[GodGunsGuts]

If you want to refute something that was intended to be a serious work, then you should seriously refute it. Identifying random lines of text and then posting what amounts to snickering and cartoons in response does nothing to harm the author's credibility...And it most certainly doesn't help you own.

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you want to refute something that was intended to be a serious work, then you should seriously refute it.

He said FR notes are backed by bonds, they aren't. That's an enormous error. He doesn't understand how you can have more derivatives than there are bonds. It's easy. I can explain it to you. If you understood derivatives, you could explain it to me. So why don't you? To show you are credible.

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you want to refute something that was intended to be a serious work

This was serious?

What is surprising is not that it could happen. Government bonds are the tangible result of check-kiting pretending that ‘NSF’ checks have value. For a time people accept them as such but sooner or later the truth will dawn on them. At that point the value of bonds, whether fixed or floating rate, is doomed and will be wiped out like the biblical towns of Sodom and Gomorrah have been.

Wow!