Instead of a hard limit you could allow a user to excede it, but then have any points above that limit decay over x days. That way if a new user finds themselves with a couple of videos in the top15 and maybe a highly rated comment then they at least have the opportunity to promote some more of their videos.

On hoarding...well I've "hoarded" 21 powerpoints out of lack of things to do with them. Thats not a complaint really, I just think there is enough restriction on new sifters without this cap. I also think the existing powers restriction makes more sense, you are rewarded for sifting videos and not just for being here for a few years.

@Shepppard, if you have been on the Sift for less than two years, and you hit two Top 15s quickly and a #1 vid overnight... you get one point.

It's fine if you have been around for a long time -- you are absolutely right that there is no benefit to hoarding points, which is a great result from this change.

But if you are a noob? Or you have a run of good luck/skill?

--Although now that I re-read your comment, maybe you don't know how power points work now. If you have been on the site for less than two years, the MAXIMUM number of power points at ANY ONE TIME is one point. Ever. So you can't even promote your own vids if you want. For two full years.

If you've been around for awhile, this is no big whoop. But for noobs? Well, that is what this sift talk post is about.

Honestly, I don't think it much matters. I'm a 5 year vet, and my last power point used was 5 days ago, I'm currently sitting at 1 power point.

All the change really means is that you should technically use your points more. Instead of hoarding 5 points spend one of your 2 and then get a comment upvoted to get back to 2.

If anything, this should increase the amount of activity you guys are doing because of the limit, meaning you should always leave at least one space open.

Now, it's been a while since I read the changes, for all I know you don't get power points like you used to, but even if that's the case and it's only a recharge at this point, all that means is spend your points so that they can recharge.

There's no doubt increased broad based spending by the middle class would help the economy. The notion that the super wealthy are "hoarders" is erroneous. They are profligate spenders, and by doing so, promote the economy. The owner of a very successful software company built a $12,000,000 home recently, that I toured. It was the epitome of excess. However, by his excess he put contractors, roofers, plumbers, masons, landscapers, etc to work, not to mention the people his own company employs. Basically, he pumped that $12,000,000 right back into the economy. As historians Will and Ariel Durant (The History of Civilization, a 10 volume work I dare anyone to get TOTALLY through, wow), noted, "Perhaps it is one secret of their power (bankers) that having studied the fluctuations of prices, they know that history is inflationary, and that money is the last thing a wise man will hoard." In the 18th century, Adam Smith coined the unintentional benefits of profligate spending by the wealthy, for his own wants and desires, the "invisible hand" that promoted the welfare of society at large. It's human nature that even when equipped with the essentials for living, they will envy the privilege of the few super wealthy among them and some wealth will be redistributed to the poor, in order to keep the peace.

Thank you QM for that thoughtful reply.

It just seems that the imbalance right now is in demand, not the availability of capitol to invest.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.
In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.
Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.
The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.
Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.

Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.
>> ^TheFreak:
Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.

In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.

Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.

The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.

Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.


Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.

>> ^TheFreak:

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

The argument is exactly that. Rich folk tend to invest. You put money in their pocket, and they'll typically invest it in equity or bonds. Both of these things bring down the cost of corporate borrowing either directly (through bond buying) or indirectly (through supporting the share price, and thus the equity available to borrow against). The hypothesis is that this will lead to more hiring, job retention, or capital investment.

My main issue with it is that in a global economy it doesn't provide any guarantees those jobs happen here. Further, if you don't support demand, there is no real incentive to grow the firm. That's why I think considering the supply side is backwards.

>> ^TheFreak:

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?

Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

Romney could definitely spend some of that hard-earned money of his that's parked in The Cayman Islands to create some jobs over here. Him stowing away millions overseas instead of investing it at home, yes, I have a BIG problem with that!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Any evidence for any of this will be welcomed.

Idle corporate cash piles up
IRS data suggests that, globally, U.S. nonfinancial companies hold at least three times more cash and other liquid assets than the Federal Reserve reports, idle money that could be creating jobs, funding dividends or even paying a stiff federal penalty tax for hoarding corporate cash.
The Fed’s latest Flow of Funds report showed that U.S. nonfinancial companies held $1.7 trillion in liquid assets at the end of March. But newly released IRS figures show that in 2009 these companies held $4.8 trillion in liquid assets, which equals $5.1 trillion in today’s dollars, triple the Fed figure.
---------------------
“I’m afraid of the president,” said Wynn. “I have no idea what goofy idea, what crazy, anti-business program this administration will come up. I have no idea. And I have to tell you, Jon, that every business guy I know in the country is frightened of Barack Obama and the way he thinks.”
--Steven Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts

Any evidence for any of this will be welcomed.


Idle corporate cash piles up

IRS data suggests that, globally, U.S. nonfinancial companies hold at least three times more cash and other liquid assets than the Federal Reserve reports, idle money that could be creating jobs, funding dividends or even paying a stiff federal penalty tax for hoarding corporate cash.

The Fed’s latest Flow of Funds report showed that U.S. nonfinancial companies held $1.7 trillion in liquid assets at the end of March. But newly released IRS figures show that in 2009 these companies held $4.8 trillion in liquid assets, which equals $5.1 trillion in today’s dollars, triple the Fed figure.

---------------------
“I’m afraid of the president,” said Wynn. “I have no idea what goofy idea, what crazy, anti-business program this administration will come up. I have no idea. And I have to tell you, Jon, that every business guy I know in the country is frightened of Barack Obama and the way he thinks.”

--Steven Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts

Kick ass!! A cassette to I-pad converter!! DUUUUDE!! (yer goddamn right I hoard?!!)

Plus if so many people are making so little money that is a failure of the wealthy and corporations who hoard money. The government, the poor and the middle class don't have the luxury of hoarding money which slows down the economy. Money has to change hands in order to do work. The blame clearly should lie with people who don't let it flow.

This coming from Swedish girls isn't by accident, Sweden is soaked in radical feminism, have a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yta55u2zP2U
There's a big difference between anonymously talking shit on the internet and talking shit in a wining short sponsored by General Electric. Now, was it so important that they'll bring up misogyny, where they so oppressed by hoards of men that they needed to put it in a short about a bicycle helm? Allow me to doubt that.
Also, that invention looks like might be able to break your collar bone or squash few vertebrae if not just snap your neck.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Confucius:
skip to 2:35 to see the actual product and avoid listening to them tell you how spectacular they are especially because they are women and all men think that women are incapable of even the most basic technical abilities.....
Also....trading a bike helmet for a sweaty neck brace.....maybe not so awesome. I would have to argue that a dorky and guaranteed bike helmet > a dorky, expensive, probably heavy, not 100% guaranteed function & definitely sweaty neck brace.
Practicality for anywhere that gets above 70 degrees F = 0.
Still....its undeniably neat.

I think they're entitled...all I hear about is how shit women are from men on the internet. Just because it doesn't describe you doesn't mean their own personal experiences with men doubting them aren't valid.

@gorillaman understanding the subjective nature of value does not imply moral relativism, nor is it in any way detrimental to morality.

Morality is about choosing values, you can pick and choose all you like, it doesn't change the fact that values are subjective in the sense that they're not intrinsic to the object of value, they depend on the person/living being that assigns the value.

A baker does indeed value the bread he sells less than the money he wants in exchange for it, otherwise he would not see purpose in selling bread, he'd just hoard all his awesome bread to himself.

Differering circumstances are just one of the many things that may affect one's choice of values. You're not a fan of Lamborghinis, that can be for so many reasons. Maybe they're obvious to you, but your choice of values won't match that of a Lamborghini afficionado, or of a rich guy looking for a powerful status symbol. Who are you to consider your values any better than those of others when it comes to spending money?

I see that trade can be detrimental to a third party, but if there's no theft or destruction of someone else's actual property, treating that as a problem and trying to forcibly solve it by regulating or forbidding the trade is bound to cause more and bigger problems than the one you allegedly want to fix.

It's this lack of foresight that is so common among those who don't appreciate the evolving nature of freedom and competition.

Now you're saying you're not OK with "criminal" thoughts, but would you want to regulate thoughts? We can't directly mind control people, so can you even enforce that without infringing on freedom of expression? Do you think it's worth it to forcibly shape society's ideologies?

I proposed that ridiculous notion expecting you to repudiate it, I can at least appreciate the strong connection you make between personal and economic liberties. Too bad you apparently think we deserve neither.

>> ^dag:

Don't understand how solar flares keep revolvers from working. >> ^Payback:
It's probably solar flares. The locket thing is some kind of shielded power cell.



It's 15 years later with no lathes, electric tools or CAD/CAM machines to make spare parts or bullets. Hand made guns would be rampant. People would probably be hoarding the "good stuff" for military actions and guarding the Warlords. Glorified sheriffs like the ones pictured would just have flintlocks because that's all you'd need against bows and arrows.

Just my logic talking. I have no clue what the actual reason is. Probably the Black Smoke Monster.