...and as for the ONLY cause for bankruptcy anywhere is the inability to pay for one's debts. The white, pimple-faced burger joint fry cook driving the Hummer wouldn't ultimately benefit from a $1,000,000 gift. He'd probably go buy a $750,000 house and wonder why he's bankrupt on land taxes. The banker who lost everything making margin calls on insider trading wouldn't have that million either. The family with the child suffering from cancer might benefit, but if they bought insurance rather than continuing to smoke 3 packs a day they wouldn't need it to begin with.

I'm saying people mostly go bankrupt because of their own stupid decisions. Very few are due to outside conditions. Gifting them money is just throwing gas on the fire.

"Give a man a fish" yadda yadda yadda.

> "[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that
> does not match my perception of reality"

Well, far be it from me to try to introduce you to some basic epistemologies to which you may not be familiar: like rationalism, deduction, etc, in order to move you away from "authority" as the only path to knowledge you seem to use. Unfortunately, however, this "authority" method is inappropriate to the study of economics.

> "So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here,
> ever."

Keynes and Hayek were at it for a while. It's all in the two hip-hop videos.

> "It's utterly pointless."

Yes. There is nothing new not covered by Keynes vs. Hayek.

> "Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. "

Bad thymology (my interpretation).

> "He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand.
> The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates
> into demand."

I see. So, by this logic, any making of money is, in itself, a "weakening" of society. Unless I'm a socialist, like David Simon, then I cannot make money without also "weakening" society.

> "But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was
> probably hogwash to you."

Yes, at best hogwash. Alas, I've no interest in going into this with you, especially since you've no have interest in actually looking at it. Had you any interest at all -- or studied the subject beyond deferring to the "authority" method of epistemology -- you could at least provide me with a concise explanation as to why you think the Austrian/Misean economic position falters. Rather than thinking for yourself, however, you dismiss it as "wrong," "right-wing," or "pointless" to debate or go into. "Here Be Monsters, period."

The Keynes/Hayek debates have the similar tones, with Keynes simply ignoring all of Hayek's points, evasions, and going off into something else. You clearly agree with the Keynesian approach/theory, which likely means you cannot really explain anything except through unfounded claims, that are "pointless" to argue, debate, or rationally defend.

As I have said before, one cannot have this sort of intellectual relationship with those either unwilling or unable to grasp basic economic principles, like for example those clearly explained by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." There's simply no common language through which to communicate. Confronted with these kinds of beliefs, one can either try to educate (but only those who ask for it, since attempting to educate those who do not want to be educated will likely fail, as any public school teacher can tell you) or one can pull out the snake oil and the cash register. The third option involves ignoring such ignorance altogether, and use what one knows for one's own financial and life benefit in ways that don't involve such people in the first place.

There are so many errors in the Keynesian 'demand' theory of economics (you can find much on that if you want to read up on it), but Keynesians tend to avoid any real debates. You're coming from the Keynesian fallacy of saving money as being bad for the economy (because spending it all/consumerism is supposedly what gets the economy going). And the even more absurd fallacy which presupposes (with no proof of it at all) that rich people keep most of their wealth stored somewhere outside of circulation. When in reality, rich people only save some and the richer they are the more they spend/invest. Of course, when the economy seem fragile, due to central banks meddling, bubbles, etc., investors get nervous and don't invest as much a they otherwise would. When they don't invest, it shrinks supply of things people would want to spend on. Demand does nothing, it doesn't exist, if there is nothing to supply that people want to buy.

In fact, I am starting to think that central bankers are not really Keynesian at all, in the sense that they don't really believe their own bullshit. They know better but also know how to exploit their positions as central bankers, making folks like @radx buy into it, the snake oil. For example, he may not care for gold, but bankers do. Whatever they say against it, folks will still buy it, both for themselves and the banks they run. And as @radx rightly says, he's a human. And apparently he can sell his 'charm' if push comes to shove.

You might be ahead of the curve on that one.

I agree that a bit (or a lot) of fear might force our representatives all over the world to realize that even the richest donor cannot provide you with a replacement for your head after it was chopped off by the mob. Hell, we might find out soon enough if the troika keeps choking the life out of Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Similarly, the damage being done by secrecy of all kinds, particularly to core elements of democracy (see: deep state), might very well outweigh potential damages caused by putting an end to it entirely.

But I'm not there yet. Iceland and, to some degree, Switzerland are showcases that shit can be turned on its head much quicker than anyone thought. Nationalising banks, jailing bankers, referendums about maximum wages and basic incomes... if the Swiss can openly discuss the "1:12" initiative, a disbandment -- or at least a complete restructuring -- of intelligence services is not as impossible as one might think.

Of bankers and Nazi's?? The Tibetan Buddhist would simply say of these illusions that life in this incarnation is suffering, lumping thievery and murder no matter the scale into a similar karmic bowl of inevitability, and give it a stir...all the while mumbling the Dharma.

Why does the Dali Llama smile all the time?
Why do bad things happen to good people?
Good Drugs.

Not everyone who profited from the collapse were criminal bankers, there were a few independent finance people that saw there was a bubble and placed bets accordingly just by doing good research.

Still, there are quite a few people in the banking industry that should be in jail for what they did in the housing crisis. There's more going on aside from that, NOBODY went to jail when HSBC got caught laundering billions for drug cartels even though they clearly knew what they were doing!!!!!

Your video, Russell Brand: Corrupt bankers need to go down!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The rich interests including those bankers have led the charge for deregulation and they are the reason that they can take advantage of the system now. They created the propaganda, they funded the candidates, they control everything. The Rich own this country and we need to take it from them and make the democracy function again.

Also taking advantage of a system that hurts people is still unethical even if you aren't the one who broke it. As I pointed out, that doesn't apply in this case.

Where do you draw the line though?

CMBS or RMBS made money for "bankers". Well some bankers anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_United_States_(2008%E2%80%93present)

However it also drove home sales (and home building). Are the home builders responsible for people taking mortgages on houses they could not afford?

What about the realtor/broker who showed them the house?

Or the developer who developed it?

Or the appraiser who appraised the property for hundreds of thousands of dollars more in value than it is worth now?

Or the people at Freddie Mac who earnestly wanted to put lower income people in homes?

Now, you take all the money from the bankers that survived and you give it to who?

The people who bought a house, put very little money into it, and now have to give it back?

The real estate developers who lost everything? (Of which there are many)

It all sounds well and good to take from one group and give to someone else, but I think it is easy to point the finger at the bankers and not take a look in the mirror. We all did this and allowed it to happen.

That said bankers shouldn't be making big money when they are losing big money...

Um no, that's not true at all. Just like how it's not true that crime has more to do with the police than criminals. Especially since the bankers and the top 1% of the 1% get whatever they want. So they dictate policy and set up a system where they can do whatever they want. Including never go to jail and gain more and more wealth and power.

So here's the thing, they control the federal regulation, and they fuck us over. We don't need them, why don't we stop them?

All of this has much more to do with the federal regulation than it has to do with the bankers.

Yep, Obama and Bush, peas in a pod. The next crash is going to be even worse, might really hurt the country.

Cast off these bankers and financial jackasses raping our country.

our currencies have also been watered down within the debt system by "creating" more money (and debt). This process creates the illusion that the populace is flush with available cash. Instead it is only keystrokes creating an illusion of wealth..., a charade intended to keep you spending and borrowing.

meanwhile, while we focus on the distraction, the bankers keep upping their percentage.

There was a tv series called the Ascent of Money with Niall Ferguson which featured the U.S. banking deregulation in one episode, and the tape of the senate hearing around the turn of the century was quite interesting. They realised that deregulating was trusting the bankers to do the right thing or the whole system could implode, and the bankers basically just laughed and said of course you can trust us...

Of course Congress doesn't realize it's enacting laws that can, or will, be used against them, as well. Between the military industrial complex and the bankers, I thought we had it bad. But factor in the new intelligence industrial complex, and we're deep in some 1984 trouble.

I just want a superhero that deals with bankers, politicians and other corrupt pieces of shit. This shit is so 50s...