IAAB (who is not a criminal). I shouldn't feed this troll, but I just can't stand that there were mod points given.

Labeling all bankers, lawyers, and investment houses as thieves of money is, of course, absurd. I will assume you meant it as a hyperbolic jest, the way I might comment that slashdotters seem to live in parents' basement and lack even a rudimentary understanding of economics. I assume you are criticizing the idea of the fractional reserve system, in which banks hold some money in a reserve and lend the rest out. The inherent setup of this system results in money creation or destruction depending on the level of interest rates (irrespective of the federal reserve, FWIW). Please also note that money creation is not necessarily the same thing as a change in the price level. The two are, of course, related through the velocity of money (if everyone stuffs money in their mattresses, prices will fall even if the monetary base is unchanged).

I suppose it is possible to create a government/legal community/finance industry cabal bent on getting the finance people rich, though I prefer the interpretation that the setup was such that system permitted a few people to take risks so excessive that they did not fully understand that there was a destabilizing effect on the country. As to your argument that there is nothing wrong with a deflationary spiral: 1) do you have a mortgage or credit card debt? that is denominated in nominal terms. Good luck if all prices and wages fall. 2) See the great depression. This is what happens when deflation gets out of control. 3) Milton Friedman won a nobel prize 40 years ago for demonstrating that there are real (meaning economic) impacts to inflationary/deflationary trends. This has been well known to students of economics for over a half century. Of course, they could all be wrong and you right.. After all, they're all just a bunch of thieves.

Of course - the government that governs least, governs best.

Does it dream of electric mice?

Pretty much - though not all bankers are dishonest.

I don't think most people who attempt to justify CEO salaries use the "hard work" approach. After all, digging ditches is a hell of a lot harder than being in IT, no? How does IT justify making more than minimum wage? The answer I believe most would give to the executive salary is relatively simple: supply and demand. The CEO who is capable of only marginally improving productivity can generate billions of dollars. Look at what happened to Apple's stock price when Steve Jobs began fading into the background. Without him, the company was worth more than 20 billion dollars less to investors. If one rank and file employee left, what would happen to the value of the company? Fundamentally, the CEO of a company has more impact on its value than the lower tier employees. The tasks that the CEO of boeing performs aren't more physically demanding than the person on the assembly line. But how much does a single person on an assembly line impact a 100 billion dollar company? Is it fair to say that a good CEO, who guides the company, is worth 1/10 of 1% of its value? Oh, and most CEOs are slavishly devoted to their jobs, often at the expense of their families and friends. That's how you get to the top. Most would laugh at the idea of a 40 hour work week. 80-90 is more reasonable.

Anyone who wishes to claim that the current situation is without precedent must explain http://www.amazon.com/Manias-Panics-Crashes-Financial-Investment/dp/0471389455.

This was a bubble caused by the expansion of credit. Kindleberger argues that _all_ bubbles are created by the expansion of credit. The current situation does not even begin to approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

"Tell me more about fuk u faggit."

As an incompetent user of these systems, I am proud that my obstinacy and refusal to learn anything has led to IT best practices bending to me, rather than the other way around.

Having gotten 3 chars after a brief look, I think this should be breakable without a computer, no?