That's an odd stance to take, since Hamas HAD stopped firing rockets, then Israel made up another 'reason' to start bombing them again mercilessly (a murder), while Israelis also got 'revenge' by burning a Palestinian boy alive. The homes of the accused (by Israel) murders, their families, and for good measure their political leaders and police leaders were bombed to 'retaliate' for the murder, but in Israel there's NO retaliation for the burned alive boy against families, political leaders, or police. The Hamas rockets didn't fire until AFTER Israel attacked in force again, killing mostly civilians.
Once again, FAIL.
Hamas is doing what it can to look like it's trying to protect it's people. Israel, with our help and support, has ensured their options are quite limited and basically useless.
All Israel has to do to protect it's people is turn on the iron dome defense system we gave them, and maybe stop bombing trapped civilian targets in a barrel of Israel's construction. Oh, and may stop slowly invading the already tiny, ever shrinking country to the left. Everyone seems to forget that Israel has consistently expanded into it's neighbors by force, then cried foul if anyone balks and starts bombing neighborhoods again. Over and over.
#isolate Israel. (since # free Palestine gets so much play and outrage lately)

1) Northern Europe is the closest comparison income wise to the US besides Japan which is culturally very different. I don't think it's unreasonable to aggregate these countries in comparing. There isn't going to be a perfect example, but Russia is very far from it.

Your argument about the death penalty is a null point because what you're proposing is impractical and thus not worth debating.

2) & 3) Greenland has a GDP per capita of 22K and is a highly idiosyncratic example given its population density. I think that's pretty much self evident. If Greenland is your best example I think I've proven my point.

I have no doubt that greater surveillance and enforcement will reduce crime rates. I'm not disputing that. Technology will naturally improve this through the likes of ever improving facial recognition. But I don't think a UK style CCTV policing system would be affordable given that the US is less densely populated in cities. As for enforcement, I don't think there's been a lack of money thrown in that direction. The issue, as this video points out, is more that if it was targeted at violent rather than drug offenders the overall benefit to society would be greater. There I would not disagree.

4)

Germany and the Netherlands are other examples where it has worked:

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/11/14/some-european-prisons-are-shrinking-and-closing-what-can-america-learn

What you're proposing (visa vi death penalty) is something no democratic country has accepted (or will, I think). What I propose is at least accepted by to a large extent by many European developed countries. The US may shift eventually if it is recognised the current policies have been consistently failing.

5)

Yes there are many reasons why Venezuela is not a fair example. I think you make my point. Surveillance and enforcement are both necessary to reduce crime. Of course if you pick countries distinctly lacking in them then it supports your case.

But I'm arguing about which would be better given the baseline of current US policy. I think you would agree that both surveillance and enforcement are of a much higher standard in the US, with largely meritocratic and corruption free police forces. If that's the case then other developed countries, with roughly similar incomes and therefore tax revenues to afford comparable police force standards are a good reference. Venezuela is not.

shrink-e-dinks

Um...yes, that's what SHE likely meant, (didn't the woman say that?) but not what I said, which you must have misread since you claimed NDT contradicted it.
I said their claim only made sense if you ONLY take late fall and winter into account and discount the rest of the year, when the ice caps are shrinking.

@gorillaman

Why would we need to quintuple resources by 2100 if population is only forecast to grow 50%? There is no shortage of potential arable land and more would be made room for if food prices were to rise (bringing them back down).

As I said before, I'm not debating environmental damage and climate change need to be addressed. But you address it directly, you don't attempt to reduce the world population to <1Bn ... somehow, like you propose.

No, corporations primarily do cause environmental harm, particularly climate change:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

That's why changing their incentives directly through taxes or emission schemes is the best approach. I would almost say that attempting to reduce your carbon footprint at a individual level is an exercise in self masturbatory indulgence, which while gratifying is completely insignificant. It's the by-products of all the everyday products that you consume during the industrial process that create the vast majority or pollutants.

3rd paragraph - I've already addressed everything there several times here. You simply are not acknowledging the facts:

http://priceofoil.org/2013/11/26/new-analysis-shows-growing-fossil-reserves-shrinking-carbon-budget/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/nov/26/why-fossil-fuel-reserves-growing-oil-carbon

Does our current reliance on carbon based energy precipitate environmental issues with regards to global warming in the future? Obviously, but an international agreement on raising the cost of it, to reduce our reliance on it, is more likely than an agreement on enforced family size limits.

I am absolutely advocating forced population control.

@RedSky

I look forward to sharing my nothing with everyone else's nothing according to the infallible dictates of the market. Your scenario is one in which an ever increasing number of people compete for ever-dwindling resources. Wouldn't it be better to just leave one another a little space?

There's only so much energy, only so much land, only so much fresh water, only so much food (the very least of our concerns), only so much supply of rare minerals, only so much capacity for the environment to absorb pollutants. There are other problems. We may be happy to share what we have with others, how nice, but where do we acquire the right to impoverish everyone else with the burden of our excess offspring? Our share is shrinking all the time due to the actions of criminals who can't keep their legs crossed.

I don't recognise the mild and temporary problem of an aged population as being within two orders of magnitude of all the multifarious harms caused by overpopulation.

@Sniper007

It is my job, it is everyone's job, to police the world. If you're attending a party and you see another guest setting fire to the curtains you do not say,
"Well, it's not my job to stop them. I'll just stand here controlling my own activities, teaching the virtues of not setting fire to the curtains while the house incidentally burns down around me."

> "[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that
> does not match my perception of reality"

Well, far be it from me to try to introduce you to some basic epistemologies to which you may not be familiar: like rationalism, deduction, etc, in order to move you away from "authority" as the only path to knowledge you seem to use. Unfortunately, however, this "authority" method is inappropriate to the study of economics.

> "So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here,
> ever."

Keynes and Hayek were at it for a while. It's all in the two hip-hop videos.

> "It's utterly pointless."

Yes. There is nothing new not covered by Keynes vs. Hayek.

> "Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. "

Bad thymology (my interpretation).

> "He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand.
> The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates
> into demand."

I see. So, by this logic, any making of money is, in itself, a "weakening" of society. Unless I'm a socialist, like David Simon, then I cannot make money without also "weakening" society.

> "But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was
> probably hogwash to you."

Yes, at best hogwash. Alas, I've no interest in going into this with you, especially since you've no have interest in actually looking at it. Had you any interest at all -- or studied the subject beyond deferring to the "authority" method of epistemology -- you could at least provide me with a concise explanation as to why you think the Austrian/Misean economic position falters. Rather than thinking for yourself, however, you dismiss it as "wrong," "right-wing," or "pointless" to debate or go into. "Here Be Monsters, period."

The Keynes/Hayek debates have the similar tones, with Keynes simply ignoring all of Hayek's points, evasions, and going off into something else. You clearly agree with the Keynesian approach/theory, which likely means you cannot really explain anything except through unfounded claims, that are "pointless" to argue, debate, or rationally defend.

As I have said before, one cannot have this sort of intellectual relationship with those either unwilling or unable to grasp basic economic principles, like for example those clearly explained by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." There's simply no common language through which to communicate. Confronted with these kinds of beliefs, one can either try to educate (but only those who ask for it, since attempting to educate those who do not want to be educated will likely fail, as any public school teacher can tell you) or one can pull out the snake oil and the cash register. The third option involves ignoring such ignorance altogether, and use what one knows for one's own financial and life benefit in ways that don't involve such people in the first place.

There are so many errors in the Keynesian 'demand' theory of economics (you can find much on that if you want to read up on it), but Keynesians tend to avoid any real debates. You're coming from the Keynesian fallacy of saving money as being bad for the economy (because spending it all/consumerism is supposedly what gets the economy going). And the even more absurd fallacy which presupposes (with no proof of it at all) that rich people keep most of their wealth stored somewhere outside of circulation. When in reality, rich people only save some and the richer they are the more they spend/invest. Of course, when the economy seem fragile, due to central banks meddling, bubbles, etc., investors get nervous and don't invest as much a they otherwise would. When they don't invest, it shrinks supply of things people would want to spend on. Demand does nothing, it doesn't exist, if there is nothing to supply that people want to buy.

In fact, I am starting to think that central bankers are not really Keynesian at all, in the sense that they don't really believe their own bullshit. They know better but also know how to exploit their positions as central bankers, making folks like @radx buy into it, the snake oil. For example, he may not care for gold, but bankers do. Whatever they say against it, folks will still buy it, both for themselves and the banks they run. And as @radx rightly says, he's a human. And apparently he can sell his 'charm' if push comes to shove.

"Though your conscience is in the right place you also have a pragmatic streak and generally aren’t afraid to do your own dirty work! You’re no shrinking violet - but no daredevil either. You generally have little trouble seeing things from another person’s perspective but, at the same time, are no pushover. ‘Everything in moderation – including moderation’ might sum up your approach to life."

48 %

DUde how can you crave that stuff?? It's so salty and Nasty....
Now Vienna Sausages (made with pork, beef, chicken-the 3-M's) slathered in mustard? MMMmm, mm.... Ok, that's nasty, too.

Spam is tolerable while camping, sliced super thin and thrown on the griddle to wiggle an shrink-

At the end of the movie, the camera pulls back to a frazzled old man in an insane asylum talking to his shrink. "And that's how it really happened!", he proclaims, before being led back to his cell. The screen cuts to black, an image of a middle finger fades in on screen, a chorus of fart noises blare out and the credits begin to roll.

It's official. Yahtzee is 100% troll.

This game is nothing short of amazing. It's graphically impressive (not as much as The Last of Us for example, but one has to consider the scale and freedom of one and the other), there's tons to do and see, and the gameplay is pretty fun. Yes the characters are all terrible people, but that's all part of the charm. Even the shrink is an asshole. Walter White was an awful person and Breaking Bad was still amazing.

Dude.

READ.

"What it boils down to is this; the chief benefit of legalizing prostitution is that it gives us a chance to protect the workers and possibly take a bite out of crime in the process. However, legalization is not the end, as criminal abuse of the workers can and will happen if the law isn't properly enforced.

It is perfectly possible, and perhaps even plausible, that trafficking continues to flourish even in countries where prostitution has been legalized, but is that an issue of weak legislation and enforcement, or is it simply an issue that is inherent to prostitution?"

But I guess it's easier to claim that I said the OPPOSITE of what I actually said when you just cut out everything but a single sentence from my original comment.

And when I said that newtboy made good points, I was talking about stuff like;

"Ending a prohibition does not eradicate the huge black market that prohibition created, but it can shrink it to a manageable size. If they legalized brothels in the Netherlands but don't do any regulation, they'll never remove the black market/sex slave trade."

Or...

"My question would be, do the prosecutors believe legalization contributed to their ability to prosecute this case, or is it the consensus that legalization has made it easier for the criminals to make slaves of women? Either could be the case based on this article."

If you cherry-pick specific sentences or cut out most of the text in our messages and then substitute our arguments with your own interpretations of our positions, you are going to make it impossible for us to communicate.

Yes, that is my position.
You are correct, there is way more illegal prostitution in Nevada than legal prostitution, there are only 2 legal brothels that I know of. That leaves a huge black market which fosters crime and abuse. There is 0% slavery in the legal brothels, they make plenty of money without slaves and they don't want to lose their license to print money. If there were enough legal brothels, there would be far less illegal prostitution, an far fewer prostitutes being taken advantage of. It will likely never reach 0%.
I can't speak to the article you quoted/link, I don't have a WSJ account and so can't read the article. I would bet that the truth is that it has curbed (but not completely ended) human trafficking by brothels. (there are many kinds of trafficking, and legal brothels would only serve to make one of them less profitable and/or too dangerous, so the fact that it "failed to stem human trafficking" is meaningless and fallacious.)
Ending a prohibition does not eradicate the huge black market that prohibition created, but it can shrink it to a manageable size. If they legalized brothels in the Netherlands but don't do any regulation, they'll never remove the black market/sex slave trade. If that's what they've done (and I don't know) they may as well have just stopped prosecuting any prostitution. The end game is the same, and simple 'no prosecution' is way cheaper than changing laws.

we're definitely not shrinking the military. It's just that a lot of the money gets shunted over to the private contractors. more than what goes to the troops themselves probably. The contractors get to buy homes in Dubai, while the troops themselves are stuck in the trenches.

Had a guy who did this at a place I worked at. We wrapped the entire car in bubble wrap and then shrink wrapped that.