Good return on investment too, once the inheritance comes in.

Yes, he broke laws. Nice you joined us in reality for a moment.

What laws? How’s treason? How’s defrauding an election, election interference, attempted election interference, witness tampering, bribery and blackmail, abuse of power, deriliction of duty, incitement of insurrection, violations of the presidential records act, disruption of congress, murder of a police officer, etc. for starters, only looking at this single incident.
I know you want to say “nothing bigger than jaywalking, nothing burger….let’s investigate Hunter for maybe doing drugs as a private citizen and say Don Jr doing drugs while representing us internationally and doing government business is off limits.”

Come on, why not complain again that you don’t hear Trump’s side….just because he’s too scared to testify. Complain there aren’t more Republicans on the committee….just because they boycotted it. Complain about the witnesses despite nearly 100% being Trump administration officials or voters.

Hundreds of millions spent so you can’t name a law Clinton broke, hypocrite. The few millions spent to find out those responsible for a deadly coup is pennies compared to the costs of the failed coup. It actually costs exponentially less than the physical damage done to the building, estimated over $30 million….but the full cost of Trump’s tantrum and failed coup including deploying the national guard was WELL OVER $500 MILLION. A few million more to hold someone accountable and keep it from repeating is nothing, especially if we then sue Trump to recoup the losses (hint, he doesn’t have that much money).
Also, $4 billion spent on Greg Abbot’s performance stunt to halt trade at the border in the name of anti immigration that caught zero extra immigrants…that you supported…makes you just a tad hypocritical again….just a little bit.
To be clear, I’m saying you have no problem actually wasting, with no return on investment, thousands of times the amount spent safeguarding the nation from domestic terrorists with the bipartisan investigation.

The DOJ makes specific charges, not the investigative committee….since you seem confused again. The committee is smart enough to not telegraph the evidence supporting every charge they prepared for the DOJ. They only need to show enough to convince any reasonable person of his guilt, not every cultist. There is no amount of evidence of any criminality from any source that would convince your ilk that Trump’s treasonous and deadly crimes are worth prosecuting, convincing you is not the goal or even a concern.

What a joke comment you wrote and person you are.

Have you ever seen Mexicans install sheetrock? So fast and so cheap. And very well done. The return on investment for a robot like this would be around 50-100 years.

So wait...he talks about how important the weight is because it determines the load that can be carried. He does the weight calculations and then immediately starts talking about the cost of the truck and never finishes his weight analysis.

According to his estimation, the weight of the unloaded truck with trailer is 7 tons. If the batteries on a 500 mile truck weigh 8 tons then the total 15 ton vehicle is lighter than the ~17 ton average for a standard semi with trailer. I'd round up for the weight of the motors and since his empty weight calculation seems a tad low. So you can assume the weights of a Tesla truck and stardard truck are at least within spitting distance of each other.

Range is less of an issue since a driver is only allowed to drive a maximum of 11 hours in a 14 hour period. So assuming they drove a solid 11 hours at 60 miles per hour (since that's what the 500 mile range is based on), the standard truck can drive 160 miles further. But if you're driving 11 hours without a break, you're an idiot. And Tesla indicates that a battery can fully charge in under 30 minutes.

Last point, he estimates the battery cost alone will be $108K and $180K but Tesla has set the expected price of the actual trucks as $150K and $180K. Considering a traditional truck runs $80K - $150K, it seems the return on investment for a Tesla truck might be shorter than a traditional truck, given the economy of electric compared fossil fuel.

Great video though. Love all the math.

Well, bombing planes is not humanitarian, it's retaliatory. Humanitarian would be offering the citizens medical help, food, and protection, things we aren't doing in Syria. (Before you say this is protection, note the airport was operating the day after the missiles hit them).

It's only tit for tat if Assad actually gassed his people, which is still in question. Remember, there's a propaganda war happening there too, where both sides are liars and the 'truth' is hidden in a field of lies. Initial appearances are more often than not just propaganda.

It does send a message, that Trump is reactionary and inpatient and won't wait around for proof before acting unilaterally....and unconstitutionally. Attacking another sovereign nation clearly, unequivocally REQUIRES congressional approval by law, he didn't even seek it, much less get it. Don't ignore that, address it please.

EDIT: Another good question to ask, did this cost as much or more for us to bomb as it destroyed? Tomahawks are expensive, about $1.4 million each + the cost to deploy them (at least another $100 million +-), and 30 year old planes, a cafeteria, and above ground gas tanks, not so much....the Russians claim only $9 million in damage with fresh video evidence that they probably aren't far off with that estimate. That's a terrible return on investment coming from the deal maker in chief.

