Thread: Occupy Dreamviews

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Lending is drying up? The interest rate is at an artificial 0% and has been for months.

Again, a sad misunderstanding of how things work. This is the interest rate banks get. They can immediately plunk the money the borrow into various bonds and earn a guaranteed profit. So they have little incentive to loan to businesses and individuals that can spur growth. The interest rate is going down and at the same time banks are getting tighter in their lending practices. The financial sector is certainly growing and the stock market is being propped up, but real growth isn't happening because of tight credit. If I really have to explain something this simple to you again, were done.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Wrong again. Bonds do start out as government loaning to itself, but then are sold to private investors. Go back and read my original post. A government fully authorized to issue credit can loan directly into the economy and earn interest by spurring growth. It has no need of going into debt to spur growth. That's why China's economy is growing. There is no intelligent rationale for comparing that to Obama's "jobs" plan.

Answer me this, what is the "credit" that governments are "fully authorized" to issue into the economy? China's economy is growing because it holds something like 1 trillion dollars of our debt. I would have to check the actual number if you want me to be accurate.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Your arguments are so oversimplified they are just tiresome.

Well it seems I have to use small words and generic ideas to many people on this forum. Should we move pass the crayon drawings section?

Originally Posted by Olysseus

The Federal Reserve lends money to the government in exchange for bonds. This is why you wrote the word "buys" in quotes, because we all know its not accurate. The Fed sells these to private investors and holds some in reserve for monetary policy.

The only time that the Fed would sell their bonds is if they wanted to soak up the monetary supply....which they really haven't done. I put the word "buy" in quotes because it is not the Federal Reserve that actually create the money. Physically they print it don't get me wrong but they get their que's from the US Treasury department. It is not as if the Fed chairman wakes up one morning and says "I want to create 300 billion dollars today!"

Originally Posted by Olysseus

The Fed is a tool through which private investors finance the US governments operation.

Really? And who are these private investors?

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Currency is injected when government spends money it has borrowed from the Fed and when the Fed buys back the bonds it has issued.

Again, the Fed only sells bonds when it is trying to soak up its monetary supply. Where do you see that happening?

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Bonds are IOU's, calling someone a creditor in bonds is ridiculous, The Fed and its private stockholders do not owe the bonds back to the government, rather the government owes interest on the bonds back to the Fed and the private investors it sells the bonds to. Except in the state of Dakota, where there is a state bank, the government does not loan money to businesses and earn interest on it. The government is not a creditor in any intelligent sense of the term.

How does the government get money? (Beyond the Fed printing it) It taxes it. Treasury bonds are in effect taxpayer money that is due to the government at a specified time, and then the government gives the money to the bond holder.

What is a creditor?

Creditor -a person or firm to whom money is due
Creditor | Define Creditor at Dictionary.com

So kind of like...government being a firm...and taxpayers owing money to it. So when I say:
"So the US government is in a sense a creditor in Treasury bonds which are based upon future holdings of taxpayers payments."

It's true! Hooray! Learning is fun!

Originally Posted by Olysseus

And you're still just evading the ridiculousness of your claim that Obama going deeper into debt with his "jobs" plan is equivalent to government directly lending to businesses to create infrastructure and jobs and earning interest on the loans. Don't you fell even the slightest embarrassment when you get caught lying?

Where is Obama going to get 447 billion dollars to lend to these businesses? The debt is now at 14.7 trillion dollars, meaning that the United States government owes 14.7 trillion dollars. Ok get ready cause this is the crayon drawing section. The government revenue has only been 2 trillion this year soooo

14 Trillion....minus 2 Trillion....equals.....come on....12 trillion!

The deficit of the US is 1.3 trillion dollars. That means that this year we have already spent 1.3 trillion dollars more then we have taken in. So unless Obama has a magic wand up his ass, he is going to borrow/print that 447 billion dollars which will stack up the national debt. So more spending in a deficit economy...means more national debt.

Do you feel the slightest embarrassment when you have to be shown basic math?

Originally Posted by Olysseus

You keep using phrases like "what do you think x is" and showing woeful ignorance of what you are asking about. Why don't you defend your claim that Obama driving us into debt via the Fed is the same as a state bank issuing loans directly to business and earning interest?

I keep using the Socratic method but honestly why do I? I just have to hold your hand through the forest anyways. I mean honestly, you don't even know what a deficit is so how can I treat you like an intelligent human being?

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Again, a sad misunderstanding of how things work. This is the interest rate banks get. They can immediately plunk the money the borrow into various bonds and earn a guaranteed profit. So they have little incentive to loan to businesses and individuals that can spur growth. The interest rate is going down and at the same time banks are getting tighter in their lending practices. The financial sector is certainly growing and the stock market is being propped up, but real growth isn't happening because of tight credit. If I really have to explain something this simple to you again, were done.

With lending at .25 that would infer that banks are more likely to borrow money from the Federal Reserve therefore beefing up their currency reserves. With the current 3% inflation (which lets be honest is probably higher because they keep on changing what they input into it), what "bonds" are the banks buying up that is getting them this "guaranteed profit?"

blah blah blah. Back to occupy wall street and the 99% please.

Hopefully you realize that at this point, everyone else is bored with this, so I will respond once more merely to show the following:
1- All of your objections and questions are easily dealt with.
2- Its not worth dealing these questions further because most of your points don't deal with essentials and are based on misunderstanding my position, perhaps intentionally. Your needless sarcasm and butchery of the socratic method only force me to explain why trivial details are trivial details.

Answer me this, what is the "credit" that governments are "fully authorized" to issue into the economy? China's economy is growing because it holds something like 1 trillion dollars of our debt. I would have to check the actual number if you want me to be accurate.

Part of the reason China is growing is because it holds our debt. This is not a relevant objection to anything I've said. China must be doing other things right, otherwise it would have never obtained so much of our debt to begin with. This is a trivial detail not a response to any essential point I've made. And no, I don't care if you want to re-check figures for such a trivial point.

As to your actual question, look at the Bank of North Dakota, it loans money to businesses and individuals and thus earns interest from the growth of the private sector. That is the crucial difference between what I favor and the current operation of our government, a point you repeatedly evade.

Well it seems I have to use small words and generic ideas to many people on this forum. Should we move pass the crayon drawings section?

If you really have to bring crayons into the discussion it say more about you than me. If you're having trouble with that many people, the problem just might be on your end.

The only time that the Fed would sell their bonds is if they wanted to soak up the monetary supply....which they really haven't done. I put the word "buy" in quotes because it is not the Federal Reserve that actually create the money. Physically they print it don't get me wrong but they get their que's from the US Treasury department. It is not as if the Fed chairman wakes up one morning and says "I want to create 300 billion dollars today!"

Yes, mostly true but again not a contradiction of what I've said, because it is more accurate to say the Fed loans the money to the federal government. My essential point is that the word "buy" is misleading either way.

Really? And who are these private investors?

Any individual or financial institution that buys bonds is a private investor that is financing the government's debt. The federal government could become less reliant on this by using its own reserves to create credit and earn interest on it, just like any other financial institution.

Again, the Fed only sells bonds when it is trying to soak up its monetary supply. Where do you see that happening?

Partly right, the Fed can sell bonds for other reasons. Here is a WSJ article from last week about the Fed selling bonds:
The Federal Reserve Says, 'Let's Do the Twist' - WSJ.com

How does the government get money? (Beyond the Fed printing it) It taxes it. Treasury bonds are in effect taxpayer money that is due to the government at a specified time, and then the government gives the money to the bond holder.

Yes, so ultimately the taxpayer is paying the bondholder, so that the government can finance itself. The government is not earning interest on the bond, the bondholder is.

So kind of like...government being a firm...and taxpayers owing money to it. So when I say:
"So the US government is in a sense a creditor in Treasury bonds which are based upon future holdings of taxpayers payments."

It's true! Hooray! Learning is fun!

Two can play the definitions game:
What Does Creditor Mean?
An entity (person or institution) that extends credit by giving another entity permission to borrow money if it is paid back at a later date. Creditors can be classified as either "personal" or "real". Those people who loan money to friends or family are personal creditors. Real creditors (i.e. a bank or finance company) have legal contracts with the borrower granting the lender the right to claim any of the debtor's real assets (e.g. real estate or car) if he or she fails to pay back the loan.

Read more: Creditor Definition

Even under your definition the government is not a creditor in regards to the bonds it issues. By your definition, I could easily say that I am a creditor because I have a job, and I am a "person to whom money is due" but that's a pretty meaningless use of the word creditor. It would be even less intelligent to say I am a creditor because the money I owe requires me to collect money from others.

