@RedSky Both "sides" are just gambling. They use all kinds of statistical models and data to convince themselves that they're not, but they are. They know it's unstable, but they're trying to avoid the hot potato.

You're correct in your logical assertions that each of these parties have a "role" in the market. Yes, hedge funds can have a downward influence. Yes, speculators can drive up prices. In theory, these cancel out. In reality, it causes the system to become fragile because these upward and downward influences don't happen simultaneously in a neat math equation. The problem is that all of this up/down activity causes drastic fluctuations in the price of goods which have nothing to do with supply or demand. The more layered the contracts and transactions get, the less stable the price. Even if the up/down forces actually succeed in "stabilizing" (or even lowering) the average price over time, that doesn't prevent people from starving because rice is too expensive this month.

Yes, all of those supply/demand issues are factors in price, but they do not mitigate the central point. The video started off by explaining that the 4 "complex" factors you listed at the end don't account for price instability. Consumers, producers, supply chains, etc can acclimate to gradual changes, but they have a hard time responding to spikes. That's one of the central points of the video.

The biggest problem is that the application of these economic theories work well to increase stability when complexity is low, yet they actually decrease stability when complexity increases. It's easy to logically explain why speculators are necessary. It's a persuasive argument, but it ignores the bigger issue at hand. It's much harder to explain why "speculators speculating on speculators" is a problem when people can easily understand "speculators are good in this logical everyday situation".

>> ^Fusionaut:

How to end the drug war and take power away from organized crime: decriminalize drugs.


No. Decriminalization of drugs will have very little affect on organized crime.

Decriminalization is simply moving the common citizen's punishment from being caught using illegal drugs from criminal to civil - it does nothing about the supply chain for these drugs. In many cases, criminal punishment will still exist for anyone falling under the growing/producing, selling, or transporting category.

But decriminalization isn't completely ineffectual; it will dramatically raise the quality of life of users and provide an official avenue for addicts to get help before hitting rock bottom (although it may just open up the avenue for people/organizations to step into rather than actively providing.)

To disrupt the organized crimes' profit from illegal drugs, you have to provide other sources of these drugs. Pure and simply, this is supply and demand. There will always be some demand.

jwray, don't miss the forest for the trees. His main problem with HFCS is that its the product of government subsidies for special interests that, along with tariffs protecting the cane sugar industry, resulting ultimately in a higher effective cost for Americans. Additionally, another problem with the subsidies is that it pays for farmers to produce corn, and with such a surplus of corn, the industry pushes its supply of corn into whatever supply chain it can....including things such as HFCS, corn ethanol, corn-fed beef, all of which have deleterious effects on the health of our society and economy.

He believes that the biggest impact of corn subsidies on our public health result from using antibiotics that should be judiciously restricted for human health is indiscriminately given to keep corn-fed cattle alive while fattening to slaughter, which simultaneously selects for bacteria that are resistant to said antibiotics.

I agree they should focus on Flash as a wrapper for games and apps. The reason being that browsers are supporting HTML5 video more and more and the benefit of flash video will become less important.

Games and richer, less traditional UI's are something that browsers cannot do very well and won't be able to do for several years to come. Javascript is getting faster and faster but still comes nowhere near the performance of Flash and other embedded plugins for complex applications.

The other benefit of Flash (and Air) is it's ability to be deployed as a self executing application; it doesn't need to be a browser plugin. That allows rapid development of multiplatform applications using existing skills. It also provides proprietary encapsulation for those who need it; unlike Javascript.

Right now there's a fairly large disagreement going on between Adobe and Apple; the depths of which aren't well known by most users. As most people know, the iPhone (and iPad) are closed platforms that only allow vetted applications to be distributed through the App Store. This arbitrarily places Apple in the supply chain so they can take a slice of the action. This also involves developers having to pony up just to make their apps available; not even Microsoft squeezes their customers that tightly.

With this in mind it makes business sense to disallow flash in the browser as that has the potential to undermine that revenue.

What's less known is Apple's recent changes to their App Store/iTunes TOS. They are now disallowing apps that were built with third party developer tools. All apps must essentially be created directly by using their own Cocoa Touch API, and are not allowed to be developed with an abstracted framework. This has disallowed stand alone applications built with Flash (and other platforms) to be distributed through the App Store.

They actually implemented this change right after Adobe announced that they had their iPhone app wrapper up and running and would be releasing it with Flash 10.1, allowing devs to distribute standalone Flash apps on the iPhone and Android.

So why would Apple go out of it's way to prevent Flash apps (and apps built with other frameworks) in the App Store while they are allowed on Android?

As this change allows Apple to limit developers to having to work specifically with Cocoa Touch which prevents them from building multiplatform applications with the same code. As iPhone/iPad is currently a leading platform this will encourage developers to target development for them first; and then port to other platforms later. Apple are hoping that many developers won't bother porting them at all. That's quite a deep method of vendor lock in.

As someone who is starting to look at developing an app (a game, and not using Flash) for mobile I've decided not to develop for iPhone/iPad. I don't like them dictating the technology that I should use; rather than letting me choose the best tools for the job. If all other platforms will happily accept apps as the developer chose to develop it, then all the better for their users.

My hope is that with other developers feeling this way; and with the speed of development and the feature sets provided by Flash, Air, and other frameworks like the 3D game engine Unity; this will result in many more appealing applications appearing on Android and other platforms that drive customers away from Apple.

This may teach Apple that they've gotten too big for their boots and lead to them loosening their grip on developers; and in turn, their customers.

At which point developers can click a few buttons and deploy their existing apps to iPhone and iPad; welcoming their users to the 'Mobile Platform' rather than the 'Apple Platform'.

>> ^MaxWilder:
This is a prime example of infotainment purposefully trying to get the audience riled up.
"How China is turning our kids into Nazis, tonight at 11."


It's not about how china is turning our kids into nazis.
it's about the fact that nobody in the supply chain looked at this product and saw there is something horribly wrong with it.
it doesn't matter that this symbol might mean butterflies and kisses to Chinese. if they plan to import and sell it here, they have to know that for wast majority of the western world that symbol means something horrible and extremely evil.

Modern Warfare 4 will have the retired soldiers from Modern Warfare 3 heading for employment at private mercenary firms to be hired again by the US. Action includes hit squads, assassinations, torture. The Collectors Edition features a supply chain service simulator with the sole goal to obtain no bid contracts and maximize profits with minimal actual work. You aren't rated on the quality of service or whether military service members get sick or die. It is purely about the cash flow.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^chilaxe: Statistically speaking
If you are going to speak statistically, show us the numbers. I would honestly like to see them, but I doubt they exist.

Yes, there probably aren't any statistics available, but media coverage generally regards Rand's followers as skewing toward self-reliant, libertarian types who emphasize performance.* It would be surprising if an ideology that glorifies self-reliance wasn't associated with increased self-reliant attitudes.

I think it's generally most rewarding for people to read everything, with the goal of being 'informationally a mile wide,' but those who are disinclined are free to reject the lessons in objectivist themes. IMHO, that just means more advantages available for those who draw from a broader sample of the marketplace of ideas, and that's really how the system is supposed to work. So rail against objectivism to your heart's content


*

Many business leaders say Atlas Shrugged influenced their lives more than anything else they have read. Joe Stafford, the 40-year-old CEO of supply chain management company IC Solutions, said he was a liberal before reading Rand at 23. Chip Joyce, the 31-year-old president of Ulla Bazant, a maker of high-end women's apparel, says the book has been his "frame of reference." http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2002-09-23-ayn-rand_x.htm

Hugh Hefner and Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas found Rand fascinating. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and Whole Foods CEO John Mackey both cite Rand’s books as influential, though Mackey has said he doesn’t believe businesses exist solely to make a profit and selfishness is a virtue. In Silicon Valley, Rand’s ideas appeal to generations of entrepreneurs who built the computer industry and the Internet. T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, is a notorious Rand fan; Patrick W. Grady named his company Rearden Commerce after the steel magnate Hank Rearden from Atlas. http://www.bnet.com/2403-13056_23-272467.html

Americans think of medical insurance as end-to-end coverage because that is how the medical insurance industry markets itself to consumers. Blame your private market.

Illegals are here because of the private market as well, and their lobbyists. The laws aren't enforced because they would hurt the bottom line of the agri-industry, and disrupt the whole food supply chain.

But I bet you blame the government or the consumer for both issues.

______________________________

It makes sense to have end to end coverage because in the long run routine checks prevent problems from exacerbating, and thus becoming more expensive.

__________________________________

The nativists in our country totally lose it if they think a chicano (citizen or not) will get any benefit, even if having such a program would ultimately help the nativist.

With swine flu and all the other recent bugs floating around, it's rather short sighted to refuse health care to mexican nationals. I don't want an epidemic to spread because some nativist barred a coughing migrant worker from a clinic.

>> ^dgandhi:

Is not mentioning their product the only way for Microsoft to make an effective ad campaign?


Duh.. You think VW goes around bragging their cute VW Beetle was designed by Hitler? So Microsoft is so hated and such crap through monopoly their just need to sell the widgets in their monopoly supply chain. (Ok, I guess a duopoly since they are kinda competing with Apple)

^I agree with you, there are lots of regulations and price controls in effect on oranges.

However, in doing an economic analysis one has to break down the market into its constituent parts or else the sheer magnitude of transactions and variables is impossible to work with. When you isolate trade environments into sub-markets, really simple markets emerge which are actually rather easy to analyze.

One interesting thing that is revealed through this process is that free-markets do exist (as you just confirmed in my supermarket example), and comprise a large part of markets which at various levels exist with a moderate or even high degree of regulation. As in the case with the oranges. The number of people walking into supermarkets and buying oranges must be in the millions, but the number of exchanges between any given supermarket and its suppliers on any given day could probably be counted on one hand. Thus, the analysis of regulation is can be greatly simplified because it occurs primarily in a limited volume of exchange.

Furthermore, if we define sub-markets at each level of the supply chain, and the majority of transactions occur at the consumer level, we find that the majority of exchange in a highly regulated market is in fact, unregulated.

But again we are working on normative descriptions that have no basis in reality, they are wrong even when they are right because we are trying to describe something theoretically.

Market conditions are often so complex that no free markets can exist, because coercion forces don't always need to be of a physical nature they can be of a persuasive nature, for example advertising, branding and even packaging.

"When you walk into the supermarket and buy an orange, what physical force, compulsion, or coercion exists in the exchange between you and the cashier?"

Nothing exists on a singular level on that transaction but as we increase the scope and go behind the supply chains on a regional or national level we will find inefficiencies that will redefine that as a non-free market, for example government subsidies to Florida which convert back into higher price points consumers need to pay over cheaper and better products from the third world, protectionist polices and so on.

The fundamentals of the economy?

Maybe he's refering to the military economic system...

You know? The one that involves the ranking repulican's calling for war, and then handing the billion dollar contracts to their own companies.

See - the real money is in the Haliburton supply chain. If the occupation of Iraq is indefinite - imagine how rich they can get sucking money out of the US tax payers?

Banks don't really matter - all the really wealthy people have their money off shore

I disagree with the man on several points however I must say that it takes a certain of person to be able to go forth and make his case to the American people and actually answer questions posed to him, with the visit to Columbia, the interview on TV and his speech in the UN.

I thought the introduction by Lee Bollinger, the university president of Columbia was appalling, calling him a "petty and cruel dictator" when the University itself invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. To which he replied:

"In Iran, tradition requires when you invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students enough to allow them to make their own judgment, and don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of complaints to provide vaccination to the students and faculty."

While we sit and laugh at his lunacy regarding gay people, I am glad we are allowed to make our own judgments rather then sitting here and reading the constant war drumming about a military strike against Iran which sounds so much like the fear mongering and lies fed to us in the run up to Iraq.

The most important thing is that he reiterated that Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear power acquisition, a point that is supported by the IAEA. Yet in the West we have constant allusion that they are researching nuclear weapons or attacking US forces covertly. The US has branded the Iran Republican guard as a terrorist organization, the fleet is in the Persian gulf. It's like the US Administration is just itching for an excuse to expand the war into Iran.

I mean don't take my word for it. Heres the American Thinker:

"Now for the good news. All the damaging consequences of all the blunders the President has committed to date in Iraq are reversible in 48- to 72-hours - the time it will take to destroy Iran's fragile nuclear supply chain from the air. And since the job gets done using mostly stand-off weapons and stealth bombers, not one American soldier, sailor or airman need suffer as much as a bruised foot.

Let's look downstream the day after and observe how the world has changed.

First and foremost, there's this prospective fait accompli -- and it changes everything. The Iranians are no longer a nuclear threat, and won't be again for at least another decade, and even that assumes the strategic and diplomatic situation reverts to the status quo ante and they'll just be able to pick up and rebuild as they would after an earthquake. Not possible.

Next, the Iranians would do nothing -- bupkes. They don't attack Israel, they don't choke off the world's oil supply, they do not send hit squads to the United States, there is no "war" in the conventional sense of attack counterattack. Iran already has its hands full without inviting more trouble. Its leaders would be reeling from the initial US attack and they would know our forces are in position to strike again if Iran provokes us or our allies. They would stand before mankind with their pants around their ankles, dazed, bleeding, crying, reduced to bloviating from mosques in Teheran and pounding their fists on desks at the UN. The lifelines they throw to the Iraqi insurgents, Hezbollah and Syria would begin to dry up, as would the lifelines the double-dealing Europeans have been throwing to Iran. Maybe the Mullahs would lose control.

Miracles would be seen here at home. Democratic politicians are dumbstruck, silent for a week. With one swing of his mighty bat, the President has hit a dramatic walk-off homerun. He goes from goat to national hero overnight. The elections in November are a formality. Republicans keep the White House and recapture both houses of Congress. Hillary is elected president - of the Chappaqua PTA.

[...]

Am I dreaming? I don't think so. Being too sensible is probably more like it. In any event, I am not creating anything original here. Combine Bush's recent statements with those of the President of France and it's not hard to see where this is heading. Mr. Bush still has time to put America back on the offensive again. But with only a little more than a year left in his term he has no time to lose. Rarely does history provide a failed wartime leader with such a golden opportunity for salvation.

Carpe diem, Mr. President. The chicken pita is on me."

I mean WTF?

BlueGW, I'm curious, what do you think will happen to the price of food in this land if all illegal immigrants in this country are deported? Do you have any concept of just how dependent the produce industry is upon cheap, seasonal migrant labor? Salinas, Bakersfield, Oxnard, Fresno...these are all huge places in terms of production, and are all filled with illegal immigrants working jobs that few Americans will work for pay that few Americans will accept.

Prices are already higher due to the harsh, late-season freezes. If we were to suddenly gut the produce industry of its cheap labor, what do you think happens to the price of your food? Your juice? Your lawn. We haven't even mentioned the problems such a clear-out would have on the supply chain. All kinds of jobs are filled by people in this country illegally who are working for sub-par wages because the American public would rather have Every Day Low Prices and gripe about immigration than acknowledge they are dependent upon illegal labor and actually do something about it.

If you want to fix this, go after the corporations who make it attractive to come here by employing illegals. Remove the incentive. When you're done with that, reform the immigration policies that make legal immigration a tortuously long process. Your prices will rise, but without a reason to hop the fence, you'll have fewer illegals takin yer jorbs.

I disagree. I think it's inexcusable to simply state this was a intelligence failure due to failure to react to world post-cold war. Simply due to the following factual information:

The Cold war was built on the shoulders of relationship with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
They got miffed due to US military presence and the House of Saud.
The American Embassy in Africa bombings.
The 1994 WTC attack.
The CIA and FBI knew of their presence in the country.
Constant threats by Al Qaeda.
Intelligence failure post 9/11 with regards to Iraq.

Honestly all this back and forth about this tape is enough for me.

All I ask is that you don't consider the day, but what that day meant, and where that day has lead us.

The police state you mention we should avoid? We're already there... from Gitmo, arrest without trail, NSA phone taps, heabus corpus, NSA echelon program and so on and so on.

Do you know what the Terrorists want? No, the whitehouse tells us they hate the Western way of life. Or what is it? Islamofacists. No mention of their demands to end to house of Saud, Palestine and so on, i.e. specific grievances but no it degrades at this level to some clash of cultures and religions. Because the Decider has decided that for you.

Does it make logical plausible sense? No, if the intent of Al Qeada was to destroy the western way of life in American the attack would have been on nuclear power stations (check your maps its all there, its not state secrets or anything) around the East coast causing an event the size of Chernobyl. They knew that such an attack would lead to possible usage of nuclear arms against them, they don't seek a war of mutual annihilation, they are at issue with the foreign policy actions of the USA. So did not pursue that action.

In our world of fear due to terrorism, a massive securities and weapons supply chain is developing, the American goverment is spending nigh on billions on futuristic weapon systems that don't coincide with the needs of the US Army currently in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same money that could have been used to rebuild New Orleans which more then a year later is still there in tatters.

Are we safer today then we were before 9/11? No. It's worse. But you know, I guess no one read 1984 and am just paranoid.