So is the crisis over? The unprecedented move has led a few pundits to proclaim as much.

And you can see why. It would appear that the government has covered just about very base. It will invest billions directly in banks big (whether they like it or not) and small. It will invest billions in toxic debt that no one but Uncle Sam would touch with a lengthy pole and gloves. It will buy commercial paper directly from companies. It will guarantee non-interest bearing accounts, which should cover a lot of payroll and general business-like accounts. It will also guarantee the senior debt of all FDIC banks. A lot of this is unprecedented.

This is an exhaustive approach. If you're still financially panicked, you've probably got some big issues to deal with personally. That said, it will take some time for all this to filter through the markets. But do not be surprised to see more sell-side analysts start to upgrade financial stocks, especially the ones that had been battered down to near or below book value. We'll likely see the trend of CDS spreading on big banks down a bit. The so-far stubborn TED spread may follow.

But while the government has removed a lot of risk, there are still costs here--and questions, both philosophic and concrete. Obviously, this is a massive intervention with taxpayer money. Cramer jokingly used the term "communize." Business Week notes that a government investment of $250 billion amounts to up to 30 percent of the market capitalization for publicly traded banks. If the government can manage its way out of this and get a return on its investment, all will be forgiven. This is not necessarily unprecedented. We've been through similar waves of "nationalization" before, though it must be said that the stock the government will buy will carry no voting rights.

The AP notes that in World War I, the government nationalized railroads, telegraph lines and the Smith & Wesson Company. In World War II, it took over railroads, coal mines, trucking operators and others--"even, briefly, retailer Montgomery Ward." In 1984, Washington took over the failing Continental Illinois Bank and Trust. It continued to exist, with some 80 percent of its shares owned by the federal government, until 1994, when it was acquired by what is now Bank of America. And then there's the Resolution Trust Corp., which took over more than a thousand failed savings and loan institutions in the late 1980s and early '90s; its former officials say it recouped much of the taxpayer money spent. The total costs ended up being $140 billion, which was below the estimated $500 billion.

So the philosophical costs here--the end of U.S.-style capitalism--is an overblown fear. The real fear is much more concrete. The fact is that while the TARP and related efforts should instill more confidence over time, there are some big issues outstanding. Most of them have to do with the still-general plans to buy specific assets of the toxic variety. The Treasury is moving forward with plans to hire up to 10 asset management firms to essentially act as subadvisers, buying and managing asset. The valuations will be tricky and could easily result in big losses for companies, if they mark to market, or big losses for taxpayers, if the securities end up worthless, which is still a possibility. There are, however, various public and private efforts to keep mortgages performing. Part of me wonders if the government will scale back this effort drastically.

In any case, the TARP is solid step in the right direction, even if it's not a panacea. - Jim