Did you ever consider they ganged up on him because he's so incredibly anti American and destructive that anyone who cares about American Democracy would oppose him, Democrats, Republicans, independents, honest media, the intelligence community, law enforcement, etc? Probably not, you're convinced his party is turning on him because he's winning too much.

Lol. Steele dossier....the one that was just upheld in court when Trump's lible/slander cases were thrown out....or did you not know that?

Yes. It was the turn to backing him that was the wrong, self serving, proven short sighted move.

Trump has not sold out conservative principles, he's thrown them in the trash and shit on them. Clearly principles are NOT what you hang your hat on, he has none and you've admitted it privately.

The creature from the bronze lagoon was hardly the one to help clean up the swamp, and his most criminally convicted administration ever is pretty good proof of that.

That $80 you got goes away in a few years and becomes a raise in your taxes by around $160, in case you won't read the actual law. You didn't get a tax break, you got a tax raise and a 5 year loan packaged as a tax break, and you bought it. Trump, according to economists that studied his public holdings, stands to gain around $1 million per year forever....his tax breaks are permanent. Not what he said, but you don't care he outright lied to you about it for months, do you, yet one corrected mistake by Clinton (Benghazi was a protest over Koran burnings in America, quickly retracted) and you still think she'll be indicted for....something you're incapable of naming, but something.

Fuck, Bob. Your insistence on backing Trump's every move no matter what has made you bat shit insane, inconsistent, and totally disconnected from reality. I hope you can get therapy.

Pretty much everything @ChaosEngine said, and as pointed out in the Humans Need Not Apply video. There are far more factors going into this than the economists are willing to look at.

Shelf checkouts might result in slightly higher theft rates, and each person might be at the register than they would be with a properly trained cashier, but you now have one minimum wage employee watching 6 or 12 registers, rather than 6 or 12 people... that is a huge savings. That's 5 to 11 jobs lost, and at the low end, where people can least afford to lose job opportunities. It's just a matter of time until McDonald's, Wendy's and the like all add app-based ordering, or ordering at a kiosk, and that saves a couple employees there (Chick-fil-a already has that in their app, order, notify when you are there, they process the order)... and it wouldn't be too difficult to automate the McDonald's cooking line either... the burgers aren't flipped, the grill cooks both sides at the same time, drop them in place, grill down, cook, up, then put them in the stream tray, easy for a cheap bot to do. Portion control would be far easier with a bot too... there are huge incentives for them to move to automate...

The only real incentive not to automate as fully as everyone can is the fact it would cause a huge disruption to the economy if a Universal Basic Income isn't in place. I'd expect the biggest push for a UBI to eventually come from the various industries that want to automate, who'd gladly pay an automation tax to help pay the UBI in order to greatly increase their bottom lines, because we are very close to where a UBI, even based on an automation tax, is still cheaper than employing people.

Your video, Arthur Laffer, Economist to the Rich and Republican, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Wait wait wait... do you mean to tell me Trump ISN'T one of the smartest people ever? He's not smarter than all the generals, economists, etc? So he's been lying to us this whole time? I mean, he's clearly stated "I'm like.. a really smart person, ok." I just.. I mean... this is all very confusing and overwhelming.

Mark Blyth is my third favorite Scot, right after two brothers who are dear friends of mine. After his famous interview for Athens Live, every video of his released by the Watson Institute has pretty much been a must-watch, particularly his takes on "The Deplorables" and the Front Nationale.

I got his book "Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea" after it was praised heavily over at NakedCapitalism 3-4 years ago -- to me, there is no bigger compliment for an economist than praise by Yves and the commentariat over at NC.

His takes on the mercantilism of Germany are among the best, and by far the clearest. Bill Mitchell had some great pieces on it as well, but Blyth's capacity for facilitating understanding of these concepts is on a different level entirely.

So do I disagree with him on parts of his economic analysis? Yes, but only on the fringes where MMT/functional finance is concerned.

Check out the companion talk to his book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM

And a recent bit:
https://youtu.be/vGiHiZyKuAE?t=43m2s (juicy, this one)

Punchline for an old joke about opening a can of beans on a desert isle:

Economist: First, assume a can opener....

"Your gonna be on Gawker"

Lol, no he aint.

You might be right about the coup being a deception, but I also think that that's the opposite of Occam's razor. Saying that Erdogan ordered / incited / allowed the coup in order to facilitate greater dictatorial authority for himself is a more complex explanation than saying it's a poorly executed military coup. The world has seen failed coups before, so it's not an impossibility.

The least complex explanation would be that it was a poorly executed, earnest coup attempt. The second least complex explanation would be that it was a poorly executed coup attempt that Erdogan allowed to happen because he was confident that it would play into his hands. The third least complex explanation is that it was a poorly executed coup attempt funded by the CIA to undermine a potential Putin ally? http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21702337-turkish-media-and-even-government-officials-accuse-america-being-plot-after

I've largely opted out of this one. I'm not an economist or an expert in european law, so I haven't the knowledge to make an intelligent choice.

I am somewhat naturally inclined toward remaining: there was never a trace of patriotism in my soul, and the european courts at least have done some service toward protecting british freedoms, both from our government and from those corporations who'd like to own it. The common market's a good principle, and I don't have anything but admiration for the idea of a european superpower to oppose the twin fascisms of the US and China.

I never thought I'd grow up to care about immigration, but it turns out I don't like seeing millions of social conservatives marching into western europe from lesser cultures, pushing back against the progress we've made in recent decades.

There's another dimension to that question in the UK, which I don't think is well understood externally: where absolutely anyone with a european passport is allowed permanent residence here, the government keeps the figures down to appease its more xenophobic voters by making it practically impossible for those outside the EU. So, every year we tell thousands of highly skilled, highly intelligent prospective immigrants to just fuck off. Good policy.

In any event, I don't endorse unjust systems like democracy, and wouldn't vote in any referendum.

Good point. I admit I'm mostly quoting The Economist's recent article on it, since I haven't compared them myself:

"Meanwhile, fees as a percentage of assets under management have dropped from 0.68% in 1983 to 0.12% today (see chart). This compares with an industry average of 0.61% (or 0.77%, when excluding Vanguard itself). Fees on its passive products, at 0.08% a year, are less than half the average for the industry of 0.18%. Its actively managed products are even more keenly priced, at 0.17% compared with an average of 0.78%."

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21700401-vanguard-has-radically-changed-money-management-being-boring-and-cheap-index-we

Also: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21700390-rise-low-cost-managers-vanguard-should-be-celebrated-slow-motion-revolution

Totally agree with you on diversifying across index funds (as safe as fund managers are in theory compared to other financial institutions, I would never assume any financial company is 'safe') and of course staying under $250K FDIC insurance level.

The Donald said something sensible:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11639292/donald-trump-default-print-money

To quote the St. Louis Fed, again: "As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills."

People talk about how much dollar value media exposure he got for free, but I think it's more the lack of criticism by networks afraid of losing access to him. That and being afraid of alienating the viewers who support him.

Instead you get the usual news equivocation of opposing views as equally valid and the treating of his policy ideas as serious proposals no matter how loony.

Similar to the Daily Show under Stewart, polit-satire shows like Colbert are able to get away with more direct criticism because it's under the umbrella of 'it's comedy, so everything is fair game' so I wouldn't equate him with more general TV news coverage.

Plenty of written coverage has been very good (Economist, Vox, hell even Fox had some good criticism):

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/03/any-republican-who-thinks-its-better-to-elect-trump-than-hillary-needs-their-head-examined.html

But obviously that has a much narrower reach or effect on publicity.

Yeah, that Krugman piece was pretty ridiculous.
'It wasn't the big banks that caused the crash, it was smaller banks....like Lehman Bro's' (really, smaller?), not BofA and their cohorts.....um....no. I'm sure he's technically correct, that SOME economists have said that, but not those that are impartial.

I'm also getting pretty sick of this lie that Sanders didn't have a plan and couldn't answer the question of "how do you break up the big banks". It's a lie, pure and simple, and only works on the ignorant willing to listen to edited 'interviews' where his actual answer is cut out, or willing to believe those with a clear bias against him. He had a clear plan, he explained it, it's a reasonable plan and it's well thought out. That Clinton can't 1)understand it or 2) admit it, and that her subordinates are willing to spread the lie exemplifies HER lack of qualification to be president, not his.

It's funny (sad really) that many of the 'extravagant promises' that she mentions that have taught the African-American voting block to be distrustful came from the Clintons.

Again with the 'large lead in delegates' lie.....it is 1) not large and 2) quickly evaporating. Without the (well paid for) super delegates, Clinton's lead (before losing Nevada and Missouri) was already <10%, with most states yet to vote polling heavily for Sanders (except in land line only, day time polls). In the past week, 2 states that were called for Clinton have gone to Sanders thanks to her delegates not showing up for her...even they don't really care for her enough to vote, and they're HER DELEGATES! When do we get to start saying Sanders is the clear frontrunner and that Clinton is harming the Democrats by badmouthing HIM? That day must be coming soon.

To the guilty, blame assignment is often called 'petulance' and 'self righteousness'. When one answers charges with insults against those making the charges, it's a pretty good indication that the charges are true.

i have watched a few of this guys videos,and while he has great energy,passion and a penchant for sly humor,but he tends to impose his understandings as somehow being more valid and accurate.

just take his example of the role of government.
he makes a valid point,and then solidifies his position by implying his view is set in this countries original documents.

which is fair,but only to a point...he literally ignores the federalist papers,which he actually references,and it was these 200+ papers and/or arguments that debated the actual role of the federal government vs the role of state government.

@MonkeySpank he is actually right.america is not a true direct democracy but rather a democratically elected representative republic.

after he makes some valid,if fairly biased points,he devolves into the gospel of capitalism and how it is a natural extension of our democratic republic.

really dude?
name ONE corporation that is democratic in any fashion?
you can't?
maybe that is due to the very obvious and plain fact that corporations are tyrannical by their very design.

this semi-educated man is just preaching the gospel of his religion:capitalism.

and referencing lenin like 20 times?
dude...read a fucking book on the history of the soviet union.

oh jesus..now he defending trickle down economics.....
sighs..how the zealots adore their doctrine of their holy texts,even if those texts are just figments of some economists wet dreams and has been proven to be an utter and glorious failure.

sanders is a democratic socialist,not like a denmark flavor but more of a FDR flavor.you know...the most popular president in this countries history and ushered in the most prosperous era in this countries history.

i could do a play by play on this man all day,and make him cry like a pretty little thailand ladyboy who cant afford his life-changing surgery into a actual woman.

well..he does have that douchebag hair.so he may already be looking for a surgeon.

yeah..im with @MonkeySpank,this dude just needs a good cock punch.

If I believed it would have that effect, I could support that.
Unfortunately, I don't believe Americans would ever get off our swollen asses, turn off our TVs, and actually DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE, even while our country disintegrates around us.
And even if we could manage it, we are so fractured as a society, the end result at best would be somewhere between 4 and 50 new countries, most of them with despotic leaders and draconian theocracies, and all born from a devastating civil war. There no way in hell we could manage to have a revolution that ends with a single, unified country.

In reality, what's more likely to happen if he's elected is a few large protests that get broken up violently with many protesters 'disappearing', new harsh anti-protesting laws, and President for Life Trump will become the richest man in the world while we become a third world country, bringing the world economy into the toilet with us, which is what the Economist warned against when they just listed him in the top 15 most pressing dangers to the world, ranking a Trump presidency just as dangerous to the planet as fundamentalist terrorism.