Did you read the entire conversation? I very patiently explained this to him here.

It's posted in conspiracy rather than news, so it's plausible, but its speculative, however the speculation is coming from the BIS which is a pretty mainstream establishment.

My point about the climate stuff was that there were predictions the ice caps would be melted by now, which have not happened. I am sure you have seen the many climate denial arguments on saidit that are along these lines with respect to various predictions and models. I haven't seen you make those arguments with respect to the climate, and you toe the line of the liberal agenda so closely I can't imagine you take those arguments seriously. It surprises me that you think this disqualifies what is being said in the article, especially with it being analogous to climate denial logic. Just because a total collapse from these financial schemes hasnt happened yet does not mean this problem is not something to worry about, just like climate change is still concerning, even if every alarmist prediction hasn't come true as predicted when they said it would or the climate hasn't totally collapsed yet. Surely you are not so dense that you cannot see what I am getting at here wrt to your arguments, and why this is not good grounds to dismiss potentially serious problems. Buying stocks on margin was such a serious problem, and the crash that resulted from this did not happen right away, neither was the 2008 crash a problem that happened overnight. It would have been wrong to say alarmism wasn't warranted because no consequences or crash had happened yet, because eventually it did happen

My point was that this is potentially a catastrophic level problem, and analyzing further whether or not this a disaster in the making is maybe warranted out of abundance of caution - but I posted it in conspiracy rather than news for a reason, yet you accuse me of peddling lies

IF these guys are right, this would be an unmitigated disaster, and there is data that gives us reason to be concerned that this concern is not completely unwarranted. It seems like something that is worth looking into, especially if people have been expressing concern about this in the past ala climate change, regardless of whether the timelines for the predictions were perfect accurate. But if you would rather bury your head in the sand and hope for the best, be my guest

Then he responds with:

No, that's a lie. You just purposefully or accidentally told a lie.

This is fake outrage news generated by the engineers at express.

(I kindly directed to him to the same story by Reuters and WSJ but he wasn't interested.)

You don't care about derivatives or FX swaps I'm guessing (sorry but I don't think I'm wrong)

You just spread it here because you're a panic monger.

This is literally Chipit level discourse he responds with after I wrote a long and reasonable explanation which he completely ignored, as its obvious I am not panic mongering, and he keep applying climate denial logic even after I point out this fallacy to him, and then adds in a few ad hominems for good measure

Can you honestly say this isn't trash tier debating? Literally every interaction he has with people he doesnt agree with is like this, its par for the course for him.