Where is Obama going to get 447 billion dollars to lend to these businesses? The debt is now at 14.7 trillion dollars, meaning that the United States government owes 14.7 trillion dollars. Ok get ready cause this is the crayon drawing section. The government revenue has only been 2 trillion this year soooo

14 Trillion....minus 2 Trillion....equals.....come on....12 trillion!

The deficit of the US is 1.3 trillion dollars. That means that this year we have already spent 1.3 trillion dollars more then we have taken in. So unless Obama has a magic wand up his ass, he is going to borrow/print that 447 billion dollars which will stack up the national debt. So more spending in a deficit economy...means more national debt.

Do you feel the slightest embarrassment when you have to be shown basic math?

I'm glad you know how to subtract, but it doesn't do much for your argument. Nice evasion perhaps though. Another piece of evidence of your basic dishonesty.

One possible solution to the actual question you pose (Where the money will come from) is that the government does have reserves it could lend against. I am not saying this is the best or only solution but, the government could set up its own bank and use the gold in its vaults as reserves through which it could create credit and loan into the economy. It would not have to loan the actual gold out, but could create credit using the gold as reserves. This would limit the amount of money it could create as credit, but it would still be earning interest and spurring the economy at the same time. This is so radically different from what Obama is doing that your continuing to bring it up, convinces me we can't really move forward. The government has a number of other holdings of precious metals that could be used the same way. Hell, we could even tap pension funds if we had the political will and use them to create credit. There are a number of options, so you're comments about math are a pretty transparent and pretentious attempt to impress yourself.

It was a nice try, but I actually run a math tutoring service and have been growing my business rapidly as schools cut back because local governments are all buried in debt. That means I not only have to know math inside out, but I have to be able to explain it to others in a way that gets immediate results. So, no, I'm not embarrassed by your sad failures of logic because your mighty subtraction skills don't relate to my argument. Did you really think that you were being impressive there?

I keep using the Socratic method but honestly why do I? I just have to hold your hand through the forest anyways. I mean honestly, you don't even know what a deficit is so how can I treat you like an intelligent human being?

You're not quite clear on what the Socratic method is. The Socratic method depends on finding and responding to essential points, not trivial details. Socrates did not try to point out imagined contradictions before he understood the overall gist of other's arguments. He usually tried to state the other's argument in the clearest way possible and then looked to see if it stood up or not. It might be fun to fancy yourself a modern Socrates asking questions that no one will answer, but if people are repeatedly explaining to you why your questions don't relate to what they're saying, that's your first clue that your application of the method has gone awry.

Quite frankly I don't care how you treat me. It is clear you have all your basic intellectual faculties working, I have no need to randomly insult your vocabulary or basic capacities, but when I have to explain that Obama's borrowing and spending is different then loaning money, and your only response is to demand that I explain what bonds are, the best possible scenario I can imagine is that you are being evasive. To call your questions Socratic is laughable.

With lending at .25 that would infer that banks are more likely to borrow money from the Federal Reserve therefore beefing up their currency reserves. With the current 3% inflation (which lets be honest is probably higher because they keep on changing what they input into it), what "bonds" are the banks buying up that is getting them this "guaranteed profit?"

Actually, I'll admit this is a good question and I should elaborate. Too bad you couldn't have started with questions like this. Banks can borrow at near 0% and buy up short term bonds yielding more than 0. They can immediately sell on secondary markets or slice and dice them up and package them in derivative contracts to lower the risk of said contracts. I said before that financial institutions can now use a number of tools to gain a greater return on their money than they can by lending to productive businesses and that is what I would claim is partly responsible for stalling our economy.

Here is another person explaining (I don't claim this proves I am right, it is just another articulation that may help you understand the essential point.):
Philip Greenspun's Weblog » How Wall Street is making its billions

Lastly, just in case you actually ever do want to understand and learn, the two articles below explain the difference between my position and the current system. Maybe next time we could have a more productive debate.


If government created money instead of debt: Thomas Edison - National Nonpartisan | Examiner.com

Debt-damned economics: learn monetary reform or kiss your assets goodbye. 1 of 2 - National Nonpartisan | Examiner.com

Ciao Amigo

Its not that we are bored, its that we are mostly well aware of Laughing Man's shoddy argument tactics and poor logic and would rather discuss the topic at hand then try to beat him over the head with reality.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Part of the reason China is growing is because it holds our debt. This is not a relevant objection to anything I've said. China must be doing other things right, otherwise it would have never obtained so much of our debt to begin with. This is a trivial detail not a response to any essential point I've made. And no, I don't care if you want to re-check figures for such a trivial point.

