Well, I don't think most wealth is 'earned.' But I will look into it, and let the facts decide.
Of course, our definitions of earned probably differ.
If you make your money by working, or making something people want or need, you've earned it.
If you make your money by moving money around, and telling other people where to move theirs, not so much. Money you 'make' doesn't just appear, someone else had to lose it for you to get it.

Of course this is too simplistic for most people who I'm certain will chime in and point out my fallacies or failings.

There was this pile of wealth in the street and the rich took mre than their share and deserve to be punished.

Or somebody caused something that did not previously exist to be created. Others noticed this, and decided to exchange something to have one.

Me, I get up in the morning, turn on the lights after firing up the generator I built with the coal I dug by hand...

I remember the phrase, "Ignorance is bliss". If so, then DrCos must be in a state of extreme bliss. Wealth that is acquired by other than force or fraud is earned. Wealth acquired by force by state agency is not.

"Well, I don't think most wealth is 'earned.'"

The idea that the rich in America are trust fund babies is not borne out in economic data. IIRC, upwards of 90% of millionaires made their money, not inherited it.

"Money you 'make' doesn't just appear, someone else had to lose it for you to get it."

Do you really not understand how people specializing in functions and then freely engaging in transactions to trade the product of their work can result in greater well-being to both parties? Do you really think all transactions are, at best, zero sum transactions? Because if you believe that, you mark yourself not just as economically illiterate, but someone who refuses to look at the world around you and see why we no longer live in caves. You are essentially telling us the Sun revolves around the Earth, you are so out of touch with the evidence.

"If you make your money by moving money around, and telling other people where to move theirs, not so much."

Every time I buy shares in a mutual fund or a company, I am hiring a person to move my money around for me. That person is better at it than I am, I find. And thank god they are there for me to hire, because that allows me to focus on what I am good at, rather than read company balance sheets for many companies, pay attention to product launches, and do all the other things a serious direct investor in companies must do.

Of course I have to pay that person to do so. And of course, I (along with other investors) may have to pay him a lot to convince him (or her) to be willing to put those skills to work for me. I happily do so, and find my life is improved by my ability to hire company executives and mutual fund managers in this way. Given that, why should you care how much I and the other investors pay our "employees"?

"Of course this is too simplistic for most people who I'm certain will chime in and point out my fallacies or failings."

Not simplistic, just uninformed and unimaginative. Let me suggest a short, simple read: "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It is not enough, but it is a start.

>> Money you 'make' doesn't just appear, someone else had to lose it for you to get it.

Oh Jesus. Here goes.. economic transactions within the economy are not zero-sum. The monetary base is not fixed or finite. Growth results in an expansion of this base, or deflation occurs - expansion w/o growth results in inflation. Transactions involve an exchange of assets or services seen to be of equivalent value. No money is 'lost' in this exchange.

This misconception is at the heart of most criticism of market economics. It's a very old one. But it's fundamentally incorrect w/ reference to anything other than primitive closed economies where there is no free exchange of goods and services. Strangely this is exactly the type of economy that those critics tend to prefer.

@DrCos Well, I don't think most wealth is 'earned.'

I don't think you're a real doctor.

@MrCos Money you 'make' doesn't just appear, someone else had to lose it for you to get it.

This statement alone marks you as a complete economic illiterate.

> Money you 'make' doesn't just appear, someone
> else had to lose it for you to get it.

HOLD ON, FRIENDS!

Just when you think we've already seen November's shittiest sentence in the blog comments, here comes a Friday Morning shorts-soiler, straight outta nowhere!

Glancing down, we see that JDT is already on the case.

JD: Kill.

Friend of mine sent me an email with the idea of "Occupy Thanksgiving". He says:

"We are now a week away from the ever so popular “black friday”. My personal opinion, if we wanna take a stab at “corporate greed”, we should “occupy” Thanksgiving. Many of our friends and loved ones will have little, or any, of one of the biggest *family* holidays of the year because they will either have to be working or sleeping during the family activities so they can work. How many thousands, or even millions of people will be screwed out of this very special time so companies can raise their bottom line?

"Unlike some of the “occupy” movements, we can do something concrete here. We can NOT shop at any time during the day of Thanksgiving itself. we can NOT shop during those early “door buster” hours, and just shop regular business hours if we really feel the need. If we wanna take it farther, we can notNOT shop at all at the companies doing this ridiculous shit to their employees for profit. Cops, firefighters, doctors, nurses and the like are needed to work this day. A clerk at Best Buy or Toys R Us is NOT essential.

"“We are the 99%” I keep hearing bandied about. Well, so are the folks having to work at these retail stores and getting dicked out of their family time. Is the “99%” gonna screw others of the “99%” to put money in the pockets of the “1%”? Not this boy."

SO, what do you all think? Also, I saw yesterday that oil closed at >$99 a barrel. So are we gonna see lower gas prices? And think of all the gas that WON'T be used if people DON'T go shopping next Thursday or Friday! I know of only ONE store that advertised being closed next Thursday, for the holiday, and that's Big Y, one of the supermarkets in our area. And they specifically stated in the flyer "..so that our employees can enjoy the holiday with their families."

Makes sense to me.

The thing to note about DrCos' foolishness is how naturally this belief comes to him. Most of the people you meet are like that: Their insights about wealth haven't changed since they were four years old, fighting with siblings at the cookie jar. If Sissy gets that last chocolate chip, then I'm screwed... BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY MORE COOKIES!!!!!

I dunno, Crid. In our family, if I got the last cookie, and my little brother was standing there with these big, sad eyes, I'd give him half.

And then I'd make some MORE chocolate chip cookies. Because I could, you know.

I guess if you've never actually had to earn anything, if you've been handed everything your whole life, it's probably easy to think that that's how the world works. That stuff is just given to you because you want it. And I suppose, by that logic, if you're not doing anything to actually earn what you receive, it would stand to reason that no one else is doing any work either to earn what they have. Maybe that's where MrCos/OWS et al get their insane ideas. Just wish they'd keep it to themselves.

Nah, JD, what I'm saying is that I'd share the cookie with my brother. I'd help him out. And then, I'd make more. As in, I'd actually do the work it takes to make more. I've not ever had anything "handed" to me, everything I've got, I've had to work for. But sharing a cookie with my brother is easy to do. For me, anyway. For others, sharing may not be easy for them. Not saying that the rich have to share with those who demand it. Just saying that because I can, I do. And I share with my brother out of compassion, not because he demands it.

> And then I'd make some MORE chocolate chip
> cookies. Because I could, you know.

DrCos, the little brother whose eyes are sadder than you could possibly imagine, doesn't think that's possible. "Someone else had to LOSE it," he says....

His is a dog-eat-dog world of deadly power plays and ruthless intrigue. People LOSE. There's no such thing as trade. It's a heartless, primitive realm of cunning and treachery.

PS- About that oil....

Crid, from that article:

...Chevron trading near an all-time high (above $100) when he sold in November, he faced a large capital-gains tax.

He's talking about the shares of stock, not the oil itself.

Also:

Old shares can take on symbolic meaning and become almost like an heirloom, says Marty Martin, an associate professor at DePaul University and financial psychologist at Aequus Wealth Management Resources in Chicago. Guilt or sadness may come up at the idea of selling.

I have a friend who had shares in Pfizer, who sold them so she could buy her (then) boyfriend a motorcycle. These were inherited shares. She had no problem selling, I think because they were inherited shares, and she hadn't paid for them herself. She was a little sad when she sold them, but I don't think there was any guilt involved. At least, not until he crashed the thing and then left her. Ah well, live and learn, right?

MrCos, I'll actually do some leg work to answer you. I'm not goig to research all 3.1 million of the top 1%, but a good representative sample of the Super rich in America would be Forbes top 10.
So here they are and how they got there $. And going by your definition if they "Earned it"
#1. Bill Gates- Got his money through a computer company. Earned.
#2. Warren Buffet- Got his money, through investing, stock trading. According to your definition he pushed money around didn't earn it.
#3. Larry Ellison- Oracle computers- hey looks like doing computers is a good way to make lots of $. Earned.
4+5. The Koch brothers- MIT graduate in science invented a new more efficient way of processing crude oil. Oil, energy, petrochemical, fertilizer. Earned.
#6, 8 and 10. 3 members of the Waltons family- As in Walmart- admittedly not my favorite store, but everybody seems to shop there, Earned.
#7 George Soros- Mr. Hedge funds- by your definition Did not create anything, did not Earn it.
#10, Sheldon Adelson- Casinos and resorts-
Earn it? well it is mainly gambling so, I'll give you a half on that one.

So what's the total. 75% Earned it, going by your definition of earned. 25% Did not earn it.

I personally, love that going by your definition, the two worst, non earners, Buffet and Soros, are the Darlings and financers of the Democratic party and the OWS movement. Even though by the way they obtained their money, they should be the main targets of the movement.

