Guest Post: Debt-Serfdom Is Now The New American Norm

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

Debt-Serfdom Is Now the New American Norm

Trapped assets that generate no income streams in the present are not capital; the value of such non-productive assets is illusory. Strip away these trapped assets and the reality is revealed: most American households toil to service their debts.

The typical American household is insolvent: its debts exceed its assets. There is nothing fancy about calculating insolvency: if debts exceed assets, the enterprise is insolvent. By this measure, most American households are insolvent, if their real assets are marked to actual market.

For example:

Auto loan balance: $9,000
Actual market value of auto: $6,000

Credit card balance: $6,000
Street value of stuff purchased with credit card: $300

home mortgage: $250,000
Auction value of house: $200,000

Student loans: $60,000
Market value of education: Not applicable, as it cannot auctioned off or securitized

And so on.

The typical American household is thus in service to its debt, not to its assets, and to the holders of that debt. This is debt-serfdom: serfdom in service to the owners of debt, debt that may well always exceed the value of the household's assets. This is debt-serfdom for life.

If we look at the American household as an enterprise, then we have to differentiate between unproductive, trapped capital, assets held in a house or retirement account, and productive, free capital which can be moved in and out of productive assets to earn a return which increases free cashflow income in the present.

By this standard, most of the typical American household's assets are trapped and therefore unproductive. In this sense they do not even qualify as capital. Let's say a household owns a house with a real-world market value in today's depressed market of $250,000, and the house carries a mortgage of $150,000. On paper, the household holds a net asset value of $100,000.

But this asset is not actually productive; it produces no income and exposes the household to the risks of declining real estate valuations. The asset provides the value of shelter, but if similar shelter could be rented for less than the costs of servicing the mortgage debt and the many costs of ownership, then sinking the entire household's net worth/assets in a house does not "pencil out" as a productive investment of assets.

In a practical sense, this $100,000 is inaccessible and thus trapped; housing is highly illiquid and has transfer costs of up to 10% in realtor and escrow fees. In most cases, the sale proceeds are simply reburied into another mortgaged home. The asset is trapped and thus not deployable capital.

The same can be said of many retirement accounts that are routinely counted as assets on household balance sheets. the assets are trapped in the account until retirement, and their deployment is often restricted to a handful of risky options (investing in Wall Street, for example). The purchasing-power value of the assets might decline considerably by the time the funds can actually be withdrawn, and in this sense their present value is chimerical.

Since these funds are trapped, they also don't qualify as capital: they cannot be used to start or buy a business or other assets which return free cashflow in the present.

Trapped assets are not capital. They cannot be moved into more productive uses that yield income streams that add to current income, which is the definition of capital. Borrowed money that is sunk into trapped assets is not borrowed capital; it is simply debt that must be serviced.

If we set aside assets trapped in real estate and retirement accounts, a truer picture of the American household's actual productive capital emerges: most households have essentially no productive capital, and their debts far exceed whatever meager free capital they do own.

In a very real sense, the non-cash, non-small-business assets of the typical American household are invisible, unuseable, inaccessible and thus illusory; they exist as entries on the balance sheet but not as real-world productive capital.

Wealth and income do not flow from servicing debt incurred by trapped assets, it flows from productive free capital.

Thus the typical household toils not to increase productive capital that can be deployed to increase household income but to service their crushing debts. How else can we describe this situation other than debt-serfdom?

Tomorrow I will discuss the slow and largely misunderstood transmogrification from a free people with limited access to borrowed capital/debt to a nation of debt-serfs.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GeneMarchbanks's picture

'Tomorrow I will discuss the slow and largely misunderstood transmogrification from a free people with limited access to borrowed capital/debt to a nation of debt-serfs.'

No need. It's all understood. Somehow it all just carries on.

gojam's picture

Just for future reference (if anyone's interested.) The correct name for Debt Slavery is Peonage.

falak pema's picture

...helotry, serfdom, thrall, villenage, yoke. 

I like enthralls me!

gojam's picture

All are good terms refering to an unpaid labourer or serf/slave.