@newtboy: Seems they thought of this argument. They put quite a bit of effort in refuting this.

@RedSky

First, if it were up to me, you could take over as Minister of Finance in this country tomorrow. Our differences seem miniscule compared to what horrendous policies our last three MoF have pushed. The one prior, ironically, was dubbed the most dangerous man in Europe by The Sun.

We're in agreement on almost everything you mentioned in your last comment, so I'll focus on what I perceive differently.

First, I'd differentiate between fiscal stimulus and fiscal spending, the former being a situational application of the latter. As you said, fiscal stimulus during an economic crisis tends to be inadequate with regards to our macroeconomic objectives. You can neither whip out plans for major investments at a whim nor can you mobilize the neccessary resources quickly enough to make a difference and still be reasonable efficient. Not to mention that it only affects certain parts of the economy (construction, mostly), leaving others completely in the wind. So I'm with you on that one, it's a terribly inefficient and ineffective approach.

Automatic stabilizers work magnificently in this regard, but they barely take any pressure from the lower wage groups, especially if unemployment benefits come with a metric ton of strings attached, as is the case in Germany. A basic income guarantee might work, but that's an entirely different discussion.

The problem I see with merely relying on reasonable automatic stabilizers in the form of payments is that they do put a floor into demand, but do very little to tackle the problem of persistent unemployment due to a lack of jobs. As useful as training and education are, the mere number of highly educated people forced to work mundane jobs tells me that, at best, it doesn't work, and at worst pushes a systemic problem onto the individual, leading to immense pressure. Not to mention the psychological effects of being unemployed when employment is tauted as a defining attribute of a proper person -- aka the demonization of the unemployed.

It's still somewhat decent in Australia, but in Europe... it's quite a horrible experience.

Anyway, my point is that I'd rather see a lot more fiscal spending (permanent!) in the shape of public sector jobs. A lot of work cannot be valued properly by the market; should be done without the expectation of a return of investment (hospitals, anyone?); occurs in sectors of natural monopolies -- all of that should be publicly run. A job guarantee, like your fellow countryman Bill Mitchell advocates quite clearly, might be an approach worth trying out. Economy in the shit? More people on the public payroll, at rather low (but living wage!) wages. Do it at the county/city level and you can create almost any kind of job. If the private sector wants those people instead, they'd have to offer better working conditions. No more blackmail through the fear of unemployment -- you can always take a public job, even if it is at a meagre pay.

I should probably have mentioned that I don't buy into the notion of a stable market. From where I am standing, it's inherently unstable, be it through monopolies/oligopolies, dodging of laws and regulations (Uber), impossibility to price-in externalities (environmental damage most of all) or plain, old cost-cutting leading to a system-wide depression of demand. I'm fine with interfering in the market wherever it fails to deliver on our macroeconomic objectives -- which at this point in time is almost everywhere, basically.

Healthcare is all the rage these days, thanks to the primaries. I'd take the publicly-run NHS over the privately-run abomination in the US any day of the week. And that's after all the cuts and privatizations of the last two decades that did a horrible number on the NHS. Fuck ATOS, while we're at it.

Same for the railroad: the pre-privatization Bundesbahn in Germany was something to be proud of and an immeasurable boost of both the economy and the general standard of living.

In the mid/long run, the effects of automation and climate change-induced migration will put an end to the idea of full employment, but for the time being, there's still plenty of work to be done, plenty of idle resources to be employed, and just nobody to finance it. So why not finance it through the printing press until capacity is reached?

As for the Venezuela comparison: I don't think it fits in this case. Neither does Weimar Germany, which is paraded around quite regularly. Both Venezuela and Weimar Germany had massive supply-side problems. They didn't have the production capacity nor the resources to meet the demand they created by spending money into circulation. If an economy runs at or above its capacity, any additional spending, wherever it comes from, will cause inflation. But both Europe and the US are operating faaar below capacity in any measurable metric. You mentioned LRAS yourself. I think most estimates of it, as well as most estimates of NAIRU, are off quite significantly so as to not take the pressure off the wage slaves in the lowest income sector. You need mass unemployment to keep them in line.

As you said, the participation rate is woefully low, so there's ample space. And I'd rather overshoot and cause a short spike in inflation than remain below potential and leave millions to unneccessary misery.

Given the high level of private debt, there will be no increase in spending on that front. Corporations don't feel the need to invest, since demand is down and their own vaults are filled to the brim with cash. So if the private sector intends to net save, you either have to run a current account surplus (aka leech demand from other countries) or a fiscal deficit. Doesn't work any other way, sectoral balances always sum up to zero, by definition. If we want to reduce the dangerous levels of private debt, the government needs to run a deficit. If we don't want to further increase the federal debt, the central bank has to hand the cash over directly, without the issuance of debt through the treasury.