You're original comment concerned spurring growth without causing debt. The Chinese government is able to build so many public works because of the surpluses that it has acquired. Where has it acquired them? From financing U.S. borrowing. That is why I commented that China's market is growing because it holds 1.1 trillion dollars in U.S. debt

Originally Posted by Olysseus

As to your actual question, look at the Bank of North Dakota, it loans money to businesses and individuals and thus earns interest from the growth of the private sector. That is the crucial difference between what I favor and the current operation of our government, a point you repeatedly evade.

The government doesn't "have" money to loan out. Not in the strict sense of the word. The only way government acquires money is through taxation. What it doesn't acquire through taxation, it borrows or prints (thus increasing the debt). You act as though governments have a nice portfolio of assets that help it to acquire an income.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

If you really have to bring crayons into the discussion it say more about you than me. If you're having trouble with that many people, the problem just might be on your end.

Well I would think that if I didn't have to example basic governmental principles to you, like deficits and surpluses.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Yes, mostly true but again not a contradiction of what I've said, because it is more accurate to say the Fed loans the money to the federal government. My essential point is that the word "buy" is misleading either way.

Loans it on the basis of the Treasury department que's. Something I previous said.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Any individual or financial institution that buys bonds is a private investor that is financing the government's debt. The federal government could become less reliant on this by using its own reserves to create credit and earn interest on it, just like any other financial institution.

Bonds are sold by the government, not the Federal Reserve unless they are trying to soak up monetary excess which again have you seen them doing? So its not as if private investors are working THROUGH the Federal Reserve to finance the government.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Partly right, the Fed can sell bonds for other reasons. Here is a WSJ article from last week about the Fed selling bonds:
The Federal Reserve Says, 'Let's Do the Twist' - WSJ.com

Those bonds are usually 30-90 day investments and again the article points out that they are utilizing that to buy long term bonds. So they aren't soaking up monetary excess.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Yes, so ultimately the taxpayer is paying the bondholder, so that the government can finance itself. The government is not earning interest on the bond, the bondholder is.

Again, not true. The bondholder isn't necessarily a taxpayer. Remember that 1.1 trillion dollar trade imbalance with China...we don't owe they tea cups.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Two can play the definitions game:
What Does Creditor Mean?
An entity (person or institution) that extends credit by giving another entity permission to borrow money if it is paid back at a later date. Creditors can be classified as either "personal" or "real". Those people who loan money to friends or family are personal creditors. Real creditors (i.e. a bank or finance company) have legal contracts with the borrower granting the lender the right to claim any of the debtor's real assets (e.g. real estate or car) if he or she fails to pay back the loan.

Read more: Creditor Definition

Even under your definition the government is not a creditor in regards to the bonds it issues. By your definition, I could easily say that I am a creditor because I have a job, and I am a "person to whom money is due" but that's a pretty meaningless use of the word creditor. It would be even less intelligent to say I am a creditor because the money I owe requires me to collect money from others.

Really? We're going to do this? I just pointed out how the government is a creditor in the sense of bond issuing, and yes in a sense you are a creditor because you labor under the premise that you are going to get money. So in a way, your employee is the debtor because they owe you for services rendered. Will we have to talk about what a paycheck is next? Or how about what labor is? That is always fun.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

I'm glad you know how to subtract, but it doesn't do much for your argument. Nice evasion perhaps though. Another piece of evidence of your basic dishonesty.

When the US borrows money, it goes into debt unless it has a surplus but then again why would it borrow money when it has a surplus. Anyways when I say, Obama is allocating spending, based on credit, for his jobs plan, you say "oh no no no, It's not credit!" We have a deficit. 1.3 trillion. We have a debt of over 14 trillion. We already are on credit now...so acquiring more money...from borrrowing...is based on....credit....

Apparently this concept is so hard for you to imagine that you think I have somehow tricked you.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

One possible solution to the actual question you pose (Where the money will come from) is that the government does have reserves it could lend against. I am not saying this is the best or only solution but, the government could set up its own bank and use the gold in its vaults as reserves through which it could create credit and loan into the economy. It would not have to loan the actual gold out, but could create credit using the gold as reserves. This would limit the amount of money it could create as credit, but it would still be earning interest and spurring the economy at the same time. This is so radically different from what Obama is doing that your continuing to bring it up, convinces me we can't really move forward. The government has a number of other holdings of precious metals that could be used the same way. Hell, we could even tap pension funds if we had the political will and use them to create credit. There are a number of options, so you're comments about math are a pretty transparent and pretentious attempt to impress yourself.

...What do you think the US dollar was before 1971? If the notes that the government is issuing as credit can't be redeemed in gold then what is stopping the government from inflating the monetary supply to the levels it is now? The primary reason for why we have such high inflation is because gold is no longer keeping the spending in check. Before if the government spent and incurred huge trade deficits then the gold would flood out of the country in foreign nations. Now it is illegal to redeem notes into gold or use gold as a monetary base. It makes you wonder why the U.S. doesn't return the gold in Fort Knox, yes return it because it is the product of the Gold Confiscation act of 1933. The government does not own that gold in Fort Knox. So you think you've invented an alternative but really you are only explaining what we have today.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

It was a nice try, but I actually run a math tutoring service and have been growing my business rapidly as schools cut back because local governments are all buried in debt. That means I not only have to know math inside out, but I have to be able to explain it to others in a way that gets immediate results. So, no, I'm not embarrassed by your sad failures of logic because your mighty subtraction skills don't relate to my argument. Did you really think that you were being impressive there?

See above comments

Originally Posted by Olysseus

You're not quite clear on what the Socratic method is. The Socratic method depends on finding and responding to essential points, not trivial details. Socrates did not try to point out imagined contradictions before he understood the overall gist of other's arguments. He usually tried to state the other's argument in the clearest way possible and then looked to see if it stood up or not. It might be fun to fancy yourself a modern Socrates asking questions that no one will answer, but if people are repeatedly explaining to you why your questions don't relate to what they're saying, that's your first clue that your application of the method has gone awry.

You not understanding deficits, trade imbalances, how bonds work seems an essential point. And who said I wanted to be a "modern Socrates?" Sir, you give me too much gusto.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Quite frankly I don't care how you treat me. It is clear you have all your basic intellectual faculties working, I have no need to randomly insult your vocabulary or basic capacities, but when I have to explain that Obama's borrowing and spending is different then loaning money, and your only response is to demand that I explain what bonds are, the best possible scenario I can imagine is that you are being evasive. To call your questions Socratic is laughable.

Who asked you to explain bonds? I asked you which bonds these banks are buying up to get their "guaranteed profit." Obviously making such a statement would mean you know at least a little about it. Otherwise you would just be spitting out assertions which obviously you would never do...I mean come on. This is the internet right?

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Actually, I'll admit this is a good question and I should elaborate. Too bad you couldn't have started with questions like this. Banks can borrow at near 0% and buy up short term bonds yielding more than 0. They can immediately sell on secondary markets or slice and dice them up and package them in derivative contracts to lower the risk of said contracts. I said before that financial institutions can now use a number of tools to gain a greater return on their money than they can by lending to productive businesses and that is what I would claim is partly responsible for stalling our economy.

And how can you be so sure that banks are investing in things like derivatives and why would they so hurriedly invest in them in such a volatile market with such high inflation? And how can you say that they are actually making these exchanges when bank reserves in depository banks have been steadily increasing since Dec 10? And borrowing from the Federal Reserve has gone down since that very same time.

Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.3 - September 22, 2011

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Here is another person explaining (I don't claim this proves I am right, it is just another articulation that may help you understand the essential point.):
Philip Greenspun's Weblog » How Wall Street is making its billions

Lastly, just in case you actually ever do want to understand and learn, the two articles below explain the difference between my position and the current system. Maybe next time we could have a more productive debate.


If government created money instead of debt: Thomas Edison - National Nonpartisan | Examiner.com

Debt-damned economics: learn monetary reform or kiss your assets goodbye. 1 of 2 - National Nonpartisan | Examiner.com

Ciao Amigo

Ah god, no wonder you're saying such inane things. You are one of those "Money=Debt" proponents. Ugh now we have to get into one of those long "money isn't debt just the Fed causes debt because it needs to print money" conversations and Xaqaria is going to cry.

Mike Krieger: "Rebellion Has Arrived In America" | ZeroHedge

I think TheAmazingAtheist would have done better if he'd shouted 'derp' for ten minutes.

There is a planned demonstration in my city on October 6th I don't know whether I'm gonna go or not, Ive never been to a protest before...

YES!!!! GO!!!!

And encourage everyone you know to go as well!

This is the time to make a change.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

There is a planned demonstration in my city on October 6th I don't know whether I'm gonna go or not, Ive never been to a protest before...

It would probably be more productive to stay home, especially if it's an Occupy Wall Street demonstration lol

Originally Posted by stormcrow

There is a planned demonstration in my city on October 6th I don't know whether I'm gonna go or not, Ive never been to a protest before...