A Peon, though, specifically refers to a person in debt bondage and Peonage is the name given to a system based on Debt Bondage

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Yep, slavery never went away, it just morphed.

What is needed is a Jubilee, clearly.

"Jubilee, An Idea Whose Time Has Come"

boiltherich's picture

"There is nothing fancy about calculating insolvency: if debts exceed assets, the enterprise is insolvent."

That is not the definition of insolvency, insolvency is when you have debts you cannot service as they come due, either via cash flow or liquidation of assets.  Your description is called "balance sheet insolvency" but that does not mean a business or other entity is unable to pay.  If we used balance sheet solvency as the marker for business or personal viability then all businesses would start out "insolvent" and be non viable.  And actually using proper double entry bookkeeping the balance sheet will always show essentially zero since assets minus liabilities have to be equal.  That's why they call it a BALANCE sheet.  Simply having debt is not insolvency as long as one can earn enough cash flow over time to service it. 

It is when debts become too big to service as they come due, or too large overall that they can never reasonably be paid off that solvency becomes an issue.  Most of the world is now so saturated in debt even as productive efforts are flat to falling and yet has to be divided among more population that we see there is no realistic hope of ever getting out of debt, thus skimming most or all of the margin of profit off to those who claim to hold the debts, forever. 

In that respect most of the world is now insolvent indeed.  And much of it is actually bankrupt which is a whole other matter.  Bankruptcy can be covered up using trickery like kiting checks and borrowing from one source to pay another (Ponzi), governments can and often do it by printing up money and saying "See?  We are not broke."  But once they begin that path as we all know it is a one way trip to the slaughterhouse.  At that point it is not about "fixing" anything because it cannot be fixed, it is about planning for the collapse and then rebuilding right next time we start over.  Right, as in making people be people and corporations just companies run by people who can be held ultimately accountable.  Right as in minimizing money in the electoral system, and right as in making sure the bribery laws are broad and plain, vigorously enforced.  And never again trusting private for profit banks to handle our money.  I would also add a maximum wage but that is just me, it's time will come someday, just not yet.

TrulyBelieving's picture

Your grasp on financials is clearly impressive. However when you say that a maximum wage should be added it appears you havent thought this idea through as thoroughly as you did finance. That or maybe you have a bias which doesn't allow you to see past some underlying agenda. 

boiltherich's picture

TB, that was just me stating a personal preference, but it is true that overconcentration of wealth chokes of capital formation and thus we have situation like in Mexico where some 48 families hold more than half the national wealth and capture more than half the national income.  Most people think of Mexico as a poor nation, it is not, it is drenched in resources, it is just their paternalistic laws, Napoleonic justice system, and and colonial serf mindset backed up by the superstitions of the church that keep the poor poor and asking no questions.  By the way, wealth inequality here is rapidly approaching that of Mexican standards.

A maximum wage is also just another way of say a highly progressive tax system.  But it would also hit estates pretty hard and for good reason, one of the most efficient levers of overconcentration of wealth and formation of untaxable dynasties is the lack of an effective estate tax.  Once wealth is passed down to an inheritor it cannot ever be taxed again.  And it most likely will sit in broker accounts churning with the algos rather than providing capital for use to grow industry. 

One of the things I think we must do in the aftermath of the coming collapse is to outlaw any form of financial insurance like CDO's and reinsurance and such, they obscure the risks involved in investing and when you cannot determine risk you cannot make an appropriate return, or even know what that would be.  Without that you cannot know how to price anything in any market.  It means that prices must therefore be wrong either to the high or the low side, but where prices are wrong you have malinvestment and eventually that means bubbles.  And always, always, always, it is labor that gets gored in the end, and those that think labor is going to put up with this bullshit much longer really should reexamine their motives because you are deluding yourself if you think people will work more and more for less and less.

Anyway, in a FUNCTIONAL economy there is no need for a maximum wage or highly progressive tax system because while wealth and comfort and security can be had there would be no opportunity to make absolutely obscene piles of money.  You all might be too young to remember when rich was a person with a million dollars, but many were thought rich on far less.  The reason the Forbes 400 list is 400 is because there was a time when there were no billionaires and there were only about 400 or so with well over one million.  Yet we saw rich people everywhere.  They were relatively rich and totally happy.  At the same time real poverty was not as bad as it is right now. 

TrulyBelieving's picture

I would hope when you say functional, you mean free. Where one is his own soverign and no one elses. Decisions and responsibilities belong to you alone and that right is projected equally on all other soverigns. Where criminallity occurs when this right is broken. Where justice occurs equally for all.  A man with wealth ill gained is not rich, he is a thief. There still are few rich men, and their rights must be protected, in a functional system, as anyone else's

boiltherich's picture

No, because I do not believe that a person is their own sovereign and no body else's as you put it.  Too many chiefs and not enough Indians my dad used to say, nothing gets done, but aside from that we live in a world of 7 billion people and we all have an obligation to the rest whether you like it or not.  If your world of benevolent self rule in which every man is king and under no other rule worked then that is what we would have, but it does not work because there are too many free riders (I am not thinking people that are assisted but people who in spite of being able to refuse to pay a fair share for the public goods they use) and just flat out disruptive assholes.  It was because of that government was invented and it was pretty brutal at that for a long time, tribal, feudal, monarchic, dictatorial, and at last someone invented a partial form of democracy, which is what we had till the banks corrupted our system.  Limited democracy is the best we can ever hope to have and those that do not want to cooperate and pay their taxes and abide by our collective laws simply and naturally are enemy to the rest of us.  Rich men have a higher burden because they have a higher ability, the obligation is non negotiable, if you think you can get a better deal in some other land by all means do not let the door slam you in the ass on the way out. 

pvzh's picture

You all might be too young to remember when rich was a person with a million dollars, but many were thought rich on far less.  The reason the Forbes 400 list is 400 is because there was a time when there were no billionaires and there were only about 400 or so with well over one million.

And, a chief reason for that was ... gold standard. Therefore, the only thing that needs to be done is reinstatement of the gold standard with full reserve requirement. After that, there would be no need for anything preposterous like "progressive" taxation that puts too much money into government hands or "maximal" wage, which does nothing to "break up" large estates, but demotivates people to achieve and to become rich.

Re: large estates. In the environment of sound money and no "counterfeiting" privilege AKA fractional reserve banking, large estates will break up over several generations by itself. Most of them will be gone in a few years if bailouts are stopped and defaults are allowed (see Great Depression and inequality index: how defaults are benefitial for equality and fairness).

Raging Debate's picture

Jubilee is now called bondholder haircuts. Jubilee implies all debt erased which also would imply zero intrinsic value. Even the quad stacked cubes are worth .10 cents on the dollar.

The GNP is probably around $9T. The bond haircuts will likely reflect a large portion of the 40% debt overhang of 2008. It is an opinion but one that seems to be mentioned at IMF, CFR, BIS and World Bank frequently.

Oh sure there is going to be much kicking and screaming but the reality is neither Americans or anybody else in the West is going to wait around a decade for a return to growth. I don't think bankers will go to jail. They'll sign off on finish blowing themselves up in the America's as most of the fungible wealth is already East.

Dr. Acula's picture

>neither Americans or anybody else in the West is going to wait around a decade for a return to growth

Real wages haven't improved in 40 years. Why wouldn't Americans wait another 10 years?


Raging Debate's picture

Tipping points. People do all actions based on opportunity to benefit or fear of loss. With supply-side economics comes more fear than opportunity. More stick than carrot.

The mules are being whipped even harder. It will kick back. I have made some prescient forecasts based on behavioral modeling. But instead of just a scary bedtime story there are some solutions:

1) Evolve Central Banking as a national utility and offer every citizen to be a share holder. Big difference in confidence and supply chain participation with voluntary participation and involuntary participation. The model evolves or dies ugly. Always choice...

2) Allow peaceful revolution rather than guarantee violent revolution. Leadership engages is two way dialogue system with the citizens directly, used framed debate system. Don't moderate or censor with exception of direct threats of violence. Take verbal hatred that will last a couple of months. Man up verbally, enage in debate and let the public decide if you should retire or stay on. Some of you deserve death. But I wager the American people would rather have peaceful revolution.

