# \#OccupyWallStreet **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 19, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851 "2011-09-19T18:27:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 41
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/801 "2011-10-13T23:16:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If that were the definition of “solvent,” then no bank in the world is solvent. > > Here’s an example that might be at about your level: remember the speech Jimmy Stewart gives as George Bailey in _It’s A Wonderful Life_? The townspeople are making a run on the Building & Loan, and George is trying to calm them down. When someone asks to close out his account, George explains: The difference is the banks actually have the money, or a way to get it.. Madoff did not. If the banks were short they it just got it from the government. Which is what they did. They had a way to meet their obligations. Madoff did not. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/802 "2011-10-13T23:16:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If that were the definition of “solvent,” then no bank in the world is solvent. I pointed that very fact out to him upthread. It had no effect. Earlier, **Shodan** struggled to convey the concept of interest. I honestly don’t think he has the horses under the hood necessary to grasp the concepts. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/803 "2011-10-13T23:22:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Its a term of art. The “simple word” means pretty much what we say it means, as in not teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. The fact that it has a much more specific meaning within a given professional community, the one inhabited by **Scylla** and **RR** , doesn’t make it the “correct” definition. It is not a term of art, or a technical term. It is pretty general and basic and specific. It means you can pay your bills. That’s it. Seriously now, I know you are not an idiot. Just fucking stop. You are wrong. There is no way to salvage it or put a good face on it… but, it’s no big deal. The big deal is becoming your unreasoning obstinance in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong. Plus, what you are doing is unfair to Gonzo. He doesn’t understand. Seeing you still fighting to save face makes him feel he has hope. Think about Gonzo. It’s not fair to take advantage of the poor schmuck. Just give it up and [moveon.org](http://moveon.org), m’kay? Were it not for you, I wouldn’t know what “dispositive” meant. Now, I have it handy if I feel a compelling need to be an insufferable snot. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/804 "2011-10-13T23:35:26Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The difference is the banks actually have the money, or a way to get it.. Madoff did not. If the banks were short they it just got it from the government. Which is what they did. They had a way to meet their obligations. Madoff did not. If I gather, your strategy here is to throw up some other clueless claim in an attempt to defend the indefensible in the hopes of obfuscating things to a degree where you can claim that you are not a total fucking idiot. What you are saying is wrong. It is wrong on many different levels. The 12 Banks of the Federal Reserve system **may** allow member banks to lend their reserves to each other through the Fed, and this occurs at the Fed Fund Rate. In order to participate in this, as a bank, you must be… Wait for it… solvent. In the case of a run on the banking system the Fed may be a lender of last resort, or it may not in which case that bank will fail and go bankrupt. Many did in 2008. So, like Madoff, when the banks ran out of money, they want bankrupt. What is different than Madoff is that bank deposits are FDIC insured which meant the Federal government guaranteed the deposits. This helped the depositers not the banks. They still went bankrupt. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/805 "2011-10-13T23:35:31Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I’m seriously surprised that this is too much for some people to grasp. You’re surprised to see luci and gonzo being stupid? Come on now . . . ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/806 "2011-10-13T23:40:11Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You’re surprised to see luci and gonzo being stupid? Come on now . . . Nyahhh, I’ve known 'Luce for 11 years. He **knows** he’s wrong. He knows I know he knows he’s wrong. What’s really sad is that he doesn’t know that I know why he pretends that he doesn’t know that he’s wrong… but I know. Now he knows. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/807 "2011-10-13T23:45:31Z")
Right wingers preaching to each other. Whats new. One mind mired in right wing extremism agrees with another . What a shocker. Petulant children giving each other amusement. Enjoy. Actually we have had bank failures, But the FDIC saved the depositors and the government stepped in to dissolve them. Madoff did not have the behind him. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/808 "2011-10-13T23:59:58Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Right wingers preaching to each other. Whats new. One mind mired in right wing extremism agrees with another . What a shocker. Petulant children giving each other amusement. Enjoy. > Actually we have had bank failures, But the FDIC saved the depositors and the government stepped in to dissolve them. Madoff did not have the behind him. I won’t even insult left wingers by putting you in their camp. 😛 How so much ignorance and sheer stupidity can possibly be concentrated into one human being such as yourself, gonzo, is truly one of the great mysteries. Seemingly you don’t even have the brain power to run your autonomic systems, let alone attempt anything monumental such as picking your nose or engaging in a discussion on a message board… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/809 "2011-10-14T00:24:49Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Right wingers preaching to each other. Whats new. One mind mired in right wing extremism agrees with another . What a shocker. Petulant children giving each other amusement. Enjoy. > Actually we have had bank failures, But the FDIC saved the depositors and the government stepped in to dissolve them. Madoff did not have the behind him. Seeing as the banks got “dissolved” when they couldn’t meet their obligations, and somebody else had to meet those obligations, than the banks weren’t\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. C’mon. You can say it. It’s ok. It’ll feel good. I promise. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/810 "2011-10-14T00:53:27Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The difference is the banks actually have the money, or a way to get it.. Madoff did not. If the banks were short they it just got it from the government. Which is what they did. They had a way to meet their obligations. Madoff did not. Didn’t see the movie, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/811 "2011-10-14T02:01:36Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > You would think this would be true, but it’s not. You would be surprised how fast you can fuck up a fortune. There’s been a study of lottery winners. Most of them go broke pretty quick. > > So, stupid money disappears real quick. Ok, I’m with you so far. > [@](#): > > Preserving capital is not easy. This claim goes beyond that. > [@Scylla](#): > > MC Hammer? How do you screw that up? It’s a super common story. In order for those Advisors to help preserve a fortune, they need to be competent, and the advisee needs to listen to them. Right, gotcha. > [@](#): > > So no, the tendency of those with money is to lose it. You didn’t mean to go that far, right? Or did you? Most people with fortunes don’t die in poverty, though perhaps a few do, right? It’s my understanding that the US’s income mobility is vastly overestimated in popular discourse. Real question. I can see the necessity of those with sudden windfalls requiring solid financial planning. But that’s really a narrower issue. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/812 "2011-10-14T02:17:11Z")
Wouldn’t that suggest that the number of wealthy people should be increasing, and that the rate of increase should be increasing as well?? They (The Rich™) have kids, and those kids should remain wealthy, since it’s easy to be wealthy if you come from wealth, according to the common wisdom of folks in this thread. Couple that with some non-zero number of middle class and poor people who become wealthy in one way or another and ISTM that the number of wealthy people in the US should be taking off by now simply due to population increase. Right? Another poster earlier said that only an idiot could lose wealth, once gained (I’m paraphrasing from memory…it was something like that), and that even the children of wealth should be able to not only maintain that wealth but, presumably, increase it, and that this should be as easy as falling off a log…right? So…is there any evidence that the numbers of the wealthy (by whatever definition we are using here) are increasing at faster and faster rates? Or am I missing the point of all of you who are attacking Scylla for what he said there? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/813 "2011-10-14T02:42:14Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Ok, I’m with you so far. This claim goes beyond that. Right, gotcha. You didn’t mean to go that far, right? Or did you? Most people with fortunes don’t die in poverty, though perhaps a few do, right? More commonly they drop down from being wealthy to being average in wealth. The thing to remember is that the wealth distribution will normally look sort of like a pyramid. Let’s divide that pyramid’s top 1% (the tip) into three groups. 1. The rich that stay rich. 2. The rich that become poor, and 3. Visitors (people from lower down who are briefly rich, but drop back down. I’d say that group is probably about 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3. Percentagewise that means 2/3 of 1% of the population loose their superaffluence. Which is a small percent, right? That group then gets replaced by another 2/3 of 1% from elsewhere on the pyramid, right? So yes, the chances of becoming really rich or losing affluence tend to be overstated. As a general rule of thumb, I heard the following and it seems to hold up: If you divide the population into poor, middle class, wealthy, and affluent than, in a normal persons’ lifetime they are likely to move up or down **one** level. Anything more than that is unusual. Does that help? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/814 "2011-10-14T02:53:29Z")
Yes it does Scylla. Thanks. Sorry to pick a nit, but you meant, “2. The rich that lose their affluence?”, right? Sure, there are a few lottery winners who die in poverty, but I’d be surprised if as many as 1/3 of those in the 1% later become poor. Heck MC Hammer is doing fine now: he just over-extended himself and had to declare bankruptcy in the mid 1990s. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/815 "2011-10-14T02:57:43Z")
> [@](#): > > …Does that help? Is this an exercise in intuitive demographics, or are there some stats in the offing? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/816 "2011-10-14T03:12:14Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Yes it does Scylla. Thanks. Sorry to pick a nit, but you meant, “2. The rich that lose their affluence?”, right? Sure, there are a few lottery winners who die in poverty, but I’d be surprised if as many as 1/3 of those in the 1% later become poor. Heck MC Hammer is doing fine now: he just over-extended himself and had to declare bankruptcy in the mid 1990s. Yes. “Lose their affluence,” is what I should have typed. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/817 "2011-10-14T03:22:08Z")
[QUOTE=Scylla] Is this an exercise in intuitive demographics, or are there some stats in the offing? [/QUOTE] With a name like Scylla, you’ll be lucky if you don’t get the old ‘This…THIS IS THE SPARTA!!’ as you get kicked into, er, The Pit (of doom)… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/818 "2011-10-14T03:28:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Is this an exercise in intuitive demographics, or are there some stats in the offing? Most of the literature concerns income mobility, which is a little different than wealth. Here’s a start: [http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/819 "2011-10-14T03:35:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Is this an exercise in intuitive demographics, or are there some stats in the offing? This is a whole field of study, but here’s a start: > **[Financial Security and Mobility](https://www.pew.org/en/projects/archived-projects/financial-security-and-mobility)** > > Pew studies the financial stability and longer-term economic mobility of American families. The initiative builds on Pew research that shows savings and assets are key to moving up the economic ladder within a lifetime and across generations. The... And: [http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz\_MobilityAnalysis.pdf](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf) If you read those both, I think you will agree that I did a reasonable job of explaining the general gist of some of the current thinking on the subject. Good reading and a subject I’d imagine you care about . If you have questions on the meaning of some of the terms or issues, let me know and I’ll do my best to clarify. Have fun. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851/820 "2011-10-14T03:44:08Z")
Perhaps, since you have the facts at your very fingertips, you will cite the specific quotations? I haven’t accepted a homework assignment in forty-three years, aiming for forty-four. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/occupywallstreet/596851.md?page=42)