It's offical. The protestors are getting stupider.

[Jinx_Dragon]

Let me correct your Great Depression cause. It was not the mass withdraws, they were just a result of the real cause. It was margin loans that broke the bank. A margin loan was where you gave only a few dollars down for full control of a stock. The catch was that at any time the bank could do a margin call and if you didn't pay the loan off in 24 hours the stock had to be sold. The margin loan allowed the stock market to skyrocket as everyone was buying. The banks did a mass margin call. Since no one could pay off their stocks, almost all had to be sold. The stock market imploded. As a result of the margin calls, people began mass withdraws from the banks to cover their debts. This led to the smaller banks running out of money, thus allowing the bigger banks to buy up those that survived taking a massive bite out of their competition.
They used that collapse as an excuse to setup an unconstitutional central bank system which gives privately owned banks the power to print our money. They removed the gold standard so they had complete control over our economy (the gold standard meant the dollar had real value and gave it inflation protection, something that wouldn't have helped them). The Federal Reserve is a private banking group, that is in no way a part of the government despite its purposely misleading name, that has complete control over the US economy and much of the world's economy (the dollar is the world's reserve currency after all).

Have a Internet cookie for knowing the truth.

It always bugs the hell out of me how many people do not know how the great depression occurred. I won't be able to add to your post, though the formal typist in me still flinches to see one big block of text, so I won't do just that. All I can say is people need to learn what actually caused people to panic and pull out all of their money instead of blaming the people themselves. They need to learn this because of that old saying 'failure to learn from history leads to repeating history.'

Because, at the core of it, people need to learn how the whole mess is so easily recreated again and again!

It isn't by chance that these bubbles form and crash, there are people behind each and every one that make a killing off the whole process. People that have no morality or empathy for the millions they, often legally, scam out of every cent and then put them into debt as well. Take a look at the banks that kicked off the current recession with their sub-prime fiasco, they made a killing selling bum loans bundled with good loans and when the system crashed... well they got bailed out by the government as well.

The people are so damn good at what they do our government pays them to screw us all over.

 

[Danny Ocean]

And your one point on the issue is "not a lot of people understand the phrase modern credit" to which I say: well maybe they shouldn't be so droolingly stupid, maybe take an economics class or, you know, switch your brain on and ponder how the word modern is used...

No, that was not my point on the issue. That is you re-wording it so that you have a leg to stand on. My point was this:

"Your definition of 'Modern Credit' is more specific than theirs. Credit cards are not the only new or 'Modern' way of borrowing."

Perhaps I was being too polite. If I reword it, it comes out as this:

"Your definition of 'Modern Credit' is too narrow, because credit cards are not the only new or 'Modern way' of borrowing."

Other 'Modern' techniques include CDOs, Credit-Default Swaps, Payment Insurance, Automatic Lending, Derivatives, and a myriad of advanced mathematical techniques which I don't even know about because I don't work in a bank. Someone who has taken an economics class would have known that.

But given how you define 'Recorded History' within such a long timeframe- whether correct or not- we're not given much of a clue as to what you define 'Modern' as. Last 20 years? That's how I'd define it. Last 50 maybe? 100? 1000? 9000? What? If you're going to expand the definition of 'Modern' to encompass the entire history of money, you might as well drop the word 'Mordern' and just say 'Credit' and save everyone the confusion.

Yet another case of "well, you're right, in every way, but I don't like the way you said it..."

No, it's not. You're discussing a technical subject. Use the proper language or, if you don't know it, be specific with your definitions. We can't read your mind and if you're not using wording from the standard economics lexicon we'll have no idea what you mean. That's not us being stupid, that's you not having the words.

If everyone wants to keep this shitty system (credit) going even though it flies in the face of reason and has proved it's self detrimental to the human condition then I'll just shrug and let the human race doom it's self.

This seems to be your actual argument, when you cut away all the insults. Presuming you mean 'credit' when you say 'this shitty system'.

The problem with going from:

"Credit has caused damage."

to

"Credit is detrimental to the human condition."

Is that you don't account for all the benefits of credit at all. And even though I roughly sketched them out to you at the end of this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.318238-Its-offical-The-protestors-are-getting-stupider?page=5#12971336], you completely ignored it and continued regardless. That is not the hallmark of an open mind nor of someone who is supposedly here to:

hear others' points

And to end on a childish note: Nice screen name. (Can you hear my eyes rolling?)

The simple fact is this: judging by your posts so far, you're not as right as you think you are. You even belittle everyone else's opinions for not being 'backed up' with data or stuff from google, without providing any substance yourself. Yet you are still using the veracity of your arguments as an excuse to make an insulting ass of yourself:

I don't need to follow rules to sway people to my side when I'm right.

