Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

drummnutt (< 20)

Fear and Greed drive the markets...and America



February 01, 2009 – Comments (45)

Despite the proponents of "...liberty and justice for all", America remains a nation motivated by the two powerful human emotions of fear and greed. I feel that for America to move forward and progress towards a better society, she must learn to rid herself of these two emotions and replace them with the ideals that she holds dear.

Let's seperate fear and greed from facts:
Fear and Greed (emotion): "let's arm our CITIZENS so that we can protect ourselves from baddies and be stronger than our neighbour to gain more property".
Fact: Any society that allows the arming of its citizens suffers far more homecide, and firearms related violence.
Fear and Greed (emotion): "Taxes are bad because If I work, I should be able to spend ALL of my money how I want. Charity will take care of our sick, elderly and poor.
Fact: Charity will never be able to replace the state as the supplier of basic human needs to the unfortunate Minority who depend on handouts. Let alone health care, education, defence etc... Greed will blind clear thinking in this regard.
Fear and Greed (emotion): The rest of the world is screwed, so lets protect ourselves from their ideals. Only America is truly modern and advanced.
Fact: Many countries on this earth enjoy an equal or higher standard of living and GDP per capita, enjoy greater freedoms, have better social services, and are definately better educated than America. Many of their political systems are more efficient.
Fact: America is primarily where it is today because of a few simple reasons.
1/. WW2 allowed America to gain much by spending very little.
2/. Geography and a large population base allowed her to build a strong labour force in relative peace in the 20th century.
3/. America was at least formed with noble intentions, through a democratic constitutional republic.
Fact: The biggest threat for America is herself - not foreign countries. America has a cancer called "Greed and Fear", it has caused economic melt down, social services in disrepair, armed citizens willing to kill eachother, and perhaps worst of all... Ignorance (which is fed by a free, but selective and popularity driven media stream.

I have tried to be constructive here, I am sorry if I have offended any of you.

45 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 01, 2009 at 5:54 AM, BGriffinFlorida (26.95) wrote:

In an effort to become more effectual I have begun practicing intellectual triage.  Prior to beginning this practice, I would have immediately tried to correct the numerous and severe problems in comprehension and analysis from which you obviously suffer.

Now I perform intellectual triage before attempting to help someone recover.  When I encounter a severe intellectual deficiency, I determine in which catagory the deficiency belongs and proceed accordingly:

Catagory One: The thinker is likely to see and correct the deficiency on their own  -  Monitor for any change.  Use resources for Catagory Two

Catagory Two: The thinker has the possibility of recovering from the deficiency with help, but will not if left alone  -   Focus efforts to help Catagory Two 

 Catagory Three - The formerly-thinking individual has no possibility of recovering the ability of independent critical thought, regardless of the effort of others to help  -  the best course of action for Catagory Three is to provide reassurance and comfort.


Accordingly, I am compelled to tell you:

It's going to be okay.  there, there.


I hope you are reassured and comforted. 

Report this comment
#2) On February 01, 2009 at 7:14 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

What a joke! Thank you for some very (un)constructive criticism. I think that you should practice triage on your blog responses - ie, am I being constructive? no, then I won't post. please don't reply in an unconstructive way as it will lead to comments getting off the topic and prove your very obvious bigotry.

Report this comment
#3) On February 01, 2009 at 8:24 AM, rd80 (96.64) wrote:

I'll take on just your first one.

Facts:  In the US, the jurisdictions with the fewest restrictions on ownership and carrying of firearms have the lowest violent crime rates.  Since increasing restrictions on private ownership of firearms, both Great Britain and Austalia have seen increases in violent crime rates.

The rest of your 'Facts' are equally suspect.

Report this comment
#4) On February 01, 2009 at 8:56 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Your use of stats is terrible. I am Australian, and to say that we have an increase in firearms related crimes is dead wrong. Infact, it is the opposite.

 "The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of DECLINE after the revised gun laws."

Full articlehere

Our total number of firearm deaths has fallen dramatically. Between 1991 and 2001, from 600 to 300 per year!!

Full article here

Please try to stop swallowing the rhetoric of gun lobbiests.

Report this comment
#5) On February 01, 2009 at 8:56 AM, pjoaeo (< 20) wrote:

The "thinker" has consistently spelled the word category wrong.

In Canada, where there are very strict gun control laws there is virtually no gun crime.

Report this comment
#6) On February 01, 2009 at 9:00 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

by the way, we have a 0.24 per 100,000 rate of homocide due to firearms. USA = 11.5.

That my friends is a factor of 50. Imagine that on an investment, 50 bucks for every dollar down!!!

Report this comment
#7) On February 01, 2009 at 9:05 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Canada, Australia, UK, etc... All prove that taking firearms from citizens is a SAFE move. Unfortunately for them, Americans will justify their wants for guns using emotion, rather than logic, proof and reason.

It's really scary walking down an Australian street afraid someone may throw a rock at me - I'd better carry a weapon from now on (Sarcastic)!


Report this comment
#8) On February 01, 2009 at 9:20 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Sorry, factor of 40 (not 50), I just noticed. We are only 40 times safer here than USA, not 50 times.

Report this comment
#9) On February 01, 2009 at 9:33 AM, oversea (< 20) wrote:

I'm from Europe. In most European countries there are strong restrictions on carrying firearms (or any kind of weapons).   If you have a look at firearms related crime rate you can see that the most dangerous countries (S. Africa, Venezuela etc.) are those with less restrictions.


Report this comment
#10) On February 01, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Hudarios (< 20) wrote:

Fear and greed are human emotions that we cannot "rid ourselves" of, unless of course you lobotomize everyone or kill off humanity entirely.  So we're back to communism after all, drummnutt. The ideal of communism that has attracted hundreds of millions of followers is eradication of greed, which is supposed to lead to the utopia that you seek. The historical practice of communism has been suffering, totalitarianism, and death on an astronomical scale, which is what would ultimately happen if you were in charge.

"Why do Americans fear Democratic Socialism?"

Why, indeed.

Report this comment
#11) On February 01, 2009 at 9:46 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Hodarius. I am NOT a communist. I have poitend out to you already that there is a difference between communism than socialism. I would rather die trying to escape than live under a communist state.

I love freedom, but I also love the idea of supporting my fellow man through taxes and therefor I advocate social support.

Report this comment
#12) On February 01, 2009 at 9:50 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Oversea, once again you are spot on. Statistics clearly back this up. Like I pointed out earlier, many people will use emotional arguments and rhetoric in place of reason and unbiased facts to support their views.

Report this comment
#13) On February 01, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Jimmy2008 (< 20) wrote:


I agree with you. However, I am afraid that our fellow men expect financial support from you and they can feel entitled to everything in life without education and job.

Report this comment
#14) On February 01, 2009 at 10:07 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

I agree, that unfortunately there will always be a very small minority who will abuse social services. However, this is not a reason not to provide them for the (far) majority who need them and/or will use them as a hand up, not a hand out. Thanks for your thoughts.

Report this comment
#15) On February 01, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Hudarios (< 20) wrote:

You can't outlaw or eradicate human emotions and be for freedom at the same time. 2+2 does not equal 5.  Other people may let you get away with talking out of both sides of your mouth, but I won't.

I think you really want to control human behavior (which stems from emotions), and that you throw up the "love of freedom" smokescreen so that you don't have to defend your position. True human freedom comes with all of the messy, imperfect baggage of greed, jealousy, fear, anger, hatred, and yes, even superiority complexes like yours, where you want to tell us how to spend our money and which emotions we aren't allowed to have.

2+2 equals 4. I see through the smoke and mirrors.

Report this comment
#16) On February 01, 2009 at 10:38 AM, 100ozRound (28.59) wrote:

You have a lot of nerve posting a blog claiming you know about American ideologies and then trying to use unverified "facts" to back your position.

You came in here to pick a fight not to stimulate debate - then why do you say "I am sorry if I have offended any of you" when that is exactly your intent?

Both of your CAPS blogs to date have been direct ATTACKS at American ideologies.

Why don't you go play around at

Report this comment
#17) On February 01, 2009 at 10:39 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

How about using your ears to listen, instead of trying to see through smoke and mirrors!

If you accept (as you stated) that humans have destructive emotions (as well as positive ones) then how about considering that I am NOT advocating the CONTROL of idividual. I am however advocating systems that provide support for when and where these emotions cause their distruction or where other circumstance means that an individual is majorly disadvantaged from the norm (ie sickness).

I guess going any further with this is pointless as it requires subtilties and nuances - something I gather you aren't very much in to. (seeing as I still have to explain the difference between communism and socialism).

Report this comment
#18) On February 01, 2009 at 10:45 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

100ozRound, I am here to stimulate discussion. What facts are unverified? I am infact suggesting that (many) American ideals are noble and desirable. I am also suggesting that fear and greed are destroying many of these very ideals to which you advocate. I am sorry that I don't hold all the views that pertain to your ideologies, but if you are offended, show me where I am wrong.

Report this comment
#19) On February 01, 2009 at 10:51 AM, 100ozRound (28.59) wrote:

You claim things as "facts" but you don't provide the sources of information for your "facts".  Until you do, I have no interest in listening to a word you say and thus consider your blog an attack.

Report this comment
#20) On February 01, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Hudarios (< 20) wrote:

"I feel that for America to move forward and progress towards a better society, she must learn to rid herself of these two emotions"

Say it or don't. Defend it or don't. I'm not the one playing games by saying one thing in a post, and then claiming I didn't in a later comment. Claiming "nuance" is just another way to weasel out of an indefensible position - it also suggests that the rest of us are too darned stupid to understand your vast intellect. Like I said, socialists tend to come with superiority complexes.

Report this comment
#21) On February 01, 2009 at 11:04 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

100ozRound, I would prefer not to clog up the blog with lengthy reports and essays, however, if you tell me which "fact" you would like me to elaborate on, I can provide you with the main points and give you some reliable, unbiased sources to persue.

Report this comment
#22) On February 01, 2009 at 11:14 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Hodarius; Rid herself (America) of the emotions as the destroyer of noble ideals, not individuals. Thumbs-up on the technicality, however the point should not be too difficult to understand. You don't need to CONTROL INDIVIDUALS, in order to achieve social support.

Report this comment
#23) On February 01, 2009 at 11:15 AM, 100ozRound (28.59) wrote:

All of your "facts" are statements of opinion because they cannot be backed by any specific numbers or observable actions. Specifically your claims on charity and standard of living.  I'm not saying your wrong, I just can bring myself to beleive you simply because you claim it as a fact.

Any elaboration on any of your claims are just more claims.

I'd be more than happy to teach you how to hyperlink so you don't clog up your blog.

Report this comment
#24) On February 01, 2009 at 11:30 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Thanks for the offer, but please se my hyperlinks under point number 4 for two elaborations on the support for a "fact" that I was challenged on.

Report this comment
#25) On February 01, 2009 at 11:40 AM, 100ozRound (28.59) wrote:

And for every study that proves gun control leads to a reduction in gun related crimes, I can show you a study that proves gun control does not lead to a reduction in gun related crimes.

Correlation does NOT equal Causation.

Report this comment
#26) On February 01, 2009 at 12:19 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Fine, believe your "studies". There is no doubt among academics that countries with tighter gun controls have FAR fewer deaths by firearms per capita. To suggest otherwise is blantant manipulation of data or straight out lies.

Report this comment
#27) On February 01, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Hudarios (< 20) wrote:

 "Rid herself (America) of the emotions as the destroyer of noble ideals, not individuals. ... should not be too difficult to understand. You don't need.."

It's your responsibility to fill in the blanks with a specific law or policy that you would like to see in America -  we can't read your mind. Most of your text here is either (1) criticizing America or (2) stating what you would not do. Well, give us a specific example of what you would do that's related to getting rid of greed and fear.

Report this comment
#28) On February 01, 2009 at 12:29 PM, BradAllenton (31.78) wrote:

How do you explain Canada then? Canada has very high gun ownership per capita and very low gun crime. 

FACT: You are a moron and talk out of your A**

BTW, Making guns illegal won't make gun crimes go away. See the "war on drugs" for the blue print.

Report this comment
#29) On February 01, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Italyssun (< 20) wrote:

For the people, by the people. In the State in which I live, there have been many less car jackings, and less people assaulted and hurt over them since the new law that we can now carry a concealed weapon in our cars without even a permit. Our automobile is an extention of our home. Many criminals have fear as well and because of that they leave more people alone now in my State. 

As for the main topic it was going threw my mind just the other day that yes, the DJIA is certainly motivated by fear and greed.

However, I should always have the right to defend myself and also invest in markets to obtain a better return on m money.

And don't bet your money against the United States, in the run you will lose everytime.





Report this comment
#30) On February 01, 2009 at 12:51 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Destroying the guns will. Canada has tighter controls than US and therfore less than 1/2 of the deaths caused by firearms per capita. Even so, this is a level of around twice many other developed countries with less gun ownership and tight controls. Thanks for your childish "fact" response too!!

Report this comment
#31) On February 01, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Hudarios (< 20) wrote:

"Destroying the guns will."

That's almost a policy declaration.  So, drummnutt, would you destroy all guns, or just some guns?  Handguns?  Shotguns?  Rifles?  May we still hunt?  What about police officers?

Report this comment
#32) On February 01, 2009 at 1:02 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

BradAllenton, if you would rather watch a movie, than study other countries societies that have FAR FAR less deaths over consistent time periods due to tighter gun laws, then be my guest. Ever stepped food out of North America? By the way, how's the reduction in firearm deaths going iin US? Oh,... they keep increasing?? Huh, go figure.

Report this comment
#33) On February 01, 2009 at 1:02 PM, BradAllenton (31.78) wrote:

That's how it works drummnutt. If you go out on a limb with your own "facts" that you make up, people will talk to you like you are defective. If controls work as you say, why are drugs so pervasive?

Report this comment
#34) On February 01, 2009 at 1:11 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Police and law enforcers are obviously exempt with tight controls. Get rid of all the other guns, ban ownership by citizens except for a few hunting exceptions. If you are interested, read how it helped our country become FAR safer ...

"By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States."

Report this comment
#35) On February 01, 2009 at 1:17 PM, BradAllenton (31.78) wrote:

Yes, I've been out of North America many times. If my ideas are not the same as yours I must be less traveled or less read? Funny that you use the word childish to describe my response, but don't see how juvinile that projection is. To equate violence with the tool used to commit it is just plain silly. The dark ages were ripe with murder rape and violence, yet no guns. Hmmm so I guess the history is all lies and none of that happened. After all why would there be murder if nobody had guns? I guess gun control people would feel better if people were stabbing eachother to death.

Report this comment
#36) On February 01, 2009 at 1:22 PM, BradAllenton (31.78) wrote:

In your world only police and drug dealers would own guns. Everyone else would have to hope for a quick 911 response or die. TELL ME PLEASE: IF controls and BANs work why are drugs such a problem?

Report this comment
#37) On February 01, 2009 at 1:29 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Obviously your guns are working so well over there. Hold on to them, protect yourself from baddies (drug dealers) in your fearful case. See Original post, point number 1. How many drug dealers do you come in to contact with? I suppose if they took your gun away, that number would increase 10 fold. Look out - be afraid.

Thank you for providing anecdotal evidence of EXACTLY what I said in my original post.

Report this comment
#38) On February 01, 2009 at 1:38 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Brad wrote: "In your world only police and drug dealers would own guns..."

Actually this "world" that you describe is how our country is. And so are COUNTLESS other countries. Evidence (deaths per capita from firearms) proves that our model is FAR safer than everyone owning a gun.

Report this comment
#39) On February 01, 2009 at 1:56 PM, BradAllenton (31.78) wrote:

I live in the city you fool. I see drug dealers all the time. My house has been robbed, my property has been stolen, I have been in many street fights and violent confrontations. You are a sheltered pssy, It's obvious. Because you don't see reality, you claim it isn't so. Using Australia (Island) as a projection of how things should be world wide without taking anything else into consideration is silly.  BTW, I don't own a gun, witch shows how well you can make assumptions. I can understand why people may want them, but I don't. Most of the things you site ignore the reasons under the problem ie: less guns = less crime. Real answer- NOT TRUE. Less guns = Less GUN crime (sometimes) YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE DRUG QUESTION: IF BANS AND CONTROLS WORK, WHY ARE DRUGS SUCH A PROBLEM?

Real reasons for crime: Poverty, lack of education, drug abuse,  extreme religous beliefs.  

Report this comment
#40) On February 01, 2009 at 2:12 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

You are letting you emotions get out of hand dude! You also have made many assumptions. I asked if you have stepped foot outside US. You immediately became defensive assuming that I was going to comment on your travelness, When infact, I was going to ask how you felt in countries where its citizens don't own guns. You assume that I am a sheltered pssy. I didn't even assume that you have a gun, i was simply painting a picture to go along with my first point.

I agree with your reasons for crime. How about providing social services to reduce poverty (or at least its effects), and (much) better education. Just a thought for starters. Even though these are socialist activities, you'd better not call them that because some people will think you're a commie, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Report this comment
#41) On February 01, 2009 at 2:27 PM, 100ozRound (28.59) wrote:

Bans on drugs (and weapons for that matter) don't work because:

When you ban something (make it illegal) you create an underground economy because the demand still exists.  In any market economy (black markets included), the occurrence of competition is natural. 

Without any sort of regulated competition, the players must act to protect themselves from the "competition" because the peacekeepers (the law, the police) will not protect them.

The easiest way to protect themselves is with firearms which they can get from the underground market (even background checks are futile attempts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals).  Here in San Diego, you can easily head down to Tijuana and legally get almost ANYTHING that would be considered black market in the US.

When a government issues bans on anything (well most anything) they drive demand underground, create new definitions of criminals, and keep the "honest people honest"...sometimes

People are going to get what they want; the question is, who's going to give it to them?

Report this comment
#42) On February 01, 2009 at 2:31 PM, BradAllenton (31.78) wrote:

I like the perfect world scenaro. If it were up to me people wouldn't want or need guns, but please understand that not every town is Mr. Rogers style America. Some people want guns and I can't blame them. If the system can't control the problems real people face, can you really fault them for wanting a weapon to feel secure? Most of the other issues that you mentioned in your original post, I agree with, but I think you need to re-think the gun control issue. It always makes more sense to examine and fix the problems that cause crime not the method in witch it is carried out. As for the drug question that you didn't answer. It's a good example of how people don't understand how bans and controls fail. ie: no guns in prison. That's a BAN so= No crime in prison? Not quite. The proof is that guns are inanimate objects and to blame them for our short comings is cowardly. Hey no hard feelings at all, but please know that it isn't as simple as saying you can't to make sure people won't. My real life in a hostile city is my example and an article or blog telling me it's all in my head "fear" is offensive.

Report this comment
#43) On February 01, 2009 at 2:42 PM, 100ozRound (28.59) wrote:


Go over to any one of your neighbors, tell him how to run his house, and then tell him he's being defensive after you insult him over and over. 

The only thing I've read from you is sharp criticism about Americans in general. You don't seem to care why we do things the way we do them; if you sought to understand why we do things, you might learn that our way of life isn't THAT much different than yours. We are your neighbors.

Report this comment
#44) On February 01, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Mary953 (84.14) wrote:

So, you think we never would have had it so good except that "WW2 allowed America to gain much by spending very little."

Let me say that you have offended me a very great deal.  I believe, having looked at your lack of interest in any portion of CAPS with the exception of blogging that this is your intent.  You are here not to gather investment information, not to try your hand at stock picks, American or not, not to be part of the CAPS community in any sense of the word.  You are not the gadfly of society that Socrates aspired to.  You try to be a mosquito.  You attain the status of a gnat.

With regard to WWII, I know this is not the expediture you had in mind, but it is the reason that your blog is offensive to me today when most days I would shrug it off as unworthy of answer.  I spent a portion of my day yesterday with my best friend as she laid her father to rest.  His job during WWII was to preceed the troops of the Normandy invasion and build ramps or clear hedges (the 10'-20' type) so that the tanks, armored cars, and personnel carriers could go through.  He did not mind the rain, the mud, the thorns so much.  He did have a problem with the fact that he was being shot at constantly while he worked.  I can assure you that he and his family would not believe that they spent "very little" in that war. 

The fact is, you have no knowledge of our history at all.  Long before we entered that war, long before we were pulled in by the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, our factories were turning out the weapons of war that helped the British continue the fight (without payment other than to just hold out a bit longer - again a terrible price to exact).  Our young men were crossing the Atlantic to begin the fight beside the British.

Gun control is guaranteed in our Constitution. We have the right to keep and own guns.  Early in our country's history, they provided food as well as protection.  For many, they still provide food, though now it is by choice.  It is a right so that we never need to worry about a despotic government.  Our government works.  We do not need to resort to revolution.  It is, however, in our heritage to protect our rights, even from an attack by our own government if necessary.  As to citizens protecting themselves, I will allow you to hear that from the citizens themselves -

Report this comment
#45) On February 01, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Hudarios (< 20) wrote:

"ban ownership by citizens except for a few hunting exceptions."

OK. How will you decide who gets to hunt and who doesn't?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners