@3:50 - Bernie is wrong about support for Trump. There are plenty of American's who will vote for him because of his insulting comments, and plenty more who will hold their nose and vote Kang over Kodos.

"I don't really like him either, but least Kang didn't breach classified information, or take bribes from BigCorp like Kodos did," they might say.

@4:30 - "I will do anything in my power to stop Kang from becoming president" is code for "I'll vote for Kodos, if I have to."

Bernie was our last hope. The only human running. He was unable to defeat the dirty tricks of Hillary's campaign, with her big bank bribes donations, more "donations" from foreign governments, and her endless Super PAC money...

Bernie failed to understand that in America, it's the leaders who become idolized and it's the cheaters who usually lead. Bernie isn't a cheater. He is a man of dignity who stands by his word, and refused to act outside his principles or allow the ends to justify his means.

And that is why he will not be president.

Have any credible links to these percentages? I am assuming these comments are in reference to a specific event. And my point still stands, hating an entire group of people for the actions of only a few in that group is irrational and possibly racist. But hey, if you ever come across someone who's been raped by a non Muslim, feel free to let them know that their violation was much less statistically likely. I'm sure they'll thank you for it.
Both the Bible and the Quran have passages that exhort the reader to do things that would be unacceptable in the modern world. Yet I doubt you think all or most Christians are bad because of what the Bible says. So, no, the Quran really doesn't mean anything in that respect.
http://videosift.com/video/Gruesome-Verses-from-Bible-Disguised-as-Quran

Who said that? One more straw man to disguise Clinton's inadequacies?

EDIT: Or did you miss-read. I do not say a Clinton PRESIDENCY is the same as a Trump presidency, I say a Clinton candidacy will lead to a Trump presidency. I do think she would probably (not definitely, they are both too random to predict at all) be better as president....but I don't think she can win, she's too hated and has too much heavy baggage.

Fortunately, most people have more sense than to fall for that straw man.

Politics is dirty. Do you like it? 'No.' Are you surprised by it? 'No.' Are you hurt by it? Absolutely, we all are. That's why when you are presented with a 'clean' candidate, it's astonishing to me that anyone would continue to support dirty ones.

Are you talking about Clinton supporters, who are the ones willing to let the world burn just to be able to put [force] a (admittedly terrible, widely hated, dishonest, divisive, and losing) woman up as a candidate?
Again, Clinton is BEHIND Trump in all national polls now, and while his numbers are rising, hers are falling. Sanders wins VS Trump by a landslide, and always has in national polls. Standing for Clinton is standing for Trump, but yeah, you would rather let it all burn so a (short sighted) segment of the voters (and the DNC) can get exactly what they want....good strategy.

Hadn't seen it, nor read about it. Corbyn seems to be getting more comfortable taking the floor, which is great.

However, all those recent mentions of sound finance and balanced budgets worry me. Just last week, McDonnell made a whole assortment of statements that sound awfully deficit hawkish. "Iron discipline", "economic credibility" -- that's the language of people who use market/economic constraints as a disguise for policies that can often be described as plain old class warfare.

Looking at their economic advisers, it sounds like Wren-Lewis rather than Stiglitz or Mazzucato.

Can't but include the late Christopher Hitchens comments on Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

And a link to some more discussion from Hitchen's on Moore's complete willingness to ignore all fact and reality to produce crowd pleasing tripe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZdLiKGaw00

As always, my views are just a layman's perspective with no claims to expertise.

@RedSky

You correctly point out the intent of the reform, to stop fractional banking which they diagnosed as a primary driver of volatility within the financial sector. They want to revert back to a system where the banks were intermediaries the way you described it: deposit leads to loan, in this case at a maximum ratio of 1:1, no leveraging.

Unlike the current system where bank deposits are mostly created by banks themselves -- the act of lending creates deposits. In fact, deposits are liabilities of the banks, not assets. Reserves are assets, but they are only traded between entities with accounts at the central bank. And, in normal times, are provided quite freely by the central bank in exchange for other assets.

Anyway, "Vollgeld" places the ability to create money exclusively in the hands of the central bank. Controlling the amount of money in circulation was a concept most central banks were eager to drop during the '90s, since it never worked. Demand for credit is volatile, central control is inflexible, even if they could somehow quanfity the need for it ex ante -- which they can't. Hell, they can't even do it ex post. You can't quantify the need for additional money beyond what's already in circulation if the central bank's action set the conditions for a dynamic development in the first place. You can't know in advance what increases in production need to be financed, you can't know how demand for liquidity evolves over time. The quantity theory of money was buried for a reason, it ignores reality.

Anyway, I applaud the proponents of Vollgeld for pointing out the dysfunctionalities of our fractional reserve system as well as how questionable it is, ethically, to hand over so much power to a small cabal of financial elites. In fact, I'm quite ecstatic to hear them point out that a nation with a sovereign, free-floating currency does not need to finance deficits through banks -- how very MMT of them. Go OMF!

But their proposed solutions are a fallback to "the market will stabilise itself if left alone, a completely independant central bank will keep the quantity of money in circulation at just the right amount". This hands-off approach resulted in absolute devastation whenever it was applied. They want to turn the state into a regular economic subject that has to adapt to the amount of money currently in circulation. It's (the illusion of) control by technocrats, where you get to disguise policies against the masses as "economic neccessities". Basically the German Eurozone on steroids.

As for the absolute independence of the central bank: you are right, that is not strictly part of the Swiss Vollgeld initiative. But it's what almost every proponent of Vollgeld within the German-speaking circles argues for, including major drivers behind the initiative. Can't let politicians have control over our central bank or else they'll abuse it for populist policies.

They are true believers in technocrat solutions, completely seperate from democratic control.

PS: I cut down my ranting to a minimum of MMT arguments, given that many people see it as just a different sort of voodoo economics.

Edit: Elizabeth Warren's 21st Century Glass Steagal Act strikes me as a rather promising way to solve a great number of problems with the financial industry without going back into the realm of monetarism.

Yeah, I'd love to hear him on Trump and Cruz...I think he'd be all about Sanders. He blasted the Tea Party, so we can be fairly sure he'd be blasting the leaders of the current field. He'd probably admire that Trump is at least honest enough to say what he wants without a filter, but also reflect how dangerous it is that his views are so accepted among a scary percentage of Americans. How if Trump, or even Cruz, get's elected, it would isolate the US from our allies. They are still upset about Bush, and going that far to the right would endanger our relationships with all of them, save perhaps Israel, which is all the Christian right care about anyhow. He'd be giving a Hitch Slap to the media for the way they are following the Trump circus just for ratings, and building up Clinton while largely ignoring Sanders. Of course the political right would use that people like Hitchens would support Sanders and reason enough to ignore and fear him. "That demonic Atheist supports Sanders, so that's what you get with a vote for Sanders. Satanism wrapped up in the disguise of Atheism... and we all know that every knee will bow and every tongue confess, and we know they honestly do believe, but are just mad at God about something and trying to turn others against him", or something along those lines.

Italy:
Renzi is creating the conditons for a new bubble? Through deficit spending on... what? Unless they start building highways in the middle of nowhere like they did in Spain, I don't see any form of bubble coming out of deficit spending in Italy. The country's been in a major recession for quite some time now, with no light at the end of the tunnel and a massive shortfall in private spending. But meaningful deficit spending requires Renzi to tell Germany and the Eurogroup to pound sand -- not sure his balls have descended far enough for that just yet.

Referendum in Switzerland:
"Vollgeld". That's the German term for what the initiators of this referendum are aiming for: 100% reserve banking. It's monetarism in disguise, and they are adament to not be called monetarists. But that's what it is. Pure old-fashioned monetarism. Even if you don't give a jar of cold piss about all these fancy economic terms and theories, let me ask you this: the currency you use is quite an important part of all your daily life, isn't it? So why would anyone in his or her right mind remove it entirely from democratic control (even constitutionally)?
If you want to get into the economic nightmares of it, here are a few bullet points:
- no Overt Monetary Financing (printing money for deficit spending) means no lender of last resort and complete dependence on the market, S&P can tell you to fuck off and die as they did with PIIGS
- notion that the "right amount of money in circulation" will enable the market to keep itself in balance -- as if that ever worked
- notion that a bunch of technocrats can empirically determine this very amount in regular intervalls
- central bank is supposed to maintain price stability, nothing else -- single mandate, works beautifully for the ECB, at least if you like 25% unemployment
- concept is founded in the notion that the financial economy is the source of (almost) all problems of the "real" economy, thereby completely ignoring the fact that decades of wage suppression have simply killed widescale purchasing power of the masses, aka demand

Visegrad nations:
From a German perspective, they are walking on thin ice as it is. The conflict with Russia never had much support of the public to begin with, but even the establishment is becoming more divided on this issue. Given the authoritarian policies put in place in Poland recently and the utter refusal to take in their share of refugees, support might fade even more. If the Visegrad governments then decide to push for further conflict with Russia, Brussels and Berlin might tell them, very discreetly, to pipe the fuck down.

Turkey:
Wildcard. He mentioned how they will mess with Syria, the Kurds and Russia, but forgot to mention the conflict between Turkey and the EU. As of now, it seems as if Brussels is ready to pay Ankara in hard cash if they keep refugees away from Greece. Very similar to the deal with Morocco vis-a-vis the Spanish enclave. As long as they die out of sight, all is good for Brussels.

I would add France as a point of interest:
They recently announced that the state of emergency will be extended until ISIS is beaten. In other words, it'll be permanent, just like the Patriot Act in the US. A lof of attention has been given to the authoritarian shift of politics in Poland, all the while ignoring the equally disturbing shift in France. Those emergency measures basically suspend the rule of law in favour of a covert police state. Add the economic situation (abysmal), the Socialist President who avoids socialist policies, and the still ongoing rise of Front National... well, you get the picture.

Regarding the EU, I'll say this: between the refugee crisis (border controls, domestic problems, etc) and the economic crisis, they finally managed to convince me that this whole thing might come apart at the seams after all. Not this year, though, even if the Brits decide to distance themselves from this rotten creation.

I'll take the vaginal and anal fleshlights plz, but only if they're disguised as bottles of Mr. Pibb. I'm very particular. And throw in the double sided dong for the wife. Jokingly. Hah. Life is all jokes until someone follows through.

Right, and I agree that is how she comes across. I just think the Profs answer was textbook. If she was really just making a statement disguised as a question then you lose nothing by attacking the arguments as if they were asked in all sincerity. Well, apart from time, but I'm assuming this lecture was not for science students. If it was, then my god woman, go away and read the book, this is a lecture for people who have read at least some of the literature etc.

ps. I've not been to NZ no, but I'd love to visit one day just to see Minas Tirith and to ride a Giant Eagle (I've heard they can be pretty picky about where they will and won't take you though...).

Congratulations! Your video, Gruesome Verses from Bible Disguised as Quran, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 10 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on Gruesome Verses from Bible Disguised as Quran has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Gruesome Verses from Bible Disguised as Quran, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.