DO IT

Get all your friends to go. Life experience.

I agree and disagree with these protesters.
While I agree that spending and focus on the economy is out of hand, I believe the economy should be America's #1 priority right now- all of our problems find root in, or are at least contributed to by, the failing economy.
>People are starving because they've lost their jobs.
>It would be too expensive to switch to cleaner power rather than to stick with oil and gas (I'm not saying green energy is too expensive to use, I'm saying its too expensive to install.)
>Our military is beginning to fall behind because research money has run dry.
>Funding for social programs has also gone out the window.
But the outrageous margin of focus between economy and other pressing issues (like poverty, energy and defense) overcompensates for this. The protesters cause, in this case, is ill-fated, and ill-conceived. At least in New York, they will, at best, be able to slow down Wall Street's function, and that will only constrict the economy further. What can these protesters do? Educate people on the best candidates for what needs to happen, (I'm not picking a side) and try to persuade people to vote for people with sensibility when it comes to the economy. Who that is, is up to them.

Um.... idiot.

How can you possibly fix an economy without removing the root cause of the fucking problem with the economy?

Not that the way it is done is perfect, but it is not that bad. It's the people who fuck it up and exploit it who make it absolutely ridiculous and broken.

All no, not all, most of your and other countries problems are caused by the failing economy, which is caused by the people who are exploiting it.

It wouldn't be failing right now if it wasn't for them.

It also wouldn't be failing if it wasn't for the droves of Americans who took out stupid loans they knew they couldn't repay. :/

Okay, here's what I think of this whole thing right now:

Stephen Colbert Fails to See Point of 'Occupy Wall Street' Protest

(video is lulzy)

tommo, the OP of this thread specifically says that the movement is about not giving a shit about the economy.

Yet you're saying it's the exact opposite and it's about holding to account the people responsible for the economy.

I put it to you that nobody in this movement has any idea what they are talking about.

In any case they have totally failed as a protest movement, because I (an observer) have no clue what they are protesting about.

Originally Posted by Xei

It also wouldn't be failing if it wasn't for the droves of Americans who took out stupid loans they knew they couldn't repay. :/

Okay, here's what I think of this whole thing right now:

Stephen Colbert Fails to See Point of 'Occupy Wall Street' Protest

(video is lulzy)

tommo, the OP of this thread specifically says that the movement is about not giving a shit about the economy.

Yet you're saying it's the exact opposite and it's about holding to account the people responsible for the economy.

I put it to you that nobody in this movement has any idea what they are talking about.

In any case they have totally failed as a protest movement, because I (an observer) have no clue what they are protesting about.

Um, dude. That Steven Colbert video was basically saying that they actually have a good point.

How did you miss that?

He says "it's just stoners who have no idea what they're talking about" or something to that effect.
Then he shows a video of them and they're giving clear, concise answers about what they actually believe.
It's called irony.

Listen to specifically 1:08 to 2:00 minutes.

As for the people taking out loans they couldn't repay.... anyone can fall for anything. The smartest people in the world could fall for a scam if it was cleverly concealed enough.
A guy who writes in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and so is obviously a hardcore skeptic (can't remember his name right now) fell for the Ponzi scheme.
The reason there are logical fallacies, a giant list of them in fact, is because we automatically fall for them. That is how our brain is wired due to advantages survival wise.
Everyone falls for bullshit at some point. Although no doubt a lot of them were stupid, doesn't mean they all were. And doesn't mean it was their fault.

It's the bankers and investors who caused all this. If you are denying that.... well I just feel sorry for you.

Right, none of that answered how you think the protests are about the exact opposite of what the OP thought the protests are about, did it?

BTW, demonising investors is completely inane, please stop it.

The OP doesn't say they don't give a fuck about the economy, does it?

No! It says that there is too much political focus on the economy and trying to gain economic growth, when there are FARRRRRRR more important thing to fix. Economy should take second priority basically.

So why are you discussing the economy in this thread?

Originally Posted by OP

Important things like security, social programs, and environmental responsibility are becoming second rung to "economic growth."

Originally Posted by tommo

most of your and other countries problems are caused by the failing economy.

lolwat

Coz that nequestmoo moron was talking about the economy? Saying it's the most important thing?

Jesus christ, you are autistic aren't you?

But you agreed with him? Herp.

"most of your and other countries problems are caused by the failing economy."

^ the above statement means that the economy is secondary to environmental and security problems.

Have I stepped into RS or something..?