Bill Still's Money Masters

[Toddsterpatriot]

My list didn't include JPM. Try again?

As far as liberals who want to ditch the Fed, Alan Grayson comes to mind.

What list?

Yeah, and Ron Paul is a conservative who does too.

It's not like honest money is a right or left issue, it's a right or wrong issue.
And the current money system in this country is just plain wrong.

Post #294, "You mean like B of A, Citigroup, Merrill, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Wachovia, Washington Mutual and Indy Mac? LOL!"

Yeah, Ron Paul, another doofus who doesn't understand banking.

 

[freedombecki]

Yeah, right. And the banks pad little or no taxes.
Bailed-out banks paid no income tax in some years, according to study | The Center for Public Integrity

So the treasury lost money on the deal.

You're a sucker, Toddster.

Not so fast. Your link says from 2008-2010 were the years. You shouldn't be blaming anyone here. You should be looking at criticizing Nancy Pelosi's Democrat Congresses who sealed the deal on banks giving shaky loans to people with histories of nonpayment and banks were remunerated for losses through tax breaks. An explanation of TARP blaming President Bush for the whole nine yards rather than the Democrat Congress who crammed this one down America's throat. If Wikipedia puts the onus for the Troubled Asset Relief Program on someone else it must be true?

Just think of it. Democrats get in a tizzy and act against good conscience, pass the blame to Republicans, and their believers wind up screaming at all conservatives for everything predicted about and caused by liberals. It's gimme-gotcha, gimme-gotcha, gimme-gotcha, and it sounds like a railroad job huffing and puffing its way into American taxpayer billfolds with no accounting for it ever again.

Becki, as far as I'm concerned, the Dems and Repubs are just two sides of the same coin and that coin is owned by the banks. For all the hoopla the Repubs keep spouting about a balanced budget, do you see that going anywhere, even with a Red congress and Red president? I sure don't. The banks have the money and money buys politicians. The banks donated scads of money to both Romney and Obama. They win either way.

To me, the whole R vs. D, L vs. C arguments are staged for the masses, sort of like the bread and circuses of ancient Rome. It's to keep your mind off of how badly you're getting screwed every day.

After all, both sides of the aisle think the big NY banks are "too big too fail".

I see you're not interested in the news. Republicans never supported forcing banks to make bad loans but were out-honked by the Dems who brought about crisis from pushing the envelope on Fannie and Freddie once they had a majority.

Your confusion of two opposing government styles does not surprise me, however, considering many Americans don't know that many who discuss news are actually professional comedians who have very limited if any college coursework outside the fine arts. People depend on them to make them feel good about government when all they offer is opinion that is not in accordance with business math, much less economics, history, constitution, law, human health, the sciences, chemistry, or law. They know how to use stage makeup, how to make people laugh, and exploit every human emotion from anger to enthusiasm by triggering illusions, which is what you get when you pay attention to thespian tricks rather than watching corrupt politicians lining up armored vehicles outside the U.S. Treasury to feed their supporters' failed businesses and stick the taxpayer with the full tab for making up losses as was the case with Solyndra and a hundred other Green businesses that were failing when they got loans, with no chance of ever turning a profit to repay their loans to the people of the USA.

 

[joewp]

So you agree they create money when they loan it?

It's called the money multiplier, I'd be happy to clear up your confusion if you'd like.

I know what it's called and how it's done. You don't seem to see that multiplying something implies creating it.

Not me, personally. But I read history, and it's happened many times.

Lately?

Yeah, right now in Nigeria and India.

And most banks today have large withdrawal restrictions.
Basically cause they just don't have the cash.


Yeah, when you loan out a large fraction of your deposits, you don't hold a large fraction of your deposits as cash. Still confused?

Nope, but you are. You seem to imagine that people come to bank with carloads of cash and deposit it. They don't. It's mostly checks, wire transfers, ACH, direct deposit and the like. There's no cash involved at all, just bits in a computer.

It really sounds like you think a check written against Citi and presented at BoA means Citi sends a truck with cash to BoA. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they don't.

And FYI, there's no bank that makes cash loans. It's all credits to your account. Cash is actually superfluous and a burden to banks. They want to eliminate it completely.

Yeah, good point. Why would you when you can't see the implications of banks inflating (and deflating) the money supply at their whim.

Increasing the money supply when people borrow a portion of your deposits, scary!

Obviously you can't grasp that when the money supply is increased, the new money has to get value from somewhere, and that somewhere is your money. It steals a small portion of every dollar already in existence.
That's called 'inflation'. And please don't tell me there's "moderate" inflation. I just came back from the grocery store.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you agree they create money when they loan it?

It's called the money multiplier, I'd be happy to clear up your confusion if you'd like.

I know what it's called and how it's done. You don't seem to see that multiplying something implies creating it.

Not me, personally. But I read history, and it's happened many times.

Lately?

Yeah, right now in Nigeria and India.

And most banks today have large withdrawal restrictions.
Basically cause they just don't have the cash.


Yeah, when you loan out a large fraction of your deposits, you don't hold a large fraction of your deposits as cash. Still confused?

Nope, but you are. You seem to imagine that people come to bank with carloads of cash and deposit it. They don't. It's mostly checks, wire transfers, ACH, direct deposit and the like. There's no cash involved at all, just bits in a computer.

It really sounds like you think a check written against Citi and presented at BoA means Citi sends a truck with cash to BoA. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they don't.

And FYI, there's no bank that makes cash loans. It's all credits to your account. Cash is actually superfluous and a burden to banks. They want to eliminate it completely.

Yeah, good point. Why would you when you can't see the implications of banks inflating (and deflating) the money supply at their whim.

Increasing the money supply when people borrow a portion of your deposits, scary!

Obviously you can't grasp that when the money supply is increased, the new money has to get value from somewhere, and that somewhere is your money. It steals a small portion of every dollar already in existence.
That's called 'inflation'. And please don't tell me there's "moderate" inflation. I just came back from the grocery store.

I know what it's called and how it's done. You don't seem to see that multiplying something implies creating it.

Yes, money is created when people borrow from banks. When banks lend a portion of their deposits, not multiples of their deposits.

Yeah, right now in Nigeria and India.

I'm talking about American banking, don't care about banking in 3rd world countries.

Nope, but you are. You seem to imagine that people come to bank with carloads of cash and deposit it.

I was responding to your claim about cash. True story.

 

[joewp]

Welcome to Econ 101 class one, day one!!

Are you freaking kidding me? What idiot capitalist would settle for no profit?

too stupid but 100% liberal. There are about 10,000 bankruptcies a month because of competition!! Did you no business is competitive?????

Why are you talking about the losers? I was talking about the winners. You seem to imply that competition drives all players to 0% profit. No, it drives some out of business while it enriches others. Sort of like Walmart and the long closed mom and pop stores in most US towns and cities. Last I looked, Walmart had some healthy profits. It doesn't look like they're going to zero anytime soon, since they killed off any competition they might have had.

Better than that, they force out competition by having deeper pockets and selling for less until the competition is gone.

dear selling for less drive your profits down to 0!!!!!!!!!!!
too stupid!! where is there no competition when capitalism is everywhere competitive????????????

Honey, capitalists are always trying to eliminate the competition. If it wasn't for the ever weaker anti-trust laws, there'd only be 3 or 4 corporations in the US, if even that many.

After all, "Competition is a sin" - J. D. Rockefeller.

Dear, this is Mico economics 101, class one day one. Have you ever been to college???????

$0 profit? Now that's stupid.

and yet 0 or less is the fate of 10,000 each month!!!

See why we say a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!!

We're not talking about the losers. We're talking about banks.

 

[joewp]

Yeah, Ron Paul, another doofus who doesn't understand banking.

Ok great oracle of knowledge. Please tell me, in our money system, where does the money come from?

a) Is it created by the government?
b) Is it printed when you get paid?
c) It is fairies?
d) Or does the Fed loan it into existence, and the commercial banks loan 10 times more?

And please try not to get distracted by cash.

Oh, and your mysterious "money multiplier"... care to explain how the banks multiply the money? If the answer isn't 'by making loans', then is it fertility drugs?

Come on, inquiring minds want to know!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Or does the Fed loan it into existence, and the commercial banks loan 10 times more?

true enough but far most importantly the Federal Reserve System assures economic growth by requiring a profit on the money. If a bank makes bad loans it does not make a profit and goes out of business. Only those that make good loans survive thus ensuring that the economy grows rather than contracts. Get it now?

 

[joewp]

I see you're not interested in the news. Republicans never supported forcing banks to make bad loans but were out-honked by the Dems who brought about crisis from pushing the envelope on Fannie and Freddie once they had a majority.

I am interested in the news, and history. You might recall, it was the Republicans that removed all the 'regulations' from the S&L's and caused the 1980s housing crash. Unlike you, the bankers don't really care what party a Congress or Administration is, because they own both parties.

Your confusion of two opposing government styles does not surprise me, however, considering many Americans don't know that many who discuss news are actually professional comedians who have very limited if any college coursework outside the fine arts. People depend on them to make them feel good about government when all they offer is opinion that is not in accordance with business math, much less economics, history, constitution, law, human health, the sciences, chemistry, or law. They know how to use stage makeup, how to make people laugh, and exploit every human emotion from anger to enthusiasm by triggering illusions, which is what you get when you pay attention to thespian tricks rather than watching corrupt politicians lining up armored vehicles outside the U.S. Treasury to feed their supporters' failed businesses and stick the taxpayer with the full tab for making up losses as was the case with Solyndra and a hundred other Green businesses that were failing when they got loans, with no chance of ever turning a profit to repay their loans to the people of the USA.

Um, what gives you the impression I would waste my time watching John Stewart or Sean Hannity or any of those entertainers?

Um, when you say lining up vehicles out the Treasury to stick the taxpayers with the full tab of their losses, you are talking about the bank bailouts, right?

By the way, in case you didn't know, the real beneficiaries of the Solyndra bailout was the bankers who loaned them the money. The loan guarantees made sure the banks were paid back with our tax money, nothing more or less.

Follow the money, becki.

 

[joewp]

I know what it's called and how it's done. You don't seem to see that multiplying something implies creating it.

Yes, money is created when people borrow from banks. When banks lend a portion of their deposits, not multiples of their deposits.

Well, you're starting to get it. Follow the deposit that was created by the loan into another bank which loans out 90%, and follow that created deposit that was then 90% loaned out again and keep doing that until you reach 10 times the initial deposit.
Initial deposit: $1000
Loan amount: $ 900
Total money: $1900
Loan deposit: $900
Loan amount: $810
Total money: $2710
Loan deposit: $810
Loan amount: $729
Total money: $3439
Loan deposit: $729
Loan amount: $656
Total money: $4095
Loan deposit: $656
Loan amount: $590
Total money: $4685
Loan deposit: $590
Loan amount: $531
Total money: $5216
Loan deposit: $531
Loan amount: $478
Total money: $5694
Loan deposit: $478
Loan amount: $430
Total money: $6124

Keep going and you reach almost $10,000, $1000 made by honest labor and $9000 created by bank accounting tricks. And the banks make interest on $9000 dollars from an initial deposit of $1000.

Yeah, right now in Nigeria and India.

I'm talking about American banking, don't care about banking in 3rd world countries.

It happened here in the lifetimes of some people, when Roosevelt closed the banks on a "banking holiday".

Nope, but you are. You seem to imagine that people come to bank with carloads of cash and deposit it.

I was responding to your claim about cash. True story.

Nah, I think you're confused.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I see you're not interested in the news. Republicans never supported forcing banks to make bad loans but were out-honked by the Dems who brought about crisis from pushing the envelope on Fannie and Freddie once they had a majority.

I am interested in the news, and history. You might recall, it was the Republicans that removed all the 'regulations' from the S&L's and caused the 1980s housing crash. Unlike you, the bankers don't really care what party a Congress or Administration is, because they own both parties.

Your confusion of two opposing government styles does not surprise me, however, considering many Americans don't know that many who discuss news are actually professional comedians who have very limited if any college coursework outside the fine arts. People depend on them to make them feel good about government when all they offer is opinion that is not in accordance with business math, much less economics, history, constitution, law, human health, the sciences, chemistry, or law. They know how to use stage makeup, how to make people laugh, and exploit every human emotion from anger to enthusiasm by triggering illusions, which is what you get when you pay attention to thespian tricks rather than watching corrupt politicians lining up armored vehicles outside the U.S. Treasury to feed their supporters' failed businesses and stick the taxpayer with the full tab for making up losses as was the case with Solyndra and a hundred other Green businesses that were failing when they got loans, with no chance of ever turning a profit to repay their loans to the people of the USA.

Um, what gives you the impression I would waste my time watching John Stewart or Sean Hannity or any of those entertainers?

Um, when you say lining up vehicles out the Treasury to stick the taxpayers with the full tab of their losses, you are talking about the bank bailouts, right?

By the way, in case you didn't know, the real beneficiaries of the Solyndra bailout was the bankers who loaned them the money. The loan guarantees made sure the banks were paid back with our tax money, nothing more or less.

Follow the money, becki.

You might recall, it was the Republicans that removed all the 'regulations' from the S&L's and caused the 1980s housing crash.

Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know what it's called and how it's done. You don't seem to see that multiplying something implies creating it.

Yes, money is created when people borrow from banks. When banks lend a portion of their deposits, not multiples of their deposits.

Well, you're starting to get it. Follow the deposit that was created by the loan into another bank which loans out 90%, and follow that created deposit that was then 90% loaned out again and keep doing that until you reach 10 times the initial deposit.
Initial deposit: $1000
Loan amount: $ 900
Total money: $1900
Loan deposit: $900
Loan amount: $810
Total money: $2710
Loan deposit: $810
Loan amount: $729
Total money: $3439
Loan deposit: $729
Loan amount: $656
Total money: $4095
Loan deposit: $656
Loan amount: $590
Total money: $4685
Loan deposit: $590
Loan amount: $531
Total money: $5216
Loan deposit: $531
Loan amount: $478
Total money: $5694
Loan deposit: $478
Loan amount: $430
Total money: $6124

Keep going and you reach almost $10,000, $1000 made by honest labor and $9000 created by bank accounting tricks. And the banks make interest on $9000 dollars from an initial deposit of $1000.

Yeah, right now in Nigeria and India.

I'm talking about American banking, don't care about banking in 3rd world countries.

It happened here in the lifetimes of some people, when Roosevelt closed the banks on a "banking holiday".

Nope, but you are. You seem to imagine that people come to bank with carloads of cash and deposit it.

I was responding to your claim about cash. True story.

Nah, I think you're confused.

Keep going and you reach almost $10,000

When you add up all those numbers, you have $10,000 in deposits, $9,000 in loans and $1,000 in reserves.
Loans are less than deposits.

And the banks make interest on $9000 dollars from an initial deposit of $1000.

Banks borrow $10,000 and lend $9,000.

It happened here in the lifetimes of some people, when Roosevelt closed the banks on a "banking holiday".

My original question was "Lately?"
Don't really care what happened in the 1930s, things have changed since then.

 

[freedombecki]

I see you're not interested in the news. Republicans never supported forcing banks to make bad loans but were out-honked by the Dems who brought about crisis from pushing the envelope on Fannie and Freddie once they had a majority.

I am interested in the news, and history. You might recall, it was the Republicans that removed all the 'regulations' from the S&L's and caused the 1980s housing crash. Unlike you, the bankers don't really care what party a Congress or Administration is, because they own both parties.

Your confusion of two opposing government styles does not surprise me, however, considering many Americans don't know that many who discuss news are actually professional comedians who have very limited if any college coursework outside the fine arts. People depend on them to make them feel good about government when all they offer is opinion that is not in accordance with business math, much less economics, history, constitution, law, human health, the sciences, chemistry, or law. They know how to use stage makeup, how to make people laugh, and exploit every human emotion from anger to enthusiasm by triggering illusions, which is what you get when you pay attention to thespian tricks rather than watching corrupt politicians lining up armored vehicles outside the U.S. Treasury to feed their supporters' failed businesses and stick the taxpayer with the full tab for making up losses as was the case with Solyndra and a hundred other Green businesses that were failing when they got loans, with no chance of ever turning a profit to repay their loans to the people of the USA.

Um, what gives you the impression I would waste my time watching John Stewart or Sean Hannity or any of those entertainers?

Um, when you say lining up vehicles out the Treasury to stick the taxpayers with the full tab of their losses, you are talking about the bank bailouts, right?

By the way, in case you didn't know, the real beneficiaries of the Solyndra bailout was the bankers who loaned them the money. The loan guarantees made sure the banks were paid back with our tax money, nothing more or less.