3) Fix the trade imbalance with the Chinese. If you bankers fucked up and didnt include the rate of business in your variables, that is not our problem. Best to connect the American and Chinese citizen together and do same platform system and program at the same time as #2.

4) Tax consumption, not income. Estate taxes revisions favorable to capital formation. Carrot over stick.

I am netting out.

pvzh's picture

I am not sure what you meant by "Evolve Central Banking as a national utility and offer every citizen to be a share holder." Something like convert Federal Reserve into publicly traded company and give every US citizen equal or some kind of "fair share" of shares. That would not work. You cannot make "public good" out of counterfeiting AKA fractional reserve banking. Besides, such humongous corporation would be easily captureable by special interests, and people would not see their share of "profits" anyway.

Banking should be utility in a sense that "clearing house/storage" operations must be strictly separated from lending and/or investing, so bad loans do not result in shut down of other economic activity. Other than that, the only thing government must do is to require full disclosure and to prevent fraud. For example, you can issue and use partially backed debt instruments (traditional redeemable banknotes) as long as any user of them will be aware what they are.

Moe Howard's picture

Peon, from the root Pee, as in urinate, and on, as in onto your head.

toady's picture

I always wondered why my boss calls me a peon. I always thought it was a scatological reference, pee-on.

I guess I could have just looked it up, thanks for doing the leg work.

Good to know!

redpill's picture

Ready to work! Zug Zug! Dabu! Lok'tar!

Raging Debate's picture

I knew it! I knew it was you Redpill, that dick that could click a tenth of a second faster than me to build the guard towers. Thanks for the fond memories of lighter times ;)

DosZap's picture

gojam ,

So, damn you...........This means a NEW Gvt Agency.

The Dept of Peonage, down the hall to your left,door in say's Shitter.

gojam's picture


It's inevitable.

"The bureaucracy must expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy"

Banks are probably the best example of modern peonage. You have an overdraft, try moving your account.

 and all the time you get the bank charges but you can't move anywhere.

Payday loans and credit cards similarly.

redpill's picture

This is serious!  We need a Peonage Czar.

TheMerryPrankster's picture

we have a Peonage Czar, several - you know them as Bernanke, Geithner, Blankfein, Ken Lewis, and Brian Moynihan among the many thousands of Peonage Czar and sub Czars making the plan happen every day, forever.

Use of Weapons's picture

I like skuldfesti - has the right tones of omnious burden within it, I feel.


IrritableBowels's picture

Here's the live link:

He sounds like he's seconds from tears.

been there done that's picture

somone stole Obama's teleprompter and podium, now what are we going to do as a country??????????



Pitchman's picture


Occupy The FED & Withdraw Your Money From TBTF Banks

Why do the American people stand by a CENTRAL BANK; the Federal Reserve? It is owned by the banks themselves charging us interest on every dollar in circulation. The Founding Fathers fought the revolution to free us from this model of DEBT SLAVERY ECONOMICS! Their clear intent, as set forth in the Constitution was; the nations currency is to be issued by the government with no interest attached? The governments issuance of currency is the very definition of sovereignty. To do otherwise is to relinquish our rights as a free people. Is it any wonder we find ourselves where we are today? END THE FED - Inflection Point

Please see: Anonymous Shines A Light On The Hypocrisy Of Our Leaders -

THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM - Capitalism promotes a level field of competition not privatized monopoly.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." ~ Frederic Bastiat

See: Obama's Problem With Solyndra: It's A Warm Up For SunPower

chumbawamba's picture

This is not "debt" serfdom, it's illusion serfdom.  Most people are a slave to their illusions.  For example, the illusion that they owe a bank one's labor for money that the bank never owned, in fact money that never existed in the first place.  Once one becomes aware of this illusion then the spell is broken, and the former illusion serf can now focus on remedy for the fraud that has been enacted upon them.  The key, however, is to realize the illusion and to abort belief in it.  A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I am Chumbawamba.