As for the independant central bank: you can only be independant from either the government or the private sector, not both. Actually, you can't even be truly independant from either, given that people are still involved, and people have ideologies and financial ties.

Still, if an "independant" central bank is what you prefer, Adair Turner's new book "Between Debt and the Devil" might be worth a read. He's a proponent of 100% reserve banking, and argues for the occasional use of the printing press -- though controlled by an inflation-targeting central bank. According to him, QE is pointless and in order to bring nominal demand up to the level we want, we should have a fiscal stimulus financed by central bank money. The central bank controls the amount, the government decides on what to spend it on.

Not how I would do it, but given his expertise as head of the Financial Services Authority, it's quite refreshing to hear these things from someone like him.

New jobs have been created in the last six years but the economy started at such a low point it has taken a long time to recover. Presidents and politicians, republican or democrat, have only limited control over local, national, and international economies.

Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/12/05/in-ranking-presidents-by-job-creation-obama-still-lags/

In regard to degree majors students just need to have realistic expectations of what each degree prepares them for career and earnings wise. Even though majoring in education does not return the highest income it is still valuable and important that people study it. Similarly all the majors you list are important, but they may not have a great return on investment. However of the majors you listed Animal Science, Psychology, and Hotel Management all easily transition into either real jobs or graduate work that leads to real jobs. You seem to have picked majors at random.

https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/whatsitworth-complete.pdf

On a more anecdotal note I am seeing more "Hiring" signs in local shops and restaurants than I have in the past five years.

In the current situation, "structural reforms" is used to subsume two entirely different sets of measures.

The first is meant to remove what you previously mentioned: corruption in all the shapes and forms it takes in Greece, from a (intentionally) broken tax system formed over decades of nepotism to a bankrupt national media in the hands of oligarchs. The institutions of the Greek state are precisely what you expect when a country has been run by four families (Papandreou, Samaras, Mitsotakis, Karamanlis) for basically five decades.

This kind of structural reform is part of Syriza's program. Like you said, it'll be hard work and they might very well fail. They'll have only weeks, maybe a few months to undo significant parts of what has grown over half a century. It's not fair, but that's what it is.

The second kind of "structural reform" is meant to increase competitiveness, generally speaking, and a reduction of the public sector. In case of Greece, this included the slashing of wages, pensions, benefits, public employment. The economic and social results are part of just about every article these days, so I won't mention them again. A Great Depression, as predicted.

That's the sort of "structural reforms" Syriza wants to undo. And it's the sort that is expected of Spain, Italy and France as well, which, if done, would probably throw the entire continent into a Great Depression.

I'd go so far as to call any demand to increase competitiveness to German levels madness. Germany gained its competitiveness by 15 years of beggar-thy-neighbour economics, undercutting the agreed upon target of ~2% inflation (read: 2% growth of unit labour costs) the entire time. France played by the rules, was on target the entire time, and is now expected to suffer for it. Only Greece was significantly above target, and are now slightly below target. That's only halfway, yet already more than any democratic country can take.

They could have spread the adjustment out over 20 years, with Germany running above average ULC growth, but decided to throw Greece (and to a lesser degree Spain) off a cliff instead.


So where are we now? Debt rose, GDP crashed, debt as percentage of GDP skyrocketed. That's a fail. Social situation is miserable, health care system basically collapsed, reducing Greece to North African standards. That's a fail.

Those are not reforms to allow Greece to function independently. Those are reforms to throw the Greek population into misery, with ever increasing likeliness of radical solutions (eg Golden Dawn, who are eagerly hoping for a failure of Syriza).

So yes, almost every nation in Europe needs reforms of one sort or another. But using austerity as a rod to beat discipline into supposedly sovereign nations is just about the shortest way imaginable to blow up the Eurozone. Inflicting this amount of pain on people against their will does not work in democratic countries, and the rise of Syriza, Podemos, Sinn Féin, the SNP and the Greens as well as the surge of popularity for Front National and Golden Dawn are clear indicators that the current form of politics cannot be sustained.

Force austerity on France and Le Pen wins the election.

Meaningful reforms that are to increase Europe's "prosperity" would have the support of the people. And reforms are definatly needed, given that the Eurozone is in its fifth year of stagnation, with many countries suffering from both a recession and deflation. A European Union without increasing prosperity for the masses will not last long, I'm sure of it. And a European Union that intentionally causes Great Depressions wouldn't be worth having anyway.

