>> ^probie:

Grew up watching Jim Varney. Dr. Otto and the Riddle of the Gloom Beam anyone? One of my favorite spots of his was an anti-smoking PSA he did, where he chided Vern for smoking. "I care about ya buddy! But if you keep going like this, the groundhogs will be deliverin' yer mail, know what I mean?"
If they ever do a biopic, I nominate Mike Rowe.


Mike Rowe is like Ernest's evil twin Nash. All that workin out in prison. It'd be interesting to see him behave with such... timidity? Ernest isn't what I'd call a man's man. His strength lies in his pure ignorance and ingenuity, such that he holds to antiquated notions of chivalry and, not realizing the true nature of his enemies, fear does not hold sway.

Ernest underestimates his enemies and is easily defeated, coming back with something so wacky it works. Like someone that doesn't know how to play chess throwing off a chess master. Mike Rowe would not underestimate the enemy and would create a more logical and less fantastical battle plan.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Payback:
Victoria, BC native too.

Actually, Steve Nash is a native of South Africa (who lives in Canada).


Actually, when you move to Victoria, you become a native within 48 hours.





It's like a disease.

>> ^Payback:

Victoria, BC native too.


Actually, Steve Nash is a native of South *Africa (who lives in Canada).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'YES, YES, FROM, THE, BOSS' to 'steve nash, basketball, nba, highlight' - edited by xxovercastxx

And Steve Nash is with Lakers. I hope he can do well with them since he is not young anymore.

Also, how is this jazz? *hiphop

undead undead >> ^siftbot:

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video <a rel="nofollow" id="postlink-181091" href="http://videosift.com/video/Southern-Cross-live-by-Crosby-Stills-and-Nash">Southern Cross, live by Crosby, Stills and Nash. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Southern Cross, live by Crosby, Stills and Nash. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Steve, Nash, Tooth, Chip, Interview' to 'Steve, Nash, Tooth, Chip, Interview, college humor' - edited by Boise_Lib

@NetRunner Honestly, I'm unimpressed. Peter Schiff may not be John Nash, but you sound like Chris Matthews. Do you get your economic wisdom from Mother Jones or HuffPo?


So the response to "I doubt he's really paying 50% in taxes" is not to recount even a hypothetical example of how someone could wind up paying a sum total of 50% in taxes, but instead to just argue that the dubious statement might feel true because there are many various taxes someone might be paying?

Hypothetical example (which I thought I outlined for you): Peter Schiff owns/runs a business as his primary mode of income. That business pays a 35% corporate tax rate on their profits. The remaining profits translate into capital gains, which are then taxed at 15%. While obviously the tax rates aren't perfectly additive (15% of 65% is smaller than 15% of 100%), you can still see how one could quickly approach 50% in taxes. I haven't even included any local taxes or consumption taxes. These aren't dubious statements. These are facts about the tax code which progressives should learn to wise up to. There is a valid point there about streamlining the tax code. Like you said... Meh.


The response to my argument about the impact of marginal tax increases on employment is to make some argument about Schiff's personal labor/leisure preferences? That has nothing to do with it at all. If Schiff is the entrepreneurial capitalist he claims to be (and not just the F-list media personality he seems to be), then he doesn't really do any direct labor, he just makes choices about allocations of capital -- he makes investment decisions, and business deals where all the real work is done by other people.

He's making the case that if he has to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, he's going to start walking away from making investment deals that would have made his company money and employed people. Hell, he goes so far as to say that he would dissolve his ostensibly profitable business and fire all his employees, rather than sell it to someone else who still likes making money, even if they have to pay taxes.

Making investment deals and business decisions isn't quite like arguing on the internet and playing video games. You have to meet people, negotiate, spend basically all day on the phone or in a plane. You don't have much time for your family (though I don't know if he has one). While it may not be coal mining, it's certainly work. It's at least as much work as the people typing things into excel between trips to the water cooler are doing. It's quite possible that if he were to decide to leave, or cut back his hours worked (because of government disincentive), the firm would downsize or even fail. All those workers whose paychecks depended on his profitable decision making could be out of work. Now like I said, someone else might hire back those same workers (e.g. if he sold the firm), however there is no guarantee the business will be as profitable without their greatest profit engine (Schiff himself). Like I further argued, if there were someone equally capable of running the firm as profitably, they would likely already be a competitor.


As for the "buying labor low" argument, which sector is doing that? Right now what they're doing is shedding lots of employees, not paying out raises, cutting health benefits, and hoping that if/when they need more labor, the extended period of unemployment will provide them with a pool of desperate talent willing to work for far less than they would have pre-2007.

