According to Generally Accepted Accounting Practices, the Total Credit Market of the entire United States is between $35.0 tril, and $65.0 tril., and/or, counting.
Hollywood understands about Generally Accepted Accounting Practices. The Ivy League seems to not have the similar problem. Ivy League coursework appears to have been lacking in the areas of, "Risk Factors Of Winos On A Budget,'" or "'In The Big House,' v., 'With The Big House:' Social Stratification Factors Affecting Wealth And Responsibility In America." We instead seem bogged down in an endless process of inquires of bankers reagarding, "What exactly did you do with all the money?"
No one in or out of government seems to want to offer the answer to the question.
When accounting goes mad, the stock regulatory mechanisms actually have a correcting mechanism. No one pretends to want to "nationalize" anything. The stock is taken off the market, and no one is allowed to trade the stock. It is called a "de-listing." The organizations proceeds along, fixes the problem, and then on re-listing moves foward.
Consider: What is there in a bank gone sour, that anyone really wants to have any part of at any rate? Do Rick Santelli "Tea Party" Participants really want to take on a load of crap?!? The idea, instead, is to fix the (glaring and obvious) problem.
In the past, governments of the right and left have practised the more common, if quaint, practice of lining up the usual suspects, and shooting them--at least in chest, if not the brain. When the problem is fixed, then institutions proceed along in normal business fashion.
Admittely, Argentina didn't do this, and to its peril. But in America, there has been created a "window of opportunity," to let the banks continue being banks, while the problem is "fixed." Without myself personally knowing much about the problem: Still it would seem appropriate to create a hiring freeze, regarding persons with degrees from certain schools.
The people from these places in the past: Do not appea to have been equipped to understand even simple concepts, like "good risk" and "bad risk," even on its face.
"Social Stratification," is actually a concept in sociology. The corollary is that "Income, and Its Disposition," is more than just a concept at Bureau of Economic Analysis!
There is time, in a de-listing, to examine source problems--as well as to create solutions. The "Troubled Assets" may be less troublesome with any inflation resulting from the stimulus. The shareholder loses nothing, and on re-listing, even makes out fairly well. The re-listing process is slow, so the shareholder may even see value rise prior to de-listing--since people unwilling to time the re-listing may want to lock in profits in advance.
Money is Mass Medium of Communication. For a real study in lunacy: Try to Figure Out, "Understanding Media," of long since deceased, Marshall McLuhan. The Ivy League could even start with that.
Hollywood understands about Generally Accepted Accounting Practices. The Ivy League seems to not have the similar problem. Ivy League coursework appears to have been lacking in the areas of, "Risk Factors Of Winos On A Budget,'" or "'In The Big House,' v., 'With The Big House:' Social Stratification Factors Affecting Wealth And Responsibility In America." We instead seem bogged down in an endless process of inquires of bankers reagarding, "What exactly did you do with all the money?"
No one in or out of government seems to want to offer the answer to the question.
When accounting goes mad, the stock regulatory mechanisms actually have a correcting mechanism. No one pretends to want to "nationalize" anything. The stock is taken off the market, and no one is allowed to trade the stock. It is called a "de-listing." The organizations proceeds along, fixes the problem, and then on re-listing moves foward.
Consider: What is there in a bank gone sour, that anyone really wants to have any part of at any rate? Do Rick Santelli "Tea Party" Participants really want to take on a load of crap?!? The idea, instead, is to fix the (glaring and obvious) problem.
In the past, governments of the right and left have practised the more common, if quaint, practice of lining up the usual suspects, and shooting them--at least in chest, if not the brain. When the problem is fixed, then institutions proceed along in normal business fashion.
Admittely, Argentina didn't do this, and to its peril. But in America, there has been created a "window of opportunity," to let the banks continue being banks, while the problem is "fixed." Without myself personally knowing much about the problem: Still it would seem appropriate to create a hiring freeze, regarding persons with degrees from certain schools.
The people from these places in the past: Do not appea to have been equipped to understand even simple concepts, like "good risk" and "bad risk," even on its face.
"Social Stratification," is actually a concept in sociology. The corollary is that "Income, and Its Disposition," is more than just a concept at Bureau of Economic Analysis!
There is time, in a de-listing, to examine source problems--as well as to create solutions. The "Troubled Assets" may be less troublesome with any inflation resulting from the stimulus. The shareholder loses nothing, and on re-listing, even makes out fairly well. The re-listing process is slow, so the shareholder may even see value rise prior to de-listing--since people unwilling to time the re-listing may want to lock in profits in advance.
Money is Mass Medium of Communication. For a real study in lunacy: Try to Figure Out, "Understanding Media," of long since deceased, Marshall McLuhan. The Ivy League could even start with that.