You demand that others educate themselves before they comment, so how about you present some credentials regarding your knowledge of economics?

 

[AnotherAvatar]

And your one point on the issue is "not a lot of people understand the phrase modern credit" to which I say: well maybe they shouldn't be so droolingly stupid, maybe take an economics class or, you know, switch your brain on and ponder how the word modern is used...

No, that was not my point on the issue. That is you re-wording it so that you have a leg to stand on. My point was this:

"Your definition of 'Modern Credit' is more specific than theirs. Credit cards are not the only new or 'Modern' way of borrowing."

Perhaps I was being too polite. If I reword it, it comes out as this:

"Your definition of 'Modern Credit' is too narrow, because credit cards are not the only new or 'Modern way' of borrowing."

Other 'Modern' techniques include CDOs, Credit-Default Swaps, Payment Insurance, Automatic Lending, Derivatives, and a myriad of advanced mathematical techniques which I don't even know about because I don't work in a bank. Someone who has taken an economics class would have known that.

But given how you define 'Recorded History' within such a long timeframe- whether correct or not- we're not given much of a clue as to what you define 'Modern' as. Last 20 years? That's how I'd define it. Last 50 maybe? 100? 1000? 9000? What? If you're going to expand the definition of 'Modern' to encompass the entire history of money, you might as well drop the word 'Mordern' and just say 'Credit' and save everyone the confusion.

Yet another case of "well, you're right, in every way, but I don't like the way you said it..."

No, it's not. You're discussing a technical subject. Use the proper language or, if you don't know it, be specific with your definitions. We can't read your mind and if you're not using wording from the standard economics lexicon we'll have no idea what you mean. That's not us being stupid, that's you not having the words.

If everyone wants to keep this shitty system (credit) going even though it flies in the face of reason and has proved it's self detrimental to the human condition then I'll just shrug and let the human race doom it's self.

This seems to be your actual argument, when you cut away all the insults. Presuming you mean 'credit' when you say 'this shitty system'.

The problem with going from:

"Credit has caused damage."

to

"Credit is detrimental to the human condition."

Is that you don't account for all the benefits of credit at all. And even though I roughly sketched them out to you at the end of this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.318238-Its-offical-The-protestors-are-getting-stupider?page=5#12971336], you completely ignored it and continued regardless. That is not the hallmark of an open mind nor of someone who is supposedly here to:

hear others' points

And to end on a childish note: Nice screen name. (Can you hear my eyes rolling?)

The simple fact is this: judging by your posts so far, you're not as right as you think you are. You even belittle everyone else's opinions for not being 'backed up' with data or stuff from google, without providing any substance yourself. Yet you are still using the veracity of your arguments as an excuse to make an insulting ass of yourself:

I don't need to follow rules to sway people to my side when I'm right.

You demand that others educate themselves before they comment, so how about you present some credentials regarding your knowledge of economics?

Well, that was a lot of poor rhetoric to subject me to, with again, not a point any where to be seen, aside from minor attacks on my arrogance. Still, before you rant again, and I do the same, I think it's best we just give up. We live in two different worlds, mine is an oppressive 1984-esque hell where everyone works themselves to death to get paid so little, by multi-million-dollar empires, that they have to borrow to obtain anything of value. In this world one of the biggest multi-million-dollar empires is the banking system, where a hand full of greedy idiots have figured out that if they just give the poor a few of the things they want while over-charging them and taking more than they get they can make millions of dollars under the simple guise of holding onto people's money, because we all know that makes someone wealthy.

And I could go on about this night mare, where we are fucked from all sides and doomsday seems like a reasonable thought to enough people to makes zombies a trend rather than just something enjoyed by the goths, but I'm ranting again, so fuck it. To cut to the punchline: If you don't see the massive problems with our current banking system, then good for you, you're fortunate to have been born on the right side of it. Thumbs up, and just march on ignoring the homeless as they pile up in front of the capitol of your respective city, with not a thought in your mind as to how they got there, and why they aren't enjoying the capitalist dream like you, or how if the police you pay are arresting them and harming them it could easily be translated that you're PAYING them to harm those people if you just ignore the problem.

Like I said: Thumbs up. Rock on. I'm done. If you reply I'll respect you enough to read it, but I'm going to respect myself enough to stop replying, for I feel this is going no where in a very slow and painful manner, like driving through Kansas.

 

[Something Amyss]

Your summary of the trigger of the great depression is quite glib, but if it helps you spin your narrative, I say embrace it. LOL PROTESTERS!

Alright, I'll go a bit more indepth.

The Great Depression first 'started' when the stock market started to tank. Because value was going down so quickly, everyone started selling off their shares. Since everyone was selling their stock but nobody was really buying, it caused the stock market to crash so rapidly that banks were forced to shut down because, in addition to giving people loans (Who then used that to invest in the stock market), they also invested in the stock market themselves.

With news that some banks were falling, a great number of people pulled their money out of banks at the same time. Because the banks didn't actually HAVE that money to give out (Because it was loaned out to other people), those banks were forced to close as well.

Companies and businesses that failed to pull out of the banks fast enough lost all of their money when the bank closed. So it became a race against time to pull out all of your money, which caused the banks to fail even faster.

It was a self-fulfilling prophecy. People took their money out of the bank because they were afraid it would fail, which caused them to fail...

Anyway, the banks going down caused many businesses to go bankrupt which meant many people lost their jobs. Prices started to inflate, but noone was making enough money to pay the higher prices. So more people lost their jobs because the business couldn't afford to keep them on because nobody was buying their products, but noone was buying their products because nobody had any money.

And so the cycle continued until the global economy crashed. Fun story, no?

Edit: So while the trigger of the Great Depression was the crash of the stock market, by doing a wide-scale bank run, they're skipping that step and going straight to 'crash the banks'. Which is what actually caused the GD.

And still not directly applicable to the narrative as you tried to spin it. But HUR HUR PROTESTERS IZ DUMM

 

[Danny Ocean]

not a point any where to be seen, aside from minor attacks on my arrogance.

I don't think rhetoric means what you think it means. I don't think you're able to see past the criticisms of your character. The points in my post are clearly stated, and one of them even follows a line-by-line logical structure that is abundantly clear and obvious.

My point was this:

"Your definition of 'Modern Credit' is more specific than theirs. Credit cards are not the only new or 'Modern' way of borrowing."

Perhaps I was being too polite. If I reword it, it comes out as this:

"Your definition of 'Modern Credit' is too narrow, because credit cards are not the only new or 'Modern way' of borrowing."

Other 'Modern' techniques include CDOs, Credit-Default Swaps, Payment Insurance, Automatic Lending, Derivatives, and a myriad of advanced mathematical techniques which I don't even know about because I don't work in a bank. Someone who has taken an economics class would have known that.

But given how you define 'Recorded History' within such a long timeframe- whether correct or not- we're not given much of a clue as to what you define 'Modern' as. Last 20 years? That's how I'd define it. Last 50 maybe? 100? 1000? 9000? What? If you're going to expand the definition of 'Modern' to encompass the entire history of money, you might as well drop the word 'Mordern' and just say 'Credit' and save everyone the confusion.

The problem with going from:

"Credit has caused damage."

to

"Credit is detrimental to the human condition."

Is that you don't account for all the benefits of credit at all.

So it seems your accusation of there being no points to debate is purely down to your unwillingness to debate them. Perhaps you're afraid you'll be wrong? Perhaps you've come up against someone who knows more than you do and you don't want to lose? Perhaps you don't have as open a mind as you think you do?

But I guess we'll never find out, as you've apparently too much self-respect [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogance] to respond.

Still, before you rant again, and I do the same...*rant*...To cut to the punchline: If you don't see the massive problems with our current banking system, then good for you, you're fortunate to have been born on the right side of it. Thumbs up, and just march on ignoring the homeless as they pile up in front of the capitol of your respective city, with not a thought in your mind as to how they got there, and why they aren't enjoying the capitalist dream like you, or how if the police you pay are arresting them and harming them it could easily be translated that you're PAYING them to harm those people if you just ignore the problem.

Do not presume to know my mind.

All of this is conjecture based purely on my criticism of your position. You assume that because I point out flaws in your argument, that I must be taking the opposite line, because that's how you think. I do not think that way; it is not so black and white.

My knowledge of the downsides of the financial system is evidenced by the several posts I've made on here pointing out the problems with it. You are quoted in one of them, and I've linked it already, so I'm not going to link it again. I'll add to it by saying that I've studied economics for two years, I've read loads of books about it, and I read the whole Economist every week. I don't have a degree like a couple of people on here do, but then neither do most of us.

I'm probably more humanitarian than you are: I volunteered to teach English to kids aged 3-20 in Cambodia, I've cared for orphans aged 0-16 in Jordan with UNAMI, I regularly give to charity despite my meager income, I buy the big issue whenever I can, I've helped care for my two debilitatingly autistic siblings my whole life, I volunteer in my local homeless shelter, I am a supporter of socialized healthcare, free education, free secondary education for life rather than childhood, higher taxation, welfare state rather than warfare state, substantial financial sector reform, division of monopolies and oligopolies and greater social and income equality.

So tell me, you self-proclaimed examplar of human intellect and decency, what do you know, and what do you do?

like driving through Kansas.

That is entirely your fault. My arguments are spelled out clearly. I deliberately made sure that was so, so that anyone reading this could be sure that the fault is with your inability to think properly rather than my 'blindness'. I should hope that any such ridiculous notions of warped perspective have been thoroughly squashed by this post, with you exposing yourself as the ranting, raving man who doesn't know what he's talking about. It seems my 'rhetoric' of being clear, concise, and polite as possible did exactly as was intended.

Which is a shame; for a minute I considered you a person with whom interesting conversations could be had.

 

[ScreamingNinja]

Clegane]

Clegane]

Clegane]

SNIP

The Wall Street protesters are stupid anyway. hey don't have a clue how the economy works, they don't have a clue what they're arguing for, their just a bunch of idiots with too much spare time. There's a brilliant photo of a protester holding up a "Down with corporations sign" While he is texting on his iphone, wearing oakleys sunglasses and designer clothes. What an idiot.

The most annoying ones are the ones who think the rest of the world support them. I saw one sign that read "London is rising with us." Lol, no it isn't.

Because if you want a change in the way the world works, you're not allowed to wear/use the toys that corporations make, amirite?

HEY YOU! YOU DON'T LIKE CAPITALISM! YOU HAVE TO WEAR CLOTHING YOU MADE YOURSELF OUT OF FLAX! YOU CANNOT DRIVE! YOU MUST WALK EVERYWHERE, BAREFOOT!

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

1) You completely missed the point.
2) Err, in the current industrial model, you sorta do. Thanks for using all-caps though to draw attention to how stupid these people are.

Nope, I didn't.

And no, you don't. Even if you hate something you can still wear labels, if that's what you really want to. Hell, I hate wearing the flashy labels myself, but almost everything has some form of labelling now. Hell, even Warehouse stuff. Doesn't mean I'm going to run around naked just because douchebags make money offa the gizmo's and gagdets.

Yeah your sill missing the point. Don't worry though, I appreciate that with some people you just simply can't have a civil debate.

Because clearly, disagreeing with you means it's not a civil debate.. Amirite?

 

[Rockchimp69]

Anyone else think it's kind of interesting that in a thread talking about police brutality and oppression, the mods are banning people for speaking their mind?

Edit: Well it's happened twice.

There's speaking you're mind, and there's insulting people for no reason.

Insults have no place in intelligent debate.

There's a point where it breaks down into a shouting match, but I don't think one insult is anywhere near that.

 

[ScreamingNinja]

Clegane]

Clegane]

Clegane]

Clegane]

SNIP

The Wall Street protesters are stupid anyway. hey don't have a clue how the economy works, they don't have a clue what they're arguing for, their just a bunch of idiots with too much spare time. There's a brilliant photo of a protester holding up a "Down with corporations sign" While he is texting on his iphone, wearing oakleys sunglasses and designer clothes. What an idiot.

The most annoying ones are the ones who think the rest of the world support them. I saw one sign that read "London is rising with us." Lol, no it isn't.

Because if you want a change in the way the world works, you're not allowed to wear/use the toys that corporations make, amirite?

HEY YOU! YOU DON'T LIKE CAPITALISM! YOU HAVE TO WEAR CLOTHING YOU MADE YOURSELF OUT OF FLAX! YOU CANNOT DRIVE! YOU MUST WALK EVERYWHERE, BAREFOOT!

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

1) You completely missed the point.
2) Err, in the current industrial model, you sorta do. Thanks for using all-caps though to draw attention to how stupid these people are.

Nope, I didn't.

And no, you don't. Even if you hate something you can still wear labels, if that's what you really want to. Hell, I hate wearing the flashy labels myself, but almost everything has some form of labelling now. Hell, even Warehouse stuff. Doesn't mean I'm going to run around naked just because douchebags make money offa the gizmo's and gagdets.

Yeah your sill missing the point. Don't worry though, I appreciate that with some people you just simply can't have a civil debate.

Because clearly, disagreeing with you means it's not a civil debate.. Amirite?

Disagreeing with someone constitutes an argument not a debate. So yes, you are right.

Sorry. I guess all I can say then is 'All your points are valid and my views simply do not matter, because to do anything else would not be a debate.

So, have many 'debates' do you? Where you say something and people just all agree? Because disagreeing is wrong.