X.inf.capt's picture


and talking to the young'ins at the occupy______!  general assembly...

they have no intention of paying it least till they see something showing thier signature on it obligating them to....


njdoo7's picture

Let's say you were drunk and I got you to sign a legal document that you are going to pay me 5 million dollars for my nissan altima with a market value of 17,000...


Would you pay me once I "showed you your signature obliging you to?"

X.inf.capt's picture

That's not the point...
They didn't sign anything, they didn't ring up the debt, and it wasn't their decision to take on said debt....
So they, at least the ones I talked to, aren't going to pay for it....

DosZap's picture


So they, at least the ones I talked to, aren't going to pay for it....

X, if your refering to Student Loans,that's one debt you will pay.( And not the insane spending period).

If you ever hope to be employed.

The plan from day one, was to Nationalize it, and get a free education, IF you served TWO years in Obummer Corps.

It's not possible to walk it, you cannot discharge it w/bankruptcy,so either you DO pay, or Serve, or you never get a paycheck.

They will garnish every dime.

Like CS, and Alimony, the only way to defeat that albatross is to make a lot less, or not work at all.

X.inf.capt's picture

hello, dos....

but i wasnt talking about loans....

i was talkin' 'bout a the 14 trill.+ debt...

p.s. they also know the worse someone can garish on a check is 20%

if they take a job, it will be for the lowest amount possible...then work under the table...


SilverDosed's picture

There's an option C, work off the books and not pay any taxes.

Raging Debate's picture

Yep. At that point you emigrate but I do believe there will be other options based on how the aggregate debt is restructured.

njdoo7's picture

I assumed you were talking about student loans. If you were talking about debts like the national debt, that many never agreed to pay, I see your point. 

I think we also need to examine taking advantage of those not in the state of being able to understand what they are signing.  Most students are not in the state of being able to understand this.

Raging Debate's picture

Yes NJdoo. I am very familiar with the Higher Education markets as I own a business selling widgits to them. Still lots lf room for cooler and qualitative cirriculum.

XitSam's picture

So we should pay the bank back with illusionary Federal Reserve Notes?  Not me, of course, I have no debt besides monthly utilities.

chubbar's picture

There was a case that decided in favor of the borrower (montgomery bank vs Daly), where the judge decided that because the bank created the money out of thin air that there was no "consideration" given by the bank in the contract.

This was overturned by the appelate court after the judge in the case mysteriously died due to poisoning 6 months later so it can not be used as a precedence (I'm sure the court was duly informed about how to rule in this case by the banking cabal). That being said, it's pretty clear to me that the whole banking system is set up to defraud.


Landmark Minnesota case: First national bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969) was a courtroom drama worthy of a movie script. Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank’s foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. Associate Justice Bill Drexler recorded the courtroom proceedings; he said his role was to keep order in the courtroom. Drexler had not given much mental acceptance for defense and watching this The Bank President Mr. Morgan took a stand and admitted that the banks routinely created money for loans and that this was standard banking practice. Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney and the jurors all agreed that it seemed like a fraud. Dollar deception: Minnesota lawsuit

In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

“Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.” Dollar deception: Minnesota lawsuit

The defendant won this case and he kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If it was true that bankers were extending the credits without consideration. It was great defeat for them, as their loans could be declared void in the decision. Daly wrote in a local news article that:

“This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself . . . to study this decision very carefully . . . for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.” Dollar deception: Minnesota lawsuit

The decision that was made has not been implemented at all. Although at that time judges and courts were not dependants. After exposing this secret of banks Justice Mahoney lived for less then six months and in mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning he died. Since that time a number of defendants are attempting to avoid loan defaults using the defense that Daly raised; but they have met with only limited success. As one judge said off the record:

“If I let you do that – you and everyone else – it would bring the whole system down . . .. I cannot let you go behind the bar of the bank . . .. We are not going behind that curtain!” Dollar deception: Minnesota lawsuit

Escapeclaws's picture

Excellent post, though I'm not sure I understand the legal doctrine you are applying concerning "no consideration". The entire economy is based on lending money that is created out of thin air by the banks.  It is the borrower's promise to pay that creates the value of the loan. In a certain sense, both the borrower and the bank create the money out of thin air.

pods's picture

Thanks again for that resource Chumba!  It is a great place for information.  


Libertarians for Prosperity's picture




That is pure bullshit. You're just trying to find any far-fetched excuse to mask the fact that you're a credit deadbeat and can't pay your debts. You're a revolutionary wannabe hiding behind a mountain of late payments.   

If your stupid claim is true, then you're guilty of theft for having given the merchant at the mall a piece of plastic that represents "illusory" money as payment for your oversized pretzel. Once you sign on the dotted line, that fractional reserve "illusion" becomes very fucking real.

Pay your fucking debts! People like YOU are the problem in this country.... no one wants to hold themselves responsible for their actions and decisions, from politicians and bankers to house flippers and credit card millionaires.  If you have an ethical or conceptual problem with fractional reserve banking, then you shouldn't have paid for your oversized pretzel with "illusory" money in the first place.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step ????  Are you fucking kidding me?  Just because you add some cheesy, trite cliche at the end of you post doesn't make it any more credible.  


pods's picture

So you are pissed off that other people might ruin THEIR credit?

How very libertarian of you.



LasVegasDave's picture

When  people default it adds to borrowing costs for everyone.

Might I suggest "what is seen and what is unseen"  by Bastiat.

Its easy to blame the bankers when you dont want to pay your bills.

boiltherich's picture

Well, something is up today with the banks.  I abandoned my house and mortgage two years ago and it has been sitting empty with foreclosure sales cancelled month after month till they (Chase) just suspended all foreclosure sale in Oregon because "of a couple court rulings."  Now, out of the blue years later they called me this morning and want me to contact their loan department to speak to an office about getting the mortgage straightened out so I can get a modification and move back in, or at least rent it out, or barring all else do a short sale, they are suddenly very intent upon this.  They promised to keep calling me till I make some arrangement.  That is till I change my number to an unlisted cell phone more like.  The guy hinted that the bank is very willing to bend over backward to clear all arrears and make the loan functional again.

I basically told him to go to hell, I tried to do a workout agreement with Chase in 2009 and was told I had an agreement please mail a check for 1000 bucks which will be applied to the January 2010 payment and all arrears will be tacked onto the end of the mortgage.  Fuckers took the 1000 and applied it to late fees and back late payments, they lied then stole 1000 from me, they were not negotiating in good faith and later even admitted it when they said I could not have had a workout agreement since the USDA Rural Development would have to approve any such agreement and that would take 6 months minimum.  They tricked me into sending them money and then misapplied it to themselves.  Needless to say I have no intention of trusting those bastards again.

Still, something is up.  Perhaps a judge handed down an order that the bank has to cede clear title in cases where they tricked people into missing payments as a condition for discussing loan modifications and then did not attempt in good faith to fix the late pays.  I do not know but I am trying to find out.  I had told them in no uncertain terms when I left my house that they should not bother to contact me as they would never see another dime from me no matter what it took to make that happen.  And I told them today that if they want their money they can and should go to the loan guarantor and ask for it because they will get a total of shit from me.  That they cannot refuse to sell the house in order to harass me indefinitely. 

tmosley's picture

Your assumptions are so flawed that your thesis is practically unintelligible.

First, default isn't adding to credit costs for anyone, because credit is literally free, as the Fed has artificially set interest rates at zero.

Second, credit costs are SUPPOSED to reflect society's time preference for spending, but with artificial interest rates (ie free money that is not reflected by production of infinite goods), it doesn't.  People were suckered in by those artificially low rates.  They didn't realize they were depleating society's capital, and were in fact undermining the capital required to keep their companies growing, or even to let them tread water.

When interest rates are set artificially, excesses are created.  That's all there is to it.  It isn't the fault of the people taking out loans.  They were fed blatently false information, and as such could not make economic calculations.  This entire situtaion is 100% caused by the Fed and their banker puppets.

chumbawamba's picture

Well said.  It surprises me that shills even attept to influence minds here on ZH anymore.  I can't think of a more inappropriate and unseemly place for their efforts.  Who do they think is going to take them seriously?  Chumbawamba?  Nigger, please.