Flynne, your friend's e-mail (your post, 18 Nov, 7:01) sounds a little like a chain letter of the type I half-expect to see in somebody's Facebook status sometime over the next few days. Whether it is or not, it contains a nice convenient stack of nonsense (none of which I attribute to you, just to be clear).

- "We can NOT shop at any time during the day of Thanksgiving itself..." Well, yeah. You can avoid shopping any time. Point being?

- "Cops, firefighters, doctors, nurses and the like are needed to work this day. A clerk at Best Buy or Toys R Us is NOT essential." Glad your whoever wrote this holds the hourlies in such high esteem.

- "'We are the 99%' I keep hearing bandied about. Well, so are the folks having to work at these retail stores and getting dicked out of their family time. Is the '99%' gonna screw others of the '99%' to put money in the pockets of the '1%'? Not this boy." Okay, whoever wrote this has established that family time is more important than working. I don't suppose too many people would argue with that, except for, you know, people who need the money or something. But hey, from one Ninety-Nine Percenter to another -- we know what's best for you.

"Also, I saw yesterday that oil closed at >$99 a barrel. So are we gonna see lower gas prices?" I don't think that latter proceeds from the former. If you think about it for a minute, why would current gasoline prices track closely to current crude prices?

Seems like I've seen e-mails like this from time to time, urging a gasoline-free day, or not shopping at this or that retailer. Most of them proceed from the assumption that somehow, we can Stick It to the Man, or punish somebody for making Obscene Profits, whatever those are, without considering whether the actions urged are effective, or will work as intended, etc.

Flynne,

It's called "Black Friday" for a reason. It's the day that many if not most retail shops get into the black on the ledger sheet.

You know, they begin making a profit. For the current year. 11 months in.

Now, if you want those shops to get into a deep financial problem this year, by all means "Occupy Thanksgiving".

I'm sure that your friends and neighbors who work in those shops will show thanks for getting their hours cut, or perhaps costing them their job. Sheesh, who needs a job, any way?

Humpf. Growing up in my family, if there were only three cookies left, my cousing Susan would lick all three so no one else could have them...

These were inherited shares. She had no problem selling, I think because they were inherited shares, and she hadn't paid for them herself.

There's never a problem selling. It's just a matter from where the capital gains are calculated from and how much the tax burden is. The cost basis is reset at inheritance, so the capital gain you friend paid was on the amount of gain from the time she got them until the date of sale.

Money you 'make' doesn't just appear, someone else had to lose it for you to get it.

Cos, you don't 'make' money. You earn it by trading goods or services (your skills and/or time). The person who pays you the money has received an object or service that was worth the price to them.

If you pay me to make a suit for you, I have money to compensate me for my time, expertise, and the materials I put into the suit (paid for by me). You have a suit which you either needed or wanted and were willing to spend money to obtain.

With the money you paid me, I can go out and buy food and shelter ... as well as new materials with which to make another suit for someone else who will pay me for my time, materials, and expertise (i.e., for making him a suit).

Neither of us has "lost" anything.

#1. Bill Gates- Got his money through a computer company. Earned.

Put that into the "mostly earned". Microsoft is also a convicted monopolist.

Warren Buffet (and Soros?) was busy advising the current White House on economics, and busy investing in the market such that when they implemented his advice, he made mad money on it.

Also, Buffet's Berkshire-Hathaway is busy disputing their tax bill over the last several years. The IRS says that the amount owed is in the billions. Mr. Buffet tear down this wall...wait...pay your damn taxes!

It's called "Black Friday" for a reason. It's the day that many if not most retail shops get into the black on the ledger sheet.

Non-grocery retail (apparel, electronics, etc.) companies earn do 50-60% of their total annual operating revenue in the days between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Many of our friends and loved ones will have little, or any, of one of the biggest *family* holidays of the year because they will either have to be working or sleeping during the family activities so they can work. How many thousands, or even millions of people will be screwed out of this very special time so companies can raise their bottom line?

How many of our friends and loved ones wouldn't have a job if these "greedy" companies didn't open during a period in which they do most of their business?

Companies aren't "raising" their bottom lines by being open as long as possible on Black Friday, they're securing it.

Dr. Cos: "Of course this is too simplistic for most people who I'm certain will chime in and point out my fallacies or failings."

Lame, childish attempt to declare yourself the winner of a debate before anyone else has even uttered a word. Right now your fingers are probably plugging your ears as you intone "la-la-la-la-la".

Flynne, I wasn't really responding to your cookie analogy (since it's pretty silly and not applicable), more so to MrCos' rambling and the OWS mentality in general.

Of course you (and I) would share the cookies. Cookies are cheap and easy to make more of. It's very different from going to someone who's worked their butt off their whole life, sacrificing at great length, and telling them they have to share the money they earned with people who didn't work their butt off because it's not fair, that's why.

Peej for DrCos.

I am reeling at the complete lack of basic economic understanding of DrCos. His statements are infantile and lacking in any intellectual thought process. Let’s just hope he doesn’t vote.

Like my grandmother always said: "you can't fix stupid"

"you can't fix stupid"

I disagree. We all started off stupid. But through very hard work and judicious selection of knowledge sources, some of us can leave that state behind.

Spartee, there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance can be corrected. Stupid aint fixable.

It's very different from going to someone who's worked their butt off their whole life, sacrificing at great length, and telling them they have to share the money they earned with people who didn't work their butt off because it's not fair, that's why.

Absolutely agree with you there, JD. My point is, it's easy for people to share little things. Not so easy, to share the bigger things. And people shouldn't expect a handout when they haven't done anything to deserve it.

I don't suppose too many people would argue with that, except for, you know, people who need the money or something. But hey, from one Ninety-Nine Percenter to another -- we know what's best for you.

Old RPM Daddy, granted, peopple need the money. But if these corporations would pay a living wage, people wouldn't be complaining. I think that's what my friend was getting at. Those people at the top, who live much more comfortably than those they pay minimum wages to, can afford to do what they want when they want, as opposed to those who must do what they don't want when they don't want in order to just survive. I'm guessing he thinks it's not right for people living high on the hog to be reaping that living off the backs of people who are one paycheck away from the poor house. If distributing the weath were a matter of paying decent wages so that others could live a little better, why shouldn't the big boys contribute to that? They've already made their millions. Why shouldn't they help to ease the lives of others by paying people a living wage, rather than a minimum wage? Would it really have a negative impact on the weathly? I don't think so. But then again, I'm one of the 99% who's been out of work for a long time, yet I don't agree with the majority of the OWS people. I WANT a job, I WANT a steady income, I WANT a purpose and a place to work and to be paid what I'm WORTH. I'm not looking for a hand out, just a decent life. Minimum wage doesn't cut it. I made $54K a year as an office manager and was very happy with that. I don't need to make millions. I just need to know that I can pay for things that my kids and I need, and to be able to have a nice vacation every now and then. That's really all I want.

"But if these corporations would pay a living wage, people wouldn't be complaining. I think that's what my friend was getting at."

Flynne, I hope you understand I meant no offense. As far as the living wage issue goes, that's a whole different argument, but I didn't see it addressed in your friend's e-mail. In any case, I didn't, and still don't, see how a Black Friday Boycott would help retail workers.

And best of luck finding something good to work on. My daughter recently picked up a couple of offers after a dry spell, so maybe things are starting to pick up, just a little. Have a good weekend!

Thank you all for your enlightening comments, which I'm sure were meant to help me understand your views. Or, maybe not.

BarSinister: you are not even close to being the first one with that analogy. Sure, I'm extrememly blissful, but your 'argument' indicates you must be completely euphoric.

Spartee: helpful and points out some reading material I will look into.

Economan: Money you 'make' on a stock transaction or commodity future is what I refer to. (For example, I 'lost' $3000 in my 401K on stocks. Is that money gone or does someone else have it?)
I am aware of how providing goods and services works as I have been doing that most of my life.

JDT: Brilliant. Helpful. Well thought out.

Crid :)

JDT, again. Your implication about 'been handed everything your whole life' is completely unfounded, and demonstrates how easily you run towards pigeonholing people you don't know because you think you know how they think. If I was with the OWS, I would point that out. Most of those people have more heart and compassion then the people they are railing against.

Joe J has the best response on here, as he actually took some time to explain where my beliefs are off. Kudos to you sir.

Conan the Grammarian - I was too general in my 'make' complaint. Please see above.

Lizzie: Thank you also for your helpful, well thought out post. Next time, I should just compare someone to Hitler, since I'm just trying to 'win'

Crid, I will look up PJ's explanation. Thanks.

Ed, thank you for calling someone you don't know stupid. That's actually pretty ignorant of you. Go look up those two words. There will be a quiz.

