'Corrupt assets' or 'toxic assets'?

Relevant thoughts

- Toxic assets…
- Let banks fail, says Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz
- Toxic assets?

I read in the post Toxic assets…

I felt they should be called “corrupt assets”… Wikipedia defines “corruption” as…
~~~~ ” …Corruption, when applied as a technical term, is a general concept describing any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system’s original purpose….” ~~~~


I find the approach correct and certainly the term 'corrupt assets' should be used instead of 'toxic assets', just an attempt to lull public opinion to accept the measures proposed, something along the lines, of what is meant by the phrase, .... to make the pill easier to swallow.

I will take it further that this crisis is not a hiccup of the system world economy but a much more fundamental issue, something intrinsic and inherent in global economies currently in force. Something equivalent to genetic.

They can not be anything else but corrupt or toxic, as their sole reason of their existence is the accumulation of assets, for individuals that already possess enormous assets. Beyond what real economies of real individuals require. The wealth out of the services and products, the world over, siphoned through the banks and all other economic institutions, its bulk filtered, into the pockets of this handful of individuals.

Money goes to money. In a few words corruption or even toxicity is and it will continue to be the end result of such economies. Stimulus or anything of the sort, a pure waste.

Toxic assets?

"... instead of an illiquid toxic asset."

... so toxic assets are illiquid? Can not be liquidated into hard cash? Can not be re-possessed? Regular payments are made but this is not what they want. They want to have the money the property worths right now, not later. But where did all the cash they had, went? It was swallowed by the entrepreneurs? They left no cash at all? Or even, being invested further into god knows what other instruments to make more money? To talk about greed is a commonality that offers nothing. But what can be said about, is the insipid feature of capitalism, its intrinsic tendency to grow big and devour all other competitors, says a lot. There is an insatiable hunger in accumulating more and more that adds nothing at all for the individuals in societies. Burgeoning corporations full of hot air, they were bound to deflate sooner or later.

And now what? Do they demand another round. They want to be rescued? What for? They are bound to follow exactly similar paths, their insatiable hunger for more and more profits, is genetic. Their Darwinian trait, their intelligible mark that guides their evolution. They can not get away from it.

Banks and similar corporations bear no trust, deserve nothing. Let them default.