Lol. "New wave".

^vote for New Wave Knockout. Damn she is hot!

Absolutely true, which is why I even bother to bitch about it. It wouldn't mean anything to me if it hadn't once been different, but it feels to me like a new wave blew into town awhile ago and has been steadily taking hold here. Whereas the top 15 once were dominated by politics and ideas, it's now at least half "dude, did you see that" and "isn't that cute" style videos. The conversation seems to have generally followed the trend. It's always well-spoken, but more often than not discusses presentation, petty flaws, or (like above) stereotypes the presenter rather than discussing their ideas assuming they have merit and seeking to disprove them from that perspective rather than resorting to marginalization of character.

Maybe I'm grasping at straws to try to stir up some of the more interesting conversation that once was spearheaded by people I often disagreed with but always learned something from that are no longer part of this site, but truth be told I do this on a 9 vote video because I know I don't have the energy to follow it up. My kids an job are always first, my own ideals and stimuli second.

That said, thanks for replying and making a point that directly addressed mine without calling me some sort of name. It's exactly that sort of thing I'd like to see more of around here.

I disagree.
Calling a woman a whore and calling women whores are two separate things. Just because you have an opinion about 1 person (who happens to be a woman) doesn't mean you use that same opinion for all women.

I have no idea why there is so much sensitivity around this. new wave McCarthyism ?

So this song made me do some wikipidiaing. I love punk, usually pop punk and stuff that is very ironic or just silly, The Vandals, The Ramones, ect. I have heard of new wave before, but didn't really know what it was. So, this band is classified as indi-new wave. And new wave is basically post punk with a more electronic feel and less "arty" than most post punk (punk takes itself to seriously now a days, you are lost punk, so lost!)

All that to say, I really liked this song, and it somehow reminded me of punk. Now I found the connection and perhaps a brand new genera of music to like

This is all new wave. I like it.

Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?
Their early work was a little too New Wave for my taste. But then Sports came out in 1983, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that gives the songs a big boost.
He's been compared to Elvis Costello but I think Huey has a more bitter, cynical sense of humor.
Then in 1987 Huey released this, Fore!, their most accomplished album. I think I heir undisputed masterpiece is "Hip To Be Square," a song so catchy that most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity and the importance of
trends. It's also a personal statement about the band itself.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^lavoll:
i think this is pure evil. downvote

Wow seriously?
How is this evil? Because it's a corporation and they are using it to market their products?
I'll never understand this new wave of "everything corporations try to do even if people have fun with it is evil". If that's what you believe fine but please don't down vote my video because of it.


yes

>> ^lavoll:

i think this is pure evil. downvote


Wow seriously?

How is this evil? Because it's a corporation and they are using it to market their products? Since when are showing people a good time, on their dime, such a travesty of moral justice?

I'll never understand this new wave of "everything corporations try to do even if people have fun with it is evil" no matter which way you explain it to me. If that's what you believe fine but please don't down vote my video because of it.

It's awesome that he's open to new stuff. That's going to be me when I'm older. Going to a new wave dubstep club in the 2060s.

"Democratic group American Bridge is already accusing him of hypocrisy, citing one incident in which Perry purchased stock in a hospital equipment company run by a top donor, James Leininger, the same day he met with him. Perry turned a profit after a new wave of investors drove its price up immediately afterwards. He has denied any wrongdoing.

“If Perry thinks members of Congress belong in jail, what would he think about an elected official who purchased 2,800 shares of stock after speaking with that company’s CEO on the same day a giant investment group purchased 2.2 million of its shares?” communications director Chris Harris said in a statement."

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/rick-perrys-good-government-plan-throw-the-bums-in-jail.php

@Fletch I was nodding my head as I read your post. I guess for my part, I never expected Obama's election to be revolutionary from a policy perspective, even the implementation of everything in his campaign platform would've just seemed like good first steps to me.

I mostly looked for him to change the tone of politics in America, and inspire a whole new wave of people to become progressives, and that he'd keep his inspirational campaign rhetoric going nonstop through his first term, so he could build an unstoppable political movement.

I wanted him to turn the tide, so that the pendulum of politics in this country started swinging left again. I figured the big stuff would come a decade or two later after he changed the political landscape.

Eventually the majority of people who agree with liberal and progressive policies (but don't know it because they think "liberal" is a dirty word) are going to wake up and start demanding those policies get implemented. I'm hoping Occupy Wall Street is a sign of that happening.

Oh, and to be fair, health care reform is a big fucking deal, it's just that the really big changes aren't happening until 2014, years after Obama's electoral fate has been decided.

>> ^mgittle:

If the bank in your latest example can't satisfy withdrawal demands, it probably borrows money from a commercial bank, which can request money from the Fed to cover the difference.

Change the word "request" to the word "borrow" and that's correct.

>> ^mgittle:
So, yes, the bank is not literally creating the money on its own, but it seems to me that banks granting loans for more money than they possess at any given time is the most significant reason for the Fed to have the ability to increase the money supply.

Again, banks aren't granting loans for more money than they posses. In the example above, they have $1,000, they can loan out $900, because they're legally required to hold 10% reserves.

Now, their balance sheet shows the following:

+$100 cash on hand as reserves
-$1000 owed to depositor
+$900 in debt owed to them by borrower
+$X in interest on debt owed to them by borrower

Which nets out to +$X interest in net worth.

There are two big risks with this arrangement:

#1: The depositor wants to close his account before the loan matures. The bank doesn't have the money to cover the withdrawl, and will need to borrow funds from another bank. If the borrowing costs are higher than the expected return from its loan, the bank is insolvent, and is gonna die. On conventional banks, the government will step in and cover the depositor's accounts up to some arbitrary dollar amount (I think it's still $250k), but the bank owners will be fired, and they'll seek out someone else to buy the bank and take over future operations.

#2: The borrower defaults on his loan. Since we're talking about only 1 depositor and 1 borrower, this single failure is the equivalent of 100% of the bank's borrowers defaulting at once. This too will result in the government stepping in, covering depositor's accounts, and restructuring the bank and selling them off.

What happened with the US financial crash was that a big, non-insured bank (Lehman Brothers) got hit by scenario #2, and since it was not a traditional, FDIC-insured bank, they just let it go bankrupt, and let the investor accounts get wiped out.

That started a panic, and led to lots of people pulling money out of other similar banks, leading to widespread cases of #1 happening, which had the effect of making banks default on loans they'd taken out with other banks, starting a new wave of #2...

That's why this system is fragile, and none of this has anything to do with monetary policy yet. This is all fiscal and regulatory policy.

What happened was that even after TARP stopped that domino effect of #2 leading to #1 leading to #2 again, banks were worried that all debt was much risker than they'd formerly believed, and so they raised the costs of borrowing (the interest rate) to sky-high levels, which severely curtailed the amount of people borrowing money to invest in real-world business activity.

That drop in investment led to a drop in production, which led to a drop in employment, which led to a drop in consumer demand, which led to a drop in production...

So now, the Fed is stepping in with monetary policy, and trying every trick in the book to stuff the banks with reserves, so they'll lower interest rates. They've had some success, but it isn't really doing the whole job, because unemployment is already so high, and consumer spending is so low, nobody wants to invest in expanding their business, no matter how cheap borrowing costs are...

That's what monetary policy is really about, stabilizing the interest rates and the overall flow of goods and services in the economy. When the economy slows, the Fed pumps money into the economy to try to make it go again. When it starts overheating (and leading to inflation), it siphons money out of the system to slow it down a bit.

Fiat currency doesn't really depend on growth -- if anything, growth depends on fiat currency, and the application of good monetary policy.

Upvote for being weird, obscure, new wave, post punk... but torn because it's 80s I think my love of weird wins.

*length=0:3:50

that's a really nicely done new wave/retro 80s music video. very authentic