Let's put it this way:

TARP cost $475 billion.  The FDIC insures deposits up to $100,000 per person (it's been raised to $250k as part of TARP, but without TARP, it would have been $100,000).  So divide $700 billion by $100,000.  The result?  If 4,750,000 people had bank accounts of $100,000 or more that would have been lost, the FDIC would have had to spend the same amount of money as TARP did.  4.75 million... that is... only slightly over 1.5% of the US population.

Now, we're not talking about some rinky-dink banks here.  We are talking about a number of huge banks that could have easily had that many depositors.  Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America...

You know me... I like markets and making sure people have incentives to run their business correctly.  But... you're just playing with fire here, to suggest that the entire banking system should have systematically collapsed just as a way to say screw you to people who mismanage their funds.  We saw what happens when the banks fail en masse.  The only thing preventing a repeat of Great Depression-esque bank runs absent TARP was the FDIC.  Yeah... to say that the FDIC could have managed that without coming back to the US government... seems incredibly unlikely.

I'm sure the FDIC would love you for that.

> Mister Spock wrote:

> I Like Trains kid,

I believe that intellectual limitations are a significant factor in why some parties (generally speaking; not referring to posters on this forum) are unable to present a cogent communication of any sort of case for their positions. If such a thought is against implicit rules, I would like to know.

First of all, what does it do to point at someone and say "You're stupid."  First thing's first: It's very unlikely that Justinian, myself, or anyone else that you call stupid, whether directly or indirectly, is suddenly going to say "Holy shit, he's right!  I'm dumber than a rock!  I'm going to immediately switch my entire perspective to agree with Spock based on that well-written assertion that I'm dumber than a log!  Oh, bless ye, bless ye!  God bless us, everyone!"  If you think someone is an absolute moron... you can either use logical reasoning (the thing that supposedly separates you, the supposedly superior intellectual, from them, the idiots) or walk away, and let what you've said do the talking for you.

More than likely, if anything, the only response you're going to get from people once you get to calling them an idiot is to get a reply calling you something else, or spending their time defending themselves personally.  It's nearly impossible for a thread which degrades to personal attacks to then retract as the two people say "Let's let bygones be bygones and go back to discussing the important issues, and just pretend we never spent 40 posts calling each other dumbasses!"  That doesn't do you any good.  That doesn't do him any good.  And as a third party reader, it sure as hell doesn't do me any good.

Remember, debate isn't always about making the other guy admit he's wrong.  Neither Obama or Romney were likely to suddenly drop everything and say "Holy shit, you're right!  As of now, I officially announce I'm suspending my campaign" during the first debate.  However, the resolution doesn't necessarily occur by the two of them battling it out until both are exhausted or one gives up.  Rather, sometimes third parties (like myself) who aren't actually participating may be reading the thread for the purpose of learning more about perspectives and analyses.  When you drop the whole intellectual debate (the thing you, as the intellectual superior, are supposed to have an advantage in), from the third party's point of view, very little separates you from the other person.

You don't need to assert that the other person is stupid to show that they're stupid.  The better intellectual will let their logical superiority win over someone who clearly has no idea what they're talking about.  Just... show the other person is wrong.  Answer their arguments WITHOUT resorting to personal attacks. 

You're a smart person.  You know what a personal attack is.  That is what we are trying to avoid.

> I'm not allowed to think racists are ignorant? Or that fascist tyrant-dictator-wannabes are psychologically dysfunctional? Or speak those genuine thoughts? I'm not going to argue with the rules, but I think all posters at least deserve to know what those rules are. The forum rules include no such prohibition against voicing thoughts on the intellect/psychology/morality of people who hold any thoughts.

1. Use appropriate language
Do not use language which is sexually explicit, threatening, abusive, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive. This includes both clear and implied language,

3. Respect others and behave maturely
You must respect others and their rights to enjoy this game and the forums. In order to show proper respect, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, insult, name call, or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players or the moderators. This includes using words which do not fall under the coverage of rule 1 concerning inappropriate language.

6. No flaming or trolling
Do not verbally attack or provoke others into fights or post for the sole purpose of causing unrest or dissent and stirring up trouble. Do not use immature name-calling and do not take personal conflicts onto the forums in public.

The rules are very simple.  Avoid inflammatory language.  You know very well what I'm talking about.  When your reply to Justinian begins with: "How much pot do you smoke daily? How many drugs are you on?," you know very well what is inflammatory.

The sad thing is, Kemp, that I've seen your stuff and I know there's logic to much of what you say.  Genesis knows it too.  The fundamental problem isn't your arguments.  It's that, in between the actual logical reasoning, you fill so much of so many of your posts with personal attacks which are absolutely unnecessary.  There was no reason to go ask Justinian what drugs he was on.  All you had to do was make your logical point (which I agree with), then stop and let your logic carry through.  But that didn't happen.  You had to add the attacks in.

There's my appeal.  I'm giving you this one shot to show that you actually are better than some people make you out to be.  Do what you want with it.  But do know that I'm done justifying why a rule exists against personal attacks.  This has taken more than enough time as is, in a forum where it is absolutely inappropriate.  You have been, unequivocally, undeniably, absolutely, without question warned.  Don't... push... it.

Kemp, here's one rule you've violated... again... and again: the rule about public accusations of rule breaking.  This is at least the second time I've had to go over this with you.  If you want to discuss the warning from Genesis, go into IRC.  You'll find him there.  He's there right now, in fact.

If you have specific instances of rules violations which you think the mods have not caught... that's why there's a report button.  Use that.  Don't generally tell us in public in the forums about it.

Good lord.  No thread necromancy, guys! 

No, it's different because Justinian only wants to use the money to fund secret police forces to silence opposition, rather than social programs!  Totally not socialist!

2+2=cookie

There.

But I like chocolate chip. 

Yeah, it works.  I just tried it on you, Sol! 

Oh, this definitely sounds like my fam!

Worst... day... ever!