LouisCK routines should probably come with an auto- *nsfw* for language.

(if someone could please adjust?)

FWIW, I'm pretty much neutral on the idea. If only because we could always adjust the mechanics if it leads to problems. (See how much I love and count on you, Lucky?)

I'm sure we would see some obnoxiousness, but there are definitely cases where it could add something as well. Personally, I'd lean towards starting it out with a relatively low barrier to entry...non-Probies, or even non-hobbled. But it should probably be informed by how much effort it would actually take to change things if change were needed.

@radx

The liquidity/insolvency line is just a fancy way of asking for more money than is being provided. As I said, I expect once structural reform is fully implemented, the ECB (tacitly instructed by Germany et al) will take a much more active role in buying the debt of these countries but it's not at that stage yet. The problem is they've been slow to sell off assets, reform government and reduce public employment to levels demanded.

Again what you propose is easing that eliminates the pressure to reform, which is the intent of the troika/Germany as I see it. I just don't see any of those things happening. As I mentioned before, Greece's debt has largely stopped rising and GDP has been edging upwards since 2010 and is now positive:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/government-budget-value
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdp-growth

As far as running surpluses, I would argue if everyone was nearly as zealous as Germany, then the deficit/surplus gap between countries would narrow - which would be the best outcome globally. As you'd probably know Germany's attitude towards fiscal stability and inflation is fairly hawkish given its history with hyperinflation. But it has clearly served them well when their bond yields didn't spike during the euro crisis because of a shortage of funds.

I wouldn't characterise it as beggar thy neighbour, that's generally reserved for active measures to prevent trade from other countries (such as through tariffs or subsidies). Instead Germany from what I've read, has carved out a competitive niche for itself with it's Mittelstand. I don't know Germany history particularly here, but I assume it led to companies in industries like retail which can't compete globally reducing or being bought out.

I would compare it to what happened here in Australia with the car industry when government support for it vanished. In our case at least, the only reason the industry existed for the past couple of decades is because of that support and it should never have been propped up by the government in the first place. I don't see that really being any different to typewriters being replaced by computerisation, whale oil being replaced by fossil fuels or US manufacturing going to China (and now leaving to other areas of Asia).

Coming back to trade surpluses, for similar reasons to Germany, most Asian countries also run large trade surpluses because of their history with capital flight in the Asian financial crisis of 97. This is despite many of them developmentally being far behind Greece let alone Germany or France. There has been no Asian crisis this time around and investment into these countries (like Malaysia, the Phillippines, Vietnam and China) has hardly been low over the past 10 years.

I'm not a huge fan of QE as a policy either. Part of the problem is central banks like the ECB weren't designed with the intent of using QE, merely adjusting interest rates, let alone any direct purchases of bonds. I was a big fan of what they did here in Australia where they just gave a one off wad of money to everyone who is earning an income. We ended up avoiding a recession entirely, although our economy was doing quite well at the time.

In effect that's more fiscal policy and I can imagine it being difficult to implement in the EU across countries in an even way. Merkel is certainly too hawkish overall. Policy along those lines, unbiased investment via the EIB or let alone just implementing QE earlier (like the US did) would have helped everyone.

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.

That's a pretty poor conclusion. I would have thrown in two other points:

1. If we hit the jackpot, we only got one spin so we've never known anything else. Given how vast the universe is with respect to space and time, is it so hard to believe that there are other dimensions so unknown and vast that of course there will be a universe that supports its own continued existence, and life? I would loosely liken it to the Drake Equation, which relies on huge numbers to demonstrate that even extremely improbable things are plausible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

2. I prefer to think that these constants are actually our own invention. We invented all numbers, units, and sciences to explain how we see things behave, but because of that we have to adjust our equations to fit the way the universe behaves. That implies that these constants are not adjustable, because they are not real in the first place -- they're just more imaginary ideas of our own invention.

There is a demonstrated bias towards equity investment domestically which is probably what Adam Smith was talking about, which is rather different to tax havens and global supply chains which would not have been as feasible back in the 18th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_bias_puzzle

Chomsky is also not really correct as Adam Smith does use it in the more general sense that it is referred to today in The Theory of Moral Sentiments. That it took me a couple of minutes to contradict this video with wikipedia does not bode well for the fact checking of TYT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Other_uses_of_the_phrase_by_Smith

I think it's also worth pointing out that Smith's position wasn't that of unrestrained market activity. The general principle of the invisible hand is sound if you accept that point. As far as his actual position on the role of government, it's open to interpretation. It's also worth pointing out that you can't expect a concept to not need some adjustment after 250 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#As_a_symbol_of_free_market_economics

Absolutely they are, in my eyes, their beliefs demand it. They must 'exclude' themselves from following their own beliefs (which is ironic, since that's why they harass and kill the doctors) because something bothers them based on BS they've been told by others (like a blastocyst is a person). If one of the main tenants of your belief is 'treat others as you would have them treat you', yet you ignore that, and another is 'thou shall not kill', but you ignore that too, you can no longer stand on the tenants of your belief system to excuse or explain your action, you don't follow that belief system.
Again, I disagree. People may hold any insane notion they wish, so long as they don't ACT on it. The problem is that they ACT, not that they believe insanity. That they believe insanity is the REASON they act. It's kind of like saying the problem with thieves is not that they steal, but that they don't make enough money. But many, if not most thieves have money.

Many people hold bad ideologies without acting on them. In America, you are allowed, in fact guaranteed the right to believe any crazy thing you wish. It's only how you act on those beliefs we are interested in. For instance, I think what Mormons believe is completely obvious insane BS, but it seems to create a group of people that's well adjusted, happy, kind, and not angry or abusive (plural marriages and 'Profits' notwithstanding). For me, what's in your mind is your own, I only care about how you act in the real world.

I completely disagree with your last sentence. ONLY the action is relevant IMO.

Better adjust your hat for the camera, don't want to look disheveled while working in a dead animal's cavity.

This is a very "limited" presentation on this topic. The only reason we aren't on Mars right now is (surprise!) money.

Would you like to know more?



A few points to consider:
Total cost of the USA war in Iraq:

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said."

TOTAL cost of NASA's budget over the last 50 years since its inception and adjusted for inflation:

$790 billion

I think the Democratic voters failed to turn out for a few reasons. All the media made it seem like it was going to be a Republican win, even the "liberal media" was portraying it that way. This led to a defeatist "what can I do?" mentality. Another is that Democrats failed to really push a couple key issues, namely raising the minimum wage and equal pay for equal work. Heck, even just saying that minimum wage will be tied to inflation and go up with inflation each yet, even if it isn't fully adjusted to where it would be now, would have been a big step forward. They shied away from those, just like when they passed Obamacare they shied away from single payer or the government option that was promised and instead gave us an old Republican plan under the assumption Republicans would be glad the Democrats caved in and accepted a Republican idea.

The Democrats failed to deliver largely because Republican obstructionism. This isn't to absolve them of their failure during the two years they could have really moved forward with a true progressive agenda.

Fox News and the pulpit have the Republican voter base convinced to vote Republican, that Obama is singlehandedly destroying America (I'm surrounded by these people every day, I have to unfortunately live with them, I used to be a right wing, Christian Republican myself, then became a right wing Christian Libertarian before I actually started applying real critical thought to the economic impact of the policies as society stands now and became more Liberal). The pulpit has convinced these people that it doesn't matter Jesus said to help the needy and the poor, to heal the sick, and basically everything 100% opposite of the beliefs of the Republican party, to vote Republican anyhow, and it to be the Christian vote. They deny being Christian Reconstructionist while being clearly Reconstructionist. They say things like "if you actually think about it critically, CO2 is good for plants, so their argument is silly" and they accept it, because plants absorb CO2 they think that CO2 emissions can't be as bad as the environmentalist say it is, after all, greenhouses pump CO2 into them to make plants grow better. Again I was guilty of repeating that sort of non-sense. Then it occurred to me there are no walls around plants in the wild, there is no ceiling to help keep CO2 near where plants are, and the fact that very little of the Earth is filled with green (let alone the fact most plants are doing as much CO2 exchange as they can already).... that most of the Earth is blue... that yes the ocean absorbs CO2, but in doing to warms it and that drives massive changes including storms in of itself and learned the real consequences of CO2 emissions.

As Ralph Nader recently pointed out (http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-on-GOP-8482-s-2014-Wins) the Democrats can't just blame Citizens United or attempts by Republicans to try and limit voting among the poor, they have to take a look at the fact they didn't push the issues that most Americans stand behind but didn't push.

I like the idea of moving elections to the weekend. That probably would help more than some calls of late to make it a Federal Holiday. Most places don't close on Federal Holiday's anyhow, so that won't really help as much as moving it to a weekend... of course one could also argue that people might not want to take time out of their weekends to vote.

Even then. Take a selection of equivalently priced film and digital cameras (adjusted for inflation) and give them to a range of photographers.

I'd bet large amounts of money that aside from the very top tier photographers using top tier SLRs, digital will beat film every day.

What do you mean? Do you mean they include reductions in deaths because of that? Yes. Do you mean is there an adjustment to try and offset that? No.

Automotive deaths are a raw number, so it shows how many people die in a given area. It isn't something that is adjusted, it is the actual number of people who die. That then gets broken down by the cause.

In general if you are interested in evidence of increased vehicle safety leading to less deaths you can look at the deaths per million vehicle miles traveled. Basically, as people drive more, in general deaths would go up. However better safety in cars has been doing a good job of reducing deaths, despite miles traveled increasing.

Hmmm. Debatable. Film is sort of "analog", so a good film picture can be blown up / magnified much more than a digital picture before it would look muddy/pixely. On the other hand, for anyone outside of professional photographers, getting a good digital picture is MUCH easier than getting a good film picture. I remember average-to-cheap film cameras that had to be focused, needed just the right light, no motion in the subject, etc. whereas even cheap digital cameras tend to auto-adjust to that stuff much better.

Guards have the power to make it what they wish. Inmates do not. The guards choose to make it gross, dehumanizing, and worse. We should NOT feel sad or understanding for them, as they did it to themselves intentionally. Feel sad for the one's with 0 power to control the situation, less and less control over their own actions and surroundings, and the one's that are the victims of the system they didn't set up, not the one's perpetrating and perpetuating the one sided system set up to punish and control rather than correct and re-habilitate. Not the one's that lobby to create MORE prisoners for smaller and smaller crimes, including the crime of poverty.
BTW....boring is NOT more humane in most cases. Lack of stimulation leads to psychosis, behavior problems, and does absolutely nothing to re-habilitate. "Idle hands are the devil's tools..." and such. Just look at any study of what happens to those in solitary, a normal 'boring' type of imprisonment today. You don't get well adjusted citizens from that, you get angry, violent, paranoid, psychotic people out of that....and they go right back in. It's perfect for the prisons, but not for anyone else. I think private prisons should have to pay back part of their 'fees' if a prisoner re-offends. (EDIT: or better yet, they should have to re-imprison them for free, since they failed the first time and 'created' the re-offender by not re-habilitating them. Guaranteed, it would change overnight if that was the case.) It means they failed completely in re-habilitation, a large part of what they're paid for, and so they should not be paid in full.
'Would rather live out west'?....as opposed to living in prison? Um...yeah, I think most people would choose that.

'You are here because of your actions, don't blame the corrections dept, or the cops, or the judge...'
He intentionally ignores the fact that the corrections dept is the largest lobbying group in Washington and lobbies for more draconian laws and mandatory sentences because that's how they make money. No inmates, no dough.

'You gave up your rights by committing murder....committing rape....'
He intentionally ignores the fact that most convicts are in prison for non-violent drug crimes, not murder, not rape, not violent crime at all.

'This is prison utopia...for the inmates.'
He seems too dense and set in his 'us VS them' mentality to see that it's prison utopia for the guards too, and society in the long run because this prison doesn't create violent criminals, it creates well adjusted citizens.

Imagine that, treating inmates like human beings, because we want them to act like human beings when they're released. And big surprise, it works! Not only less recidivism, but less problems while they're in the system as well.
Thanks to privatization and profitization of prisons and lobbying by prison guard unions, and a mindset by so many that all 'criminals' are sub-humans that don't deserve proper treatment, we'll never see this in the USA.