Not all Occupy protesters are lazy unemployed bums

[jbg]

Not all, but most. I'm not saying that if you're an occupy protester, you're a lazy unemployed bum. But chances are, if you're a lazy unemployed bum, you're probably an occupy protester.

Not all, but most Conservatives are racist. I'm not saying that if you're a Conservative, you're a racist. But chances are, if you're a racist, you're a Conservative.

What did Shady's post have to do with race?

[cybercoma]

What did Shady's post have to do with race?

He's satirically criticizing Shady's faulty logic.

[CPCFTW]

Consider the following scenario... Theres an economy that starts out with no money supply, and 3 participants. Bob, John, and Peter.

They each take a loan out from the centrally backed commercial bank for 100 dollars. There is now 300 dollars in the national economy. Thats how big the money supply is. The problem is that the money was "lent" at interest so Bob, John and Peter owe a combined total of 315 dollars. 105 each.

It is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for John and Peter, and Bob to all repay their loans, because they owe 315 dollars but theres on 300 dollars in the money supply that they can possibly trade their goods and services for. One of them is mathematically guaranteed to default. Even if all three are dilligent producers. The money to pay the loan back with interest simply doesnt not exist in the economy.

Bob defaults on his loan, the bank siezes his assets, and now the bank owns 1/3rd of the real property in the economy, and is still owed all of the currency. The only way for the system to continue working is either in the face of massive economic growth or more and more borrowing.

Its the very nature of the system ITSELF that makes it a runaway freight train. Not just the people managing it. The system cannot be balanced. THink of a piece of software with a memory leak. The "leak" in the federal reserve system is the usury charged by commercial banks.

And how exactly do they get a loan for $105 in an economy with no money supply? Worst example ever.

Consider this scenario:

Bob digs ditches, John builds shovels, and Peter shines shoes. They get some paper and write up "money" which they trade for each other's services. Bob digs ditches for $1 a ditch, John builds shovels for $1, and Peter shines both of their shoes for $1 a shining. They make 3 transactions a year and get $3/yr income.

Now a bank comes along and offers to loan $100 to Bob for 5% simple interest. Bob takes the loan, buys 100 shovels, and hires a bunch of unemployed mexicans to dig ditches for $0.50 a ditch and makes $0.50 a ditch for himself in profits. The mexicans dig 3 ditches each in the year for a total of 300 ditches. The mexicans make $1.50 each on the year, and Bob makes 300x0.5 = $150. He pays back his loan of $105, and makes $45 on the year. Now Bob owns 100 shovels and has $45 and is employing 100 unemployed people who can now buy themselves a shovel or get their shoes shined! Magically there is more money in the economy because of the evil banks! Wooooo!!

10 years later and Bob has now accumulated significant wealth by continuing to borrow from the bank and make sound investments to create jobs that employ more and more people. But there are 5 Mexicans who are upset that all the women love Bob for being so entrepreneurial and that he can provide them with a comfortable life. They chant slogans like "we are the 99%!!", and spout meaningless statistics like "Bob controls 40% of all the wealth!!!" A few months later they get tired of sleeping in their own sh*t and having unshined shoes so they go back to digging ditches. The end.

Edited November 7, 2011 by CPCFTW