Yet after everything is said and done, I believe you are still absolutely correct in saying that the pro-austerity states won't blink.

Which is what makes it interesting, really. Greece might be able to take a default. They run a primary surplus and most (90%+) of the funds went to foreign banks, the ECB and the IMF anyway, or were used to stabilize the banking system. The people got bugger all. But the Greek banking system would collapse without access to the European system.

Which raises the question: would the pro-austerity states risk a collapse of the Greek banking system and everything it entails? Spanish banks would follow in a heartbeat.

As for the morality of it (they elected those governments, they deserved it): I don't believe in collective punishment, especially not the kind that cripples an entire generation, which is what years of 50+% youth unemployment and a failing educational system does.

My own country, Germany, in particular gets no sympathy from me in this case. Parts of our system were intentionally reformed to channel funds into the market, knowing full well that there was nowhere near enough demand for credit to soak up the surplus savings, nowhere near enough reliable debtors to generate a reasonable return of investment without generating bubbles, be it real estate or financial. They were looking for debtors, and if all it took was turning a blind eye to the painfully obvious longterm problems it would create in Southern Europe, they were more than eager to play along.

They talk and talk and talk, but can't provide any specific charges. Even Boehner's "lawsuit" was just....rambling with no actual specific charges.

Every time you hear nutcases talking about impeachment it's the same thing, lots of rhetoric, nothing specific, nothing that would ever hold up in a court of law. They're just being a good trained parrot.

you want to whine about the whole "lie" about keeping your doctor nonsense. Prove it...prove to me that Obama is some mustache-twirling villain that deliberately intended to deceive us and he would have gotten away were it not for those meddling Republicans. Stop treating life like it's some sort of 1980s cartoon.

Even if you could prove it..using the example of Bill Clinton deliberately lying about getting a blowjob. We then go back to the "is this really worth impeaching him over?" I believe there was a poll done at some point that supports the idea that the public wants their president to be a good liar. So make up your mind, do you want a liar or don't you?

And it's just never going to succeed and it would make the Republicans look worse than they are already. The public as a whole blame republicans for the gov't shutdown. An impeachment would be a absolute waste of time and money and for the Republicans who claim to be about fiscal conservatism, please explain to me the return on investment for this endeavor? Numerous people have argued that an impeachment would actually raise Obama's approval numbers. It's just lose lose for the republicans.

And again, we go back to the "why do we care what Quitter Palin think again?" argument.

The death of the republican party continues. I continue to wait patiently for moderate Republicans to retake their party.

I suggest you look at the figures with regard to return for investment, regarding turbines. You will, no doubt, see the frivolous waste.

Fascinating to hear the history of this.

Around his point of the labourer being paid less than their worth: I think he closes over the point of "capital" in the first place. No matter what you produce, be it cars, hammers, phones or even intangibles like software or movies, someone had to invest money in it or there would be no output. Simply saying that the initial investment is in the value of the output is gross oversimplification (ignoring the reality of things like time for return on investment, etc.)

I would consider myself fairly left leaning, but even I don't have a problem with that. What I DO have a problem with is how inequal it's become.

It used to be that an employee was paid x% of their value add. These days it has been repressed down to .5x%.

Add to that, large parts of the economy produce nothing, simply shifting money around generating capital that is grossly disproportionate to their economic input (i.e. they're making lots of money, but not employing people or buying plant).

Are you asking why evolution doesn't behave in a more efficient manner? For what purpose would you filter out the natural qualities of existence that give it diversity?

The lazy mistakes of our universe are erosion, planet formation, star formation, etc. etc. It's all mistakes. The universe doesn't care if one quality is more beneficial than another, otherwise all of existence would be perfect and in harmony -- One thing changed and causation caused another thing to happen. Because those things happened, it lead to another thing, which formed another thing in a pattern that eventually gave shape to something greater than all the random, lazy changes before it.

That's language, that's sports, that's art, that's technology, and that's mankind.

The universe is not "correct" as defined by human concepts of efficiency or return on investment. Things take time to evolve because the process of evolution is gradual and made up of changes with no particular value. We merely add value to things based upon our needs and desires. Correctness forms over time, as we either process things into "culture" or deviate from that culture for a more efficient pathway.

Poor return on investment. A promote will cost you 1 point and probably get you 5+ votes.

Would you support the closing of such loopholes used by tax evaders?

>> ^quantumushroom:


Liberals think that raising tax rates = higher revenue. Nope. The wealthy simply put their money in tax-free investments with smaller returns or invest overseas.