hasn't been done (or the alternative, the taxpayer taking out insurance against losses) strikes me as scary - because it may imply that what I suggested before is right - that the toxicity of the debts is much, much worse than appears on paper....