Darin, same thing.

I can't really offer any opinions without those of you who are so obviously smarter, richer, and harder working than I am making sure to put me in my place, so is it all right with you if I just go back to my corner and watch?

"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid."

--John Wayne

I was too general in my 'make' complaint. Please see above.

I kinda figured that out when I went back and reread your comment.

Still, the market's not a zero-sum game. In order for you to make money in the market, someone else does not have to lose it. It's all about the values of your investments.

For example, I 'lost' $3000 in my 401K on stocks. Is that money gone or does someone else have it?

It was never actual money.

It was the value of an investment, which did not hold its value and so devalued.

If you gain that value back, no one else has to "lose" any money.

> is it all right with you if I just go back to my
> corner and watch?

If you can do so silently, then yes.

>>Money you 'make' on a stock transaction or commodity future is what I refer to. (For example, I 'lost' $3000 in my 401K on stocks. Is that money gone or does someone else have it?)

@DrCos that was never money. It was a bid from someone to buy a certain quantity of securities for a given price at a point in time. That's all. Without a transaction, no money is involved. The fact that bids are denominated in Dollars doesn't mean that they are money.

Eco-- This guy might be educable... Notice the single quotes he put around 'lost'.

A price is an opinion. The smartest people in the world don't complain about that, they just go about the business of refining their own opinions, and occasionally, influencing yours.

Postrel did column about this once, I forget where. A price isn't just a boot under which the average guy has his throat stomped by an uncaring Man; it's a piece of information about the state of the world, presented in an alphabet composed by forces next door and around the globe.

Conan & Economan have pointed out an important part of the whole 'making money' thing, that this money doesn't really exist. Some refer to it as 'on paper' which doesn't really apply in today's world of electronic trading and transfers.

Crid, PJ O'Rourke makes some good points, although he certainly has his detractors as well.

My hubris comes from working for a living all my life, and a work ethic ingrained from my parents and all the 'successful' adults I knew and grew up around. These people DID something, they built things, drove trucks, worked in factories, helped people. They didn't sit around in suits, moving virtual money around while whining about how stressful their life is. Mark Knopfler's line 'Maybe get a blister on your little finger...maybe get a blister on your thumb.' comes to mind. I'm tired of hearing the BS about them being 'producers' or more productive than the rest of us.
Occasional rants about the unfairness of it all are natural and healthy, and I will continue to do so.

> although he certainly has his detractors as well.

WAIT!!!! He has detractors?? Holy fuck.

We'd better not think about him, then.

Could be trouble!

Shit, I'm sorry.... I had no idea.

It won't happen again, guys. Nothing but citations from universally-adored people from now on... I promise.

To DrCos well first off thanks. but to most of us it is this reality that we see or have figured out, and when people assume the opposite is true because they want it to be that way, people jump to knee jerk reactions and tend to overreact/dog pile on someone.

As to your 401 k 'did someone else get that money question', I have a differernt example which may sink in how that money is more theoretical than actual.

Let's say you are an artist, you paint pictures of sunflowes, you've done it for years and have a hundred of paintings in the garage. You sell some and can get about $50 each for them.
How much are they worth? well one could say $50 each or $5,000 total. But odds are you would never be able to sell more than half, because not that many people want sunflowers, so probably worth 2500.
Next week you find someone who buys 2 for $100 each. You made 200 real money dollars, but now in theory expect that you can sell the other 98 paintings for 100 each so , in theory, you just doubled your money. $10,000.
Next week you sell only one for $10, your theoretical money just dropped significantly. $1,000, Did you really lose $9,000? well no, not really, but it kind of seems that way.
Next week some art dealer says you are the next Van Goh and each paintind should be worth a million, you look in the garage and think you see 97 million worth of paintings. But you don't want to sell bcause they might go up again.
Next week that art critic was shown to be a fraud, and your paintings are back to being worth $50. Did you lose 97 million? not really, did someone else get that money? no it was theoretical money, theoretical value.

Now substitute stocks for paining and you see what happened to your 401 k. Did someone else get that money? no not really, it was percieved/potential value. Bonda and comodities are a bit different, but I don't want to write a book here.

Although stocks are less volitile and actually represent, a share in a company, sometimes that share is more tangible, (the company owns land buildings etc) or intangible, (facebook owns???) or actually negative, the company has been frauding (madoff) and actually owes more than it has, so that stock is either worth zero, or is a share of extra debt.

Joe J,
I like your analogy a lot better than the 'only on paper' description. Well thought out, and easier to understand. Thanks!
I would point out that it's also like gambling. Say I play blackjack one night and make $1000. The next night I go see Penn & Teller or Cirque du Soleil or Celine Dion. Did I then lose $1000, because I could have won it but didn't?
And at this point, we might be better off taking our 401k's to Vegas :)

Finally, for those of you playing along at home, here's our quiz.
1. A lack of knowledge is (A)ignorance, or (B)stupidity.
2. A lack of intelligence is (A)ignorance, or (B)stupidity.

Bonus points for knowing the difference between knowledge and intelligence.
The definition of stupid uses the narrower definition of intelligence, which is the ability to reason, as opposed to 'related facts and information' (i.e. military intelligence).

It is not patently offensive (to me) for people to call someone out as ignorant in a forum such as this, as comments and rants can be interpreted to indicate a lack of knowledge in a particular area.
It is offensive (again, to me) for people to call other people stupid based on the same information. This quite literally shows ignorance, as you have no direct knowledge of someone's intelligence in such a forum, yet calling them 'stupid' implies that you have the knowledge.
Let me leave you with this:
Ignorance may in fact, be bliss, but it doesn't make you stupid.

It has similarities to gambling, but has differences. Any investing has a touch of gambling in it. Some more than others.
Just like buying a home, if done as an investment there is the real risk it's value goes down, but if you bought it to live in, you don't care what it's current value is until you are planning to sell it.

The painting analogy is a better example since you are actually purchasing something, which has some intrinsic value. Though what that value is, is tough to nail down. People buy and stock for various reasons. The odds of coming out ahead are way better than at Vegas. Though only really long term.
Though some through 'loans to buy stocks' do increase their risk and possible reward astronomically.

> this money doesn't really exist.

When you accept the bid, it's crazy-real.

DrCos, here's my analogy for why the characterization of the market as being a zero-sum game is false. Think about this: the extension of that is that all the wealth that exists is inherent to the Earth. Under zero-sum theory, there is nothing you can actually do to create wealth. So why work? And why would anyone pay you to work?

Consider the case of a house. It starts out as a load of concrete in a truck, and stacks of lumber, and gallons of paint, and spools of wire and so forth. Carpenters and electricians and plumbers and installers do work, and they turn all that into a house. Is the house worth more than the raw materials it was made from? For the purposes for which a house is used, certainly. Ergo, wealth has been created. Now, if the house burns down, that wealth has been destroyed. No one else got it; it's just gone. So here we see wealth being created and destroyed.

Now, when we built our house, we had to take out a construction loan -- a moving-money-around activity. No, in itself, a construction loan doesn't create anything. But it's a tool, and a very useful one. Without it, the house could not have been built, just as surely as the house couldn't have been built without saws or hammers or cement trucks. Now, some tools you own, but if a tool is expensive and you only need it for a short time, it makes more sense to rent it. The interest on the construction was, essentially, the rent we paid for the use of that money. Just like I paid $40 one weekend to rent a jackhammer for the day.

So the moving-money-around things have a purpose. Yes, they can be abused, but that doesn't mean they have legitimate uses in creating wealth. And the people who make money available for rent should be compensated, just like people who rent rooms in their house should be compensated.

Now, where it all went bad in the mortgage market was when mortgages started getting packaged up so that investors couldn't tell what they were buying. But note that by far the biggest purveyor of these what-the-hell-is-it securities were those two government-owned corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because of their status as government-owned corporations, and their close ties in Congress, they were able to repeatedly thumb their noses at regulators. They are the ones you should mainly be mad at. Yet almost no one in OWS or the media mentions them. I don't think most of the OWS minions even know who they are.

This reminds me of an old joke:

A kid comes home from school with a writing assignment. He asks his father for help. "Dad, can you tell me the difference between potential and reality?"

His father looks up, thoughtfully, and then says, "I'll demonstrate. Go ask your mother if she would sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars. Then go ask your sister if she would sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars. Then come back and tell me what you've learned."

The kid is puzzled, but decides to ask his mother. "Mom, if someone gave you a million dollars, would you sleep with Robert Redford?"

"Don't tell your father, but yes, I would."

He then goes to his sister's room. "Sis, if someone gave you a million dollars, would you sleep with Brad Pitt?"

She replies, "Omigod! Definitely!"

The kid goes back to his father. "Dad, I think I've figured it out. Potentially, we are sitting on two million bucks, but in reality, we areliving with two sluts."