What has become more and more frustrating over the years is the sudden appearance of terms that describe what previously (at least in my memory) was an illegal action. The latest term to come to my attention: off-the-book assets
. Now, granted, I've never taken an accounting or economics class in my life. In fact, to take this moment of self-disclosure farther, I've learned all I know about accounting and economics from TV and movies. So, with that said, it seems off-the-book assets is just another way of describing two sets of books.
Now, maybe I am wrong, but I always thought having two sets of books was an indication of either hiding ill-gotten gain, or avoiding taxes, or both. Yet, it's sudden appearance here suggests a perfectly legitimate practice. At least, the manner of it's presentation in the story implies a perfectly acceptable, legal accounting practice.
If so, can I do the same with my past mortgage bills? I mean, had I been able to apply a little off-the-books asset, perhaps I could have avoided foreclosure completely. Spacious reasoning? Yeah, probably. But it seems to be the technique de jour of late.
I guess, when it comes right down to it, with off-the-books assets, I smell bovine excrement. Or possibly equine excrement.
No, wait. suidae excrement.
Hummmmmmm. I have to think on this a bit. Which of the three best describes the stench that is emanating from Wall Street?