Follow the money, becki.

ok
your answers to professionals
no
If you had paid attention to the facts, you would know the Solyndra bailout given to these bankrupt buffoons was called in by the Oval Office with Obama prompting the Treasury to pay the same day. They complied. That postponed the bankruptcy for 18 months. The loan was a porkbarrel Demmie tag on that guaranteed that if the Green Business went bankrupt, the taxpayers would pay them back 100%. We're angry that our tax dollars were swallowed in 18 months, when 1100 workers with no notice were shut out of work by locked doors at Solyndra in Fremont, CA. How could you forget 1100 human beings dumped by beneficiaries of the people's hard-earned tax dollars squandered with no benefits whatever to workers? That didn't slip pass Republicans and the Democrats gave themselves a black eye which they tried to blame on Republicans but couldn't.
Dems in Congress made it happen. They forced through the taxpayers-pay law, high-pressured the Treasury into foolish action with no background checks, and it turned out their chief backer who got his money back instead of the money going to workers was a HUGE Obama supporter.
How the hell do you say you were paying attention to the news. Do you sluff off all Democrat-hustled money exoduses to the few press folk who warn Americans of what's coming? For one who claimed some time ago neutrality, you certainly hate it when someone doesn't go along with the Democrats funneling money to themselves through quid-pro-quos.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Increasing the money supply when people borrow a portion of your deposits, scary!

most people don't find it scary. they find it part of the system that enables them to live sustainably at a higher standard of living than and any time in human history. It must be wonderful, not scary then!

 

[joewp]

Or does the Fed loan it into existence, and the commercial banks loan 10 times more?

true enough but far most importantly the Federal Reserve System assures economic growth by requiring a profit on the money. If a bank makes bad loans it does not make a profit and goes out of business. Only those that make good loans survive thus ensuring that the economy grows rather than contracts. Get it now?

Your little fantasy about "only those that make good loans survive" is total hogwash. The big NY banks made plenty of bad loans, and they're still around due to bailouts.
Assures economic growth? That's probably their worst crime against humanity. Obviously you have no clue about the exponential function.
You should watch this:
[ame=http://youtu.be/cOrvGDRLT7A]Arithmetic, Population and Energy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your little fantasy about "only those that make good loans survive" is total hogwash. The big NY banks made plenty of bad loans, and they're still around due to bailouts.

but, dear, they paid the loans back and in many cases, like Merryl Lynch, shareholders were 100% wiped out!! Now they are very very careful about the loans they make. Get it?? THey are still around but only in name!! Over your head??

Assures economic growth? That's probably their worst crime against humanity.

too stupid!!! we have obviously experienced great wealth creation since the creation of the Fed and even over the last 30 years!!






Obviously you have no clue about the exponential function.
You should watch this:
[ame=http://youtu.be/cOrvGDRLT7A]Arithmetic, Population and Energy - YouTube[/ame][/QUOTE]

 

[joewp]

I see you're not interested in the news. Republicans never supported forcing banks to make bad loans but were out-honked by the Dems who brought about crisis from pushing the envelope on Fannie and Freddie once they had a majority.

I am interested in the news, and history. You might recall, it was the Republicans that removed all the 'regulations' from the S&L's and caused the 1980s housing crash. Unlike you, the bankers don't really care what party a Congress or Administration is, because they own both parties.

Your confusion of two opposing government styles does not surprise me, however, considering many Americans don't know that many who discuss news are actually professional comedians who have very limited if any college coursework outside the fine arts. People depend on them to make them feel good about government when all they offer is opinion that is not in accordance with business math, much less economics, history, constitution, law, human health, the sciences, chemistry, or law. They know how to use stage makeup, how to make people laugh, and exploit every human emotion from anger to enthusiasm by triggering illusions, which is what you get when you pay attention to thespian tricks rather than watching corrupt politicians lining up armored vehicles outside the U.S. Treasury to feed their supporters' failed businesses and stick the taxpayer with the full tab for making up losses as was the case with Solyndra and a hundred other Green businesses that were failing when they got loans, with no chance of ever turning a profit to repay their loans to the people of the USA.

Um, what gives you the impression I would waste my time watching John Stewart or Sean Hannity or any of those entertainers?

Um, when you say lining up vehicles out the Treasury to stick the taxpayers with the full tab of their losses, you are talking about the bank bailouts, right?

By the way, in case you didn't know, the real beneficiaries of the Solyndra bailout was the bankers who loaned them the money. The loan guarantees made sure the banks were paid back with our tax money, nothing more or less.

Follow the money, becki.

ok
your answers to professionals

What answers to what professionals?

no
If you had paid attention to the facts, you would know the Solyndra bailout given to these bankrupt buffoons was called in by the Oval Office with Obama prompting the Treasury to pay the same day. They complied. That postponed the bankruptcy for 18 months. The loan was a porkbarrel Demmie tag on that guaranteed that if the Green Business went bankrupt, the taxpayers would pay them back 100%. We're angry that our tax dollars were swallowed in 18 months, when 1100 workers with no notice were shut out of work by locked doors at Solyndra in Fremont, CA. How could you forget 1100 human beings dumped by beneficiaries of the people's hard-earned tax dollars squandered with no benefits whatever to workers? That didn't slip pass Republicans and the Democrats gave themselves a black eye which they tried to blame on Republicans but couldn't.
Dems in Congress made it happen. They forced through the taxpayers-pay law, high-pressured the Treasury into foolish action with no background checks, and it turned out their chief backer who got his money back instead of the money going to workers was a HUGE Obama supporter.
How the hell do you say you were paying attention to the news. Do you sluff off all Democrat-hustled money exoduses to the few press folk who warn Americans of what's coming? For one who claimed some time ago neutrality, you certainly hate it when someone doesn't go along with the Democrats funneling money to themselves through quid-pro-quos.

Ya know what Becki, that stuff, while disgusting, isn't nearly as bad as the crap the banks get away with, with the unquestioning approval of both parties. It's small fishes.

I like to go for the big fishes, the banks.

 

[joewp]

Increasing the money supply when people borrow a portion of your deposits, scary!

most people don't find it scary. they find it part of the system that enables them to live sustainably at a higher standard of living than and any time in human history. It must be wonderful, not scary then!

Oh, how you have no idea what the word "sustainable" means.

Do you really think constant growth in a finite environment is sustainable?

Please watch the video I linked.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you really think constant growth in a finite environment is sustainable?

perfectly ignorant brainwashed liberal. Libturds said in 1970's we'd be out of oil by 1990. Instead we added a billion more people to the planet, started driving SUVs, and doubled consumption with India, China, and Brazi entering the modern age. And still, in 2013 we have more oil reserves than ever before plus we have alternatives in the unlikely event that we ever need them!!

Republican capitalism has made the environment infinite. A liberal will lack the IQ to know he's been brainwashed by socialists whose only real agenda is using enviro freaks to help them socialize the economy.

 

[joewp]

Your little fantasy about "only those that make good loans survive" is total hogwash. The big NY banks made plenty of bad loans, and they're still around due to bailouts.

but, dear, they paid the loans back and in many cases, like Merryl Lynch, shareholders were 100% wiped out!! Now they are very very careful about the loans they make. Get it?? THey are still around but only in name!! Over your head??

Sorry, I call bullshit. You said "Only those that make good loans survive" and now you're changing. I could give a rat's ass about the shareholders of ML. After all, a stock certificate is only a claim to wealth, and not wealth itself. They should have investing in real wealth, not fantasy ownership in a company as at least third in line during liquidation.

Assures economic growth? That's probably their worst crime against humanity.

too stupid!!! we have obviously experienced great wealth creation since the creation of the Fed and even over the last 30 years!!






Obviously you have no clue about the exponential function.
You should watch this:
[ame=http://youtu.be/cOrvGDRLT7A]Arithmetic, Population and Energy - YouTube[/ame]

[/QUOTE]

 

[joewp]

Do you really think constant growth in a finite environment is sustainable?

perfectly ignorant brainwashed liberal. Libturds said in 1970's we'd be out of oil by 1990.

Cite please? I hear this shit all the time and nobody can show me a magazine article or scientific paper from the 70s that says we'd be out of oil by 1990, by libturds or conservaturds. You should really get your facts straight.

Instead we added a billion more people to the planet,

Um, no dickhead. If you can't get basic facts right, then how can anybody believe you about anything? From World Population - The Current World Population :
1970 3.7 billion
2011 7 billion
That's right, the world human population doubled in 40 years. Do you really think that can continue forever? Are you that stupid?

started driving SUVs, and doubled consumption with India, China, and Brazi entering the modern age.

Yup, which is why you're paying $3.50 a gallon. You know, constrained supply, higher demand, rising prices. Econ 101.

And still, in 2013 we have more oil reserves than ever before plus we have alternatives in the unlikely event that we ever need them!!

Cite please? I'm just trying to keep you honest, that's all.

Republican capitalism has made the environment infinite.

How is that even possible? Never mind that it seems we're constantly looking for more places to put our garbage, but elementary school arithmetic can easily prove that a sphere is finite. How the heck did "Republican capitalism" what ever that is, violate a basic rule of arithmetic?

A liberal will lack the IQ to know he's been brainwashed by socialists whose only real agenda is using enviro freaks to help them socialize the economy.

So arithmetic is brainwashing?
What a sad world you live in.