The weekend is fast approaching. And with global markets in a tailspin --- the Nikkei fell 11%, the Hang Seng tumbled 7.1%, and the FTSE 100 declined 3% -- that can only mean one thing: Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke will spend the weekend putting together another massive cash dump to announce by Sunday night. But I have a different idea -- for one weekend, how about a massive information campaign instead.

What if, instead of trying to fight fear and restore confidence with money, they decided to educate the world instead? If Bernanke is such a good teacher, perhaps he can put together an explanation for what is going on, why it happened, and how he plans to fix it. I think that a patient and honest explanation of what is really going on -- similar to FDR's fireside chats -- would go a long way to pushing away the fear.

By uttering meaningless platitudes about how "we have the tools" and "the economy will come back better than ever", the Administration is sending an unhelpful message. It is telling us a combination of things: it does not understand what is going on, it does not trust the American people to handle reality, and/or it believes that discussing the truth would make matters worse. Throwing more money at the problem without providing leadership does not seem to be working. Here are a few questions I think Paulson and Bernanke should answer for starters:

With reports that the UK will invest $60.5 billion to take control of its four top banks, leading Western finance ministers left Washington with an important unanswered question: "What can we do that will restore confidence to the global financial markets?" I am heartened to learn the U.S. leaders are discarding their reverse auction strategy in favor of a plan to inject capital into our banks. But if that plan is not done the right way, it could be a missed opportunity of colossal proportions.

Here's what worries me about the current vague discussions. If the U.S. invests $700 billion in banks that apply for the investment, then the applications are likely to come from banks that are losing money and have the least amount of capital. If the Treasury invests in these money losing applicants, odds are good that they will keep losing money and the investment will be wasted.

In order to get a return on our investment, Treasury must follow a plan I called cull and capitalize. In this plan, Treasury would analyze our 8,400 banks and pick the winners. To do this, the FDIC could rank banks based on their profitability, their capital levels, and the quality of their assets. The banks that did not make it into the winner's circle would either be encouraged to merge with those winners or close down.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is not normally the first person I'd look to for cogent, well-reasoned analysis, but I have to say his comments on mortgage bailouts are right on.

Talking to the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Paulson referred to many of the aid proposals making the rounds in Washington as "bailouts" for reckless lenders and borrowers: "I don't think I've seen any scenario where the American taxpayer needs to be stepping in with more taxpayer dollars."

He added that "I'm seeing a series of ideas suggested involving major government intervention in the housing market, and these things are usually presented or sold as a way of helping homeowners stay in their homes. Then when you look at them more carefully what they really amount to is a bailout for financial institutions or Wall Street."

Mr. Paulson believes that urging the lenders to cut borrowers some slack is the role the government should play, and I agree. Knock yourself out: if you can talk to the bankers and convince them to play nice, I'm all in favor of it. But don't spend our money bailing out lenders and borrowers, while artificially propping up the housing market.

And I'm still dying for an answer to my lingering question: Why is it bad if someone with no equity in their home loses the home? Is someone who "owns" a home but doesn't have any equity really a home owner?

It's a bit more than 20 years since the Dow fell 508 points, or 22.6%, in a single day. With Asian and European markets down a mere 1% to 4% today, it does not look like we'll have a repeat of that 23% decline today. What's happening in world markets? According to the New York Times, Hong Kong fell 3.3%, Japan tumbled 2.2%. South Korea was down 3.25%. In Europe the early news was not as bad -- London's FTSE 100 was down 1.4%, the German DAX dropped 1.3%, and Paris slid 1.8%.

Twenty years ago, the CEO of the company I worked for sent one of my colleagues to figure out good stocks to buy -- considering the market plunge an opportunity to buy good stocks at a discount. It turned out that he was right. The cause of the crash was found to be related to simultaneous computer driven-selling that somehow took the rationality out of stock valuations.

But will today's potential plunge also turn out to be a buying opportunity? The answer depends on your time frame and which stocks you buy. It's never clear to me why markets go up and down although "explanations" get printed every day. But it could be that the big reason for the selling in global markets is fear. In particular, investors fear that the U.S. has unleashed a subprime mortgage-backed securities (MBS) financial virus that is sucking an unknown -- but enormous -- quantity of credit out of the global financial system.

Hank Paulson's floundering effort to rescue the world from this MBS viral epidemic is not inspiring confidence. So I would not be eager to rush out and buy stocks in this market. Unlike the computer-driven selling of 1987, the economic costs of MBS's financial "innovation" are still too difficult to count.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

The New York Times [registration required] reports that Citigroup (NYSE: C) and JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) are working with the Treasury Department to create a $75 billion fund to bail out Structured Investment Vehicles (SIV) -- of which there are thought to be $400 billion worldwide. What are SIVs? Why do they need to be bailed out? Why is the Treasury Department getting involved? Will the bailout plan work? Why should you care?

Before addressing these questions, it's worth pointing out that Hank Paulson, the current Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) CEO, has not had much success as a government servant. His efforts to talk China into loosening its currency have fallen flat. And a high-level government source told me that Paulson's brusque personal style has not endeared him to other economic policy makers.

When Paulson took the job in May 2006, I speculated that the reason he took it was so he would have the chance to outshine Robert Rubin, another former Goldman executive, whose tenure at Treasury was widely perceived to have been brilliant. I thought then that Paulson thought a financial crisis would occur under his tenure that would enable him to demonstrate his financial crisis management skills. The SIV crisis is a big problem but I doubt he'll rise to the occasion like Rubin did.

With Asian markets expressing little confidence in yesterday's "amazing" Dow comeback -- the Nikkei fell 5% its worst day since September 11th -- the New York Times [registration required] reports that U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is keeping above the fray.

When he took over the job in May 2006, I posted that I could not figure out why Paulson took the job. I knew that it's quite popular at The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) to go into government after making piles of money there. And I thought that perhaps Paulson took the job so he could outdo one of his predecessors, Robert Rubin, who was widely believed to have excelled in the job. And I anticipated a financial crisis due to a mispricing of risk which might have provided Paulson with a chance to prove his mettle in relation to Rubin's handling of the 1998 Russian financial meltdown.

Well, that crisis is now upon us and Paulson is proving that he does not have what it takes. A former high level Washington hand told me that Paulson is widely regarded as self-important and pushy. This has made him rather unpopular with economic policymakers who are happy to see him fail in getting China to let its currency float.

According to news reports, the Treasury Department is considering a new rule that would require beverage companies to add informative labels to alcoholic drinks. All alcoholic drinks. The labels would have to show information regarding alcoholic content as percent of volume and, most importantly, a "serving facts" panel, which would list, much like other foods and beverages do, the number of calories, carbohydrates, fat and protein for a standard serving size.

Already on Friday last week, I hailed PepsiCo Inc.'s (NYSE: PEP) decision to change the label on its Aquafina bottled water to say "Public Water Source," meaning, basically, tap water. I thought this was a first, small step into explaining the futility of this needless industry called bottled water.

Now this makes me just as happy, if not more. You see, I most certainly like to consume alcoholic beverages on occasion, but as conscious as I've always been about nutritional and calorie intake from soft drinks and juices, I never have an accurate measure when it comes to alcohol -- how many calories a pint has, a glass of wine or an ounce of vodka? Sure, there are sources that tell you approximately, but I'm certain these vary from one manufacturer to another. And why should alcoholic beverages be any different from the rest of the food and beverages we consume? Why shouldn't these companies have to report nutritional content for the consumer?

In my post: Don't forget to count drink calories when dieting, I finished by saying, "Alas, this goes for beer and martinis as well..." Then, not too long ago, AOL ran a feature detailing the Highest Calorie Cocktails. One of my faves, the margarita, held the second place with 740 calories!!! Naturally, a cocktail won't come with a label, but awareness is the first step, right?

By the way, it seems that industry execs actually support this step as well, as they felt consumers' demand for it, but the process could still take three years. Until then, and while I'm still blissfully ignorant of how many alcoholic calories I consume, I think I could use a martini. Cheers.