From a recent Business Week article, here are some suggested possibilities:

Banks may be able to finance the sale of their own troubled loans, lending money to the public-private partnerships that buy the assets. A bank's loan to the partnership would be buttressed by an FDIC guarantee. Administration officials confirm that the Treasury may allow such seller financing. The move essentially replaces junky mortgages on the bank's books with an FDIC-guaranteed loan.

…Say a private investor in one of the partnerships owns big stockholdings in a bank putting assets out to auction. By overbidding for the bank's sludge loans, the investor could help drive up the banks' shares and make a tidy profit.

…Perhaps the most intricate maneuvers will likely stem from "layering" the government's many programs of the last six months. Starting with some of the capital infusion received last fall from the Treasury, a bank could invest in a private partnership that buys toxic assets using a loan guaranteed by the FDIC. Those assets could then be chopped up and sold as securities to other investors–who put together the financing for the deal by availing themselves of another program of low-risk loans from the Federal Reserve. Thus the original bank's capital at risk in this web of deals would be almost nil. "[This] is going right back to the practices that got us into this problem–except using government leverage," Young says. "It might lead to an even wilder party than we saw before."

You should not assume that all of these strategies will be legally possible or that they necessarily work.  Furthermore the greater danger may be that banks are afraid to make money in a partnership with government aid, for political reasons.  Still, if you are seeking to think through possible problems in the Geithner plan, the article is a one good place to start.

Ricardo Caballero's defense of the Geithner plan is here.

Addendum: Jeff Sachs is worried.

That is my latest column and the core point is straightforward:

What the banking system needs is creditors who monitor risk and cut
their exposure when that risk is too high. Unlike regulators, creditors
and counterparties know the details of a deal and have their own money
on the line.

But in both the bailouts and in the new proposals, the government is
effectively neutralizing creditors as a force for financial safety.
This suggests a scary possibility — that the next regulatory regime
could end up even worse than the last.

Do read the column for a discussion of how we might make creditors suffer.  Here is why the Obama administration is having such a tough time with the issue:

Right now, people cannot understand why A.I.G. received bailout
money, so they feel deceived. A single insurance company, even a very
large one, just does not seem that essential to the American economy,
which makes the company all the more a scapegoat. Much went awry at
A.I.G., but in the context of a bailout, the company should be thought
of as the conduit for helping an entire market that went bust.

This poses a very difficult public relations problem for the government, because the Federal Reserve and the Treasury do not want to discuss the importance of the creditors too publicly right now.

Why not? It would be bad precedent, and mind-bogglingly expensive, to
promise to pick up all future obligations to major creditors. At the
same time, any remarks that threaten to leave creditors hanging could
panic the markets. So silence reigns, the Fed and Mr. Geithner receive
bad publicity over the bailouts, and we are all laying the groundwork
for a future financial crisis.

James Kwak offers comment.  Here is Arnold Kling.  Mark Thoma has very good comments on time consistency problems.

The NYTimes has a short piece in the arts section on "new deal revisionism."  Rich Vedder gets the best line:

Mr. Vedder playfully offered another analogy: the recession of 1920. Why was that slump, over and done with by 1922, so much shorter than the following decade’s? Well, for starters, he said, President Woodrow Wilson suffered an incapacitating stroke at the end of 1919, while his successor, Warren G. Harding, universally considered one of the worst presidents in American history, preferred drinking, playing poker and golf, and womanizing, to governing. “So nothing happened,” Mr. Vedder said.

Of course Mr. Vedder does not wish ill health – or obliviousness – on any chief executive. Still, in his view, when you’re talking about government intervention in the economy, doing nothing is about the best you can hope for from any president.

By the way, I am looking forward to hearing Bob Higgs on C-Span this weekend.  Higgs is a top-rate economic historian from whom I learn something new everytime I hear him.

Laptops Direct can help with your Funeral Costs

In
these difficult credit-crunch times we understand that it’s not easy to
give your loved ones the send off they deserve. With funerals costing
up to £5000 it makes sense to get help.That’s why we’ve put together
this unique sponsorship package, giving you the opportunity to cover
all your costs.

We will help you pay for some, or all of the
funeral expenses, depending on the package you choose. We have a range
of subtle and tasteful sponsorship positions available throughout the
service each bringing you a contribution cost. Please note that in
order for us to be able to offer this service we do require a minimum
of 50 mourners, this ensures we will get the exposure required to cover
the cost of the sponsorship.

All our sponsorship opportunities
are designed to be non intrusive to the proceedings. We can tailor the
list of options to your requirements giving you complete control of the
service. You will have a dedicated funeral assistant at Laptops Direct
who can help with any queries you may have.

The clincher is the list of price quotations, in British pounds, find it here.  I thank Erik Walz for the pointer.

Addendum: It turns out this isn't true!  A fraudulent report.

Indeed, and  I am not being sarcastic. 

Of course there are many illegal markets that would generate stimulus were they to be legalized.  Here are some of the big ones.

1. Drugs
2. Guns
3. Prostitution (except in Nevada)
4. Gay prostitution (even in Nevada)
5. Gambling
6. Trade with Cuba
7. Liberalized immigration

I can assure you that today Delta stimulated the book trade.  Thank you all for the comments, I am genuinely pleased that I have all of you to complain to.  It is a real pleasure.