Right, because the government won't let the labor market correct. They keep propping everybody up with prolonged unemployment (I've known somewhat skilled people that wouldn't take jobs because unemployment pays better), and direct government employment. It is happening within some sectors, particularly highly skilled labor. Perhaps you've heard of the skills gap in the current employment picture? For example, the university I'm at is shedding lecturers, and poaching high-valued researchers from struggling institutions. There have been plenty of proposals to bridge this skills gap in more industrial sectors as well, e.g. turning unemployment benefits into vocational training. But instead you took a left turn towards "the mean corporations won't do things that are against their interests."


It's true that once upon a time, back when we had a lot of unionization, a lot of companies hoarded talent in exactly the manner you describe, so they could potentially enter into the expansion with a competitive advantage. But that's the old way of thinking, back when labor was broadly considered a valuable company resource, and not simply a fungible commodity to be purchased or discarded as needed. Offshore contractors, anyone?

Now you're a protectionist? Have you heard of "cost centers" and "profit centers?" Profit centers (valued labor) don't get outsourced. Cost centers (commoditized, fungible, unskilled, expensive labor) do. With regard to unions, it has often been their own inflexibility with their contracts (not that executives aren't equally guilty with bonuses) that has resulted in layoffs as opposed to shared pain (evenly spread hour reductions).


Lastly about the "leave the money where the market put it" -- that's a good one! You seamlessly pivoted from "economics as a theory for understanding the world" to "economics as a system of moral justice". Nicely done, you're pretty good at talking like a conservative!

Thanks. I think it's important to be able to see all sides rather than just cheerlead. Also, "economics" is theory, "the market" is the most efficient system for allocating resources with respect to individual preferences known to man. We can talk about our favorite flawed microeconomic assumptions if you want, but it's a tough case that "because I said so" is going to be more efficient than voluntary exchange.


Still it doesn't address my basic economic argument at all -- that our high unemployment is fundamentally a function of a lack of demand. Lots of people don't have money to spend, even on things they desperately need. The handfuls of people who do have money don't see any way to employ that money in a profitable way, so they're just sitting on it. There's a few ways to try to solve that problem, but cutting (or maintaining existing) taxes on the top income earners won't help.

(I get nauseous arguing against the Keynesian point so I won't directly). What I'll say is that it isn't clear drastically raising taxes on the rich will help either. What might help is a more efficient allocation of the government revenue we already have (like the vocational training instead of unemployment I outlined above). The other thing that I, and I think many others would like to see is an increase in the standard of living of individual business proprietors. They've been doing worse than "traditional labor" over the past few decades in case you haven't noticed.


A simple, but radical solution would be for the Fed to simply buy up everyone's mortgages, and then release the leins on everyone's deeds. In other words, just have Uncle Sam pay off everyone's mortgage with freshly-printed money. I suspect consumer spending would return if we did that!

I do too! I bet everyone would go leverage themselves to the gills buying houses knowing full well that when they can't cover the debt the government will bail them out! Sure, stopgap coverage, renegotiation, all that would be great (much better than bailing out the banks directly IMO), but a full fledged free money party only exacerbates the delusion. It's a recipe for currency debasement. People need to be allowed to demonstrate and feel the consequences of their lack of creditworthiness. Also, those that were creditworthy should be appropriately rewarded. It's sort of like the OWS girl that wants rich people to pay back her 100gs in student loans, but all those people that saved for college, worked for scholarships, held a job through school, well they're probably just fine the way they are.


As for my closing quip, I'm quite serious -- Schiff doesn't deserve any respect or deference. It's not classy to be deferential to the expertise of people who don't actually have any; it's foolish.

You don't find common ground, build coalitions, or change minds with ridicule.

Excellent, and the timing is pretty good, got me laughing. Although I STILL don't see my favorite - In the WWII epic "A Bridge Too Far", at the end Sean Connery says "Well, as you know I've always thought that we tried to go a bridge too far..."

Also, what about Pluto Nash? (then again, what ABOUT Pluto Nash?)

>> ^deathcow:

These guys sold out fast in an accousticly great place in Anchorage. On the concert day I won a ticket last minute and sat with a gorgeous blonde who won the seat next to mine also at the last minute on the same dial in radio contest.


sounds fantastic!

Oh Kevin Nash, you will do anything for money!

No Pluto Nash? Don't you know he's THE MAN on the moon?


>> ^evilspongebob:

1 Battlefield Earth
2 Passion of the Christ
3 Superman 4
4 An Inconvenient Truth
5 Star Trek - Final Frontier
6 Indiana Jones and The Crystal Skull
7 A.I
8 Independence Day
9 Armageddon
10 What the Bleep do we Know?
>> ^csnel3:
when I list my top 10 science fiction movies this is one of them.
Has somebody already started a sift talk on "name your top 10 SciFi movies"?
#1- Alien
...... Discuss

i have these two stellar vids and they are both embed disabled...boooo.
thought you might appreciate them also.
ST 2009 fire everything-freedom fighters-two steps from hell remix:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxaPLHUxF8I
and BT-running down the way up-feat leigh nash and starring mira sorvino:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNRQXP5QpFY

Thanks for promoting my anthem.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote