Quote Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
.... Quote from Mr. KBoom: "Many times in the history of humanity has someone claimed that their stone-tablet balance sheet, their abacus, their papyrus, notebook, i-pad, contained numbers that would objectively solve the financial problems of the leader/king/world.. Most recently, Greenspan.. all were wrong, as far as I know.." It's comical that you should whinge about Wall st. while spouting this stuff. The last thing that Wall st. wants is anyone fixing the system. Taxation is one of the ways that would clamp down on them, but you didn't bother to ask how. You didn't bother to ask how can taxation improve the economy. And now I certainly won't bother to tell you how.
I'm glad I know what's under the hood. I'm glad I listened to people and asked questions "how does that work? Why is it like that?" "That's interesting tell me some more about it." I'm glad I went to the library and looked things up. I know what's coming down the pipe.
But then I have no credibility. So why are you reading this? Try duking it out with this guy:William K. Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've bothered to ask how taxation would clamp down on "Wall st." I may not have developed an emotionally-charged interest in this issue which I consider to be penultimately grey and emotionless - for instance, I would not stay up late at night reading economics books by candlelight, because they're not enthralling to me - but aside from that, I'm a good student and a good learner. A more fitting point might be the generally nebulous nature of these sorts of abstractions. If you were to gather any ten thousand people from anywhere in the world (outside of upper-class suburbs near to Ivy-league colleges, I suppose) those ten thousand people would, by and large, NOT understand what you're talking about. The same can be said about most economic writing that has been put to paper in the last several decades.... I'm not the oddity, or an ignorant person, to not readily know "what's under the hood." Rather you're the oddity, as a person who knows "what's coming down the pipe."

And what I've noticed about people who know "what's coming down the pipe" is that they primarily don't "bother" to tell the rest of us what exactly it is that they know.

I've already stated, or at the very least had meant to, that I agree with you that certain realities, like asbestos, are largely objective - given that the majority of people don't want a random, pointless and difficult-to-explain death - but should we lay some of these other objectivities out into plain sight, and put them into words that the rest of us 9,999 people could digest, then I suspect we'll find that these issues are largely NOT objective. Until we've done so, this is only a guess on my part.

And as for the credibility - rather than considering who's right or wrong, maybe we should consider for a second whether telling someone that they have no credibility, whether it's you OR me saying it, is perhaps beyond the boundaries of what's polite and proper in discussing an issue.

Tell you what: If I were to pay you for this premium information, let's say, $50, to go over with me for an hour what you know, would you then be willing to tell me what you know? It certainly sounds like valuable information, especially if it has the power to predict what's coming in the future. I would be willing to pay for that kind of an inside track.

Or if that's not a good method, maybe you can suggest a book, a writer, or even a topic wherein I should begin my research. Then we can speak again in the future, and maybe I will have risen myself up to a level of knowledge that will allow us to more freely discuss this topic. It's not fair that a person as educated as you should have to discourse with a person who merely desires to know what's going on, and has not "bothered" to do the proper research to follow in your footsteps.

In shorter words... How does this work? Why is it like that? It's interesting. Tell me some more about it.