This is precisely why a large part of me actually wants Trump to win.

We're way too complacent. There has been a slow, steady, gradual decline that has lulled us into apathy -- even though the state of politics and "democracy" in the US (and arguably globally as a result) is absolutely pathetic and appalling at this point.

It is looking more and more likely that the general election will be Trump vs Clinton.

First of all, that alone demonstrates just how fucked we are. Our final two choices are likely to be the two people with the highest negative opinion numbers out of all the candidates. The cream didn't rise to the top, and instead the two biggest turds managed to avoid being flushed. South Park seems oddly prophetic; we have really ended up with turd sandwich vs. giant douche. I just can't tell which is which.

Second, I notice that a LOT of people (including "establishment" Republicans) are scared shitless by the prospect of a Trump presidency. In a Trump vs Clinton election, they say that they would easily prefer to vote for Clinton -- perhaps couched with the "lesser of two evils" descriptor, but still vote for Clinton.

I agree with the idea that Clinton is the lesser of those two evils. But that, in combination with our current level of apathy, makes me MORE afraid of a Clinton presidency than a Trump one. Clinton is a slick, dirty politician. People think they are going to dodge the Trump bullet by voting for her, but she is the archetype of what got us into this situation. She tells people only what she thinks they want to hear, while doing exactly what her donors (megacorporations) want her to do whenever the camera isn't on. A Clinton presidency will keep the masses just placated enough to NOT boil over.

Meanwhile, Trump seems like enough of a perfect storm that he could actually screw things up bad enough to make the masses stand up and take notice. Maybe that kind of slap in the face is what we need.

Clinton presidency: "Fuck it."
Trump presidency: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"


In a hypothetical scenario where the general election was Trump vs Sanders, it would be much harder for me to be "pro" Trump. Because Sanders seems like maybe he's got the right mindset to change things for the better the *right* way. On the other hand, I kinda felt the same way about Obama. So, even in a Trump vs Sanders scenario, a big part of me would be "hoping" for Trump to win. Because *something* has got to snap us out of our apathy.

You haven't addressed ANY of the complaints I registered. You haven't responded to the complaints about the racist videos, you haven't responded to the abuse of the ignore system for newtboy, and you seem intent on framing this as some sort of personal vendetta.

I also find it interesting that twice now when I've asked you to ban someone for racist behavior, the first words out of your mouth are you getting defensive that you don't share their views. I didn't ask you about *your* views. You doth protest too much, sir.

Perception is reality. If you do nothing about racist sifts, you can protest all you like, You can tell me that you MAY have talked to the offender, you can deflect and dodge all you want, but talk is cheap, and the implication will be that if you do nothing, then you must share those views.

Actually, no, racism is pretty black and white. You either view all humans as equals...or you don't. It's quite simple actually. The jury is actually in on this. Racism is not merely an opinion, It's bad mmkay? It's been in a few papers, you might have heard about it.

I already took a break from this site because you refused to do anything about Lantern and nothing has changed with the current racist du jour. It's clear that you've given up on this site and don't care about the community (except when an anniversary rolls around) as it is a mere shadow of its former self.

This is no longer a tenable situation for myself (and clearly for others who have already left the site because of your pattern of failures dealing with blankfist, chingalera, et al). Unlike you, I chose to act.

Please delete my account, effective immediately.

You haven't addressed ANY of the complaints I registered. You haven't responded to the complaints about the racist videos, you haven't responded to the abuse of the ignore system for newtboy, and you seem intent on framing this as some sort of personal vendetta.

I also find it interesting that twice now when I've asked you to ban someone for racist behavior, the first words out of your mouth are you getting defensive that you don't share their views. I didn't ask you about *your* views. You doth protest too much, sir.

Perception is reality. If you do nothing about racist sifts, you can protest all you like, You can tell me that you MAY have talked to the offender, you can deflect and dodge all you want, but talk is cheap, and the implication will be that if you do nothing, then you must share those views.

Actually, no, racism is pretty black and white. You either view all humans as equals...or you don't. It's quite simple actually. The jury is actually in on this. Racism is not merely an opinion, It's bad mmkay? It's been in a few papers, you might have heard about it.

I already took a break from this site because you refused to do anything about Lantern and nothing has changed with the current racist du jour. It's clear that you've given up on this site and don't care about the community (except when an anniversary rolls around) as it is a mere shadow of its former self.

This is no longer a tenable situation for myself (and clearly for others who have already left the site because of your pattern of failures dealing with blankfist, chingalera, et al). Unlike you, I chose to act.

Please delete my account, effective immediately.

He might be correct in theory, but realistically they will follow all but the most heinous orders. It is entrenched in them the longer they serve to follow commands and the threat of military prison is there as well. For something like this to happen, it would require 100% agreement and compliance between all levels of the commanding officers on a very controversial decision.

More likely is that the orders would be filtered and interpreted by the actual lower level commanders in a way to make them ineffective. For instance, if Trump ordered a drone strike on illegal immigrants (just an example based on his dislike of them), the drone might encounter mechanical issues or just miss the target. Soldiers, by and large, are great bullshitters. Trust me, if you ever play pen and paper RPGs with them it is fucking hilarious how they work out ways to dodge 'orders'.

Title, description and video hardly tell the real story.

"But according to the U.S. Marshals Service, there was a bit more to Aker’s story that wasn’t told on air.

According to the feds Aker had a warrant for his arrest and that he had been dodging them for some time.

The U.S. Marshals Service noted Tuesday that they have been given the responsibility for service of civil processes as directed by the federal court system. These civil processes can include summons for individuals to appear in court to address delinquent federal student loans.

"Since November 2012, U.S. Marshals had made several attempts to serve a show cause order to Paul Aker to appear in federal court, including searching at numerous known addresses. Marshals spoke with Aker by phone and requested he appear in court, but Aker refused. A federal judge then issued a warrant for Aker's arrest for failing to appear at a Dec. 14, 2012, hearing," the agency said in a statement Tuesday.

"It is the responsibility of the U.S. Marshals to serve civil processes at direction of the federal courts. These civil processes include summonses for individuals to appear in court to address delinquent federal loans, including student, agricultural and other loans made by federal agencies."

When officials made contact with him on Feb. 11, the U.S. Marshals said that they only sent two agents to his door. They say that when they attempted to arrest him, Aker resisted and retreated back into his home.

"The situation escalated when Aker verbally said to the deputies that he had a gun. After Aker made the statement that he was armed, in order to protect everyone involved, the deputies requested additional law enforcement assistance. Additional deputy marshals and local law enforcement officers responded to the scene. After approximately two hours, the law enforcement officers convinced Aker to peacefully exit his home, and he was arrested without further incident," the agency said in a statement.

The statement from the U.S. Marshals noted that here in Houston some 1,500 people have been identified for not appearing in court to address outstanding federal student loans.

These are likely extreme cases that have been drawn out for some time though. It's still recommended that debtors pay back their loans as quick as they can.
A judge has now issued warrants for the arrest of these people. Marshals say that every attempt is made to inform individuals of their initial summons before it comes to what Aker faced. "
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/US-Marshals-say-man-wasn-t-arrested-because-he-6834620.php

Contextual kills usually mean that the engine is going to feel clunky and heavy, the wading-through-treacle effect. I really miss the days of fast, flowing FPS games that had huge individual skill ceilings involving all things like aim, dodging, rocket jumping, bunnyhopping and other clever manipulations of the engine.

That's what i think of when i get nostalgic for old FPS games like doom and quake and (later) half life 1.

There are some kids who don't want to go up, or just dodge out of the way. The one kid who dodges the hands gets a good ol' Australia style booting on his way out. =(

@RedSky

First, if it were up to me, you could take over as Minister of Finance in this country tomorrow. Our differences seem miniscule compared to what horrendous policies our last three MoF have pushed. The one prior, ironically, was dubbed the most dangerous man in Europe by The Sun.

We're in agreement on almost everything you mentioned in your last comment, so I'll focus on what I perceive differently.

First, I'd differentiate between fiscal stimulus and fiscal spending, the former being a situational application of the latter. As you said, fiscal stimulus during an economic crisis tends to be inadequate with regards to our macroeconomic objectives. You can neither whip out plans for major investments at a whim nor can you mobilize the neccessary resources quickly enough to make a difference and still be reasonable efficient. Not to mention that it only affects certain parts of the economy (construction, mostly), leaving others completely in the wind. So I'm with you on that one, it's a terribly inefficient and ineffective approach.

Automatic stabilizers work magnificently in this regard, but they barely take any pressure from the lower wage groups, especially if unemployment benefits come with a metric ton of strings attached, as is the case in Germany. A basic income guarantee might work, but that's an entirely different discussion.

The problem I see with merely relying on reasonable automatic stabilizers in the form of payments is that they do put a floor into demand, but do very little to tackle the problem of persistent unemployment due to a lack of jobs. As useful as training and education are, the mere number of highly educated people forced to work mundane jobs tells me that, at best, it doesn't work, and at worst pushes a systemic problem onto the individual, leading to immense pressure. Not to mention the psychological effects of being unemployed when employment is tauted as a defining attribute of a proper person -- aka the demonization of the unemployed.

It's still somