crysis

If the rich people caused the economic crysis, why do they expect the poor people to bail them out?!

You don't know how to spell very well.

Also, the economy itself suffers if those youe would call rich don't do well; those you would call poor certainly can't prop it up, not to discredit them entirely, mind you, and if there were no rich there would just be poor and the economy would be bad no matter what we did.  It's not possible for everyone to be rich together until we get to a post-scarcity economy.  Like it or not, there are two key points in this:

1. the poor can not bail out the rich no matter how hard you hear people trying (it's actually a bigger ploy to shift money that has been rendered relatively useless into their pockets to protect against further disaster) and

2. the economic disaster was not caused by the rich exclusively, but it did manifest in their sector exclusively before hitting the poor.  The recent mortgage and housing crisis, for example, was caused by the poor wanting exorbitant conditions they could not support from the rich, then waiting for the right irresponsible, zealously over-idealistic rich person to hand it to them on a silver platter.  Trying to maintain those exorbitant conditions or to mitigate their damages caused disastrous effects in the market as people tried to figure out what to do with the bad money.

>>3

Actually I think the problem was overspending.  It wasn't just the houses, but everything else.  The idea is to spend yourself to wealth.  Except that the credit card only work so long before you have to pay the tab. We as a society couldn't pay the tab for all the shit we bought on credit, so the economy pretty much exploded when people started to default on things they bought on credit.

>>3
(Referencing your own post? you're pretty gutsy)
That's a point; it's not entirely different from what I tried to say, but it is much more clearly stated.

Why did you spell "crisis" as "crysis"? Is this the same shit as spelling "women" as "womyn"?