For what?Where is that $350 billion, that has seemed to just disappear?
The problem is, there are just too many layers. And each wants a cut.
Maybe congress should give the money to credit unions instead.
Since most credit unions are locally owned and operated - they tend to have a better idea about what is going on in the real economy.
What a city like Riverside, California needs is different than what a city like Scranton, Pennsylvania might need.
The big banks have proven their inability to determine the worth of their assets and liabilities.
How can a two year old 5,000 sq. ft. house be "worth" $0.00?
Since a credit union is usually based in the area it serves, a credit union could value an asset based on it's own local economy.
That same house might currently be "worth" $600,000 in Riverside but only $450,000 in Scranton.
But it would have a real value, or worth.
Since credit unions don't have to have a Super Bowl ad (an ad featuring "Jake" from the local body shop will do), they can spend your money on your community.
Since credit union board members live in the community in which they serve - it's easier to see whether "Joe" bought a boat that he shouldn't have.
Since credit unions use the same services as the national banks, there will be minimal job loses in the banking service sector.
Routing companies, printing companies and other industries who service the banks would still be required.
Since most of our money would be local - the Armani clad bespoke suit wearing snake oil salesmen in NYC would have to feel the same pain as their (former) customers.
Maybe it's time we cut out the middle men in NYC and started banking locally.
Maybe it's time to make another run on the banks in favor of credit unions.
Maybe Washington is trying to water a flower pot (well... really a lot of flower pots) with a fire hose instead of a pitcher.
In their rush to solve the economic crisis, maybe they need to reassess their belief that the cause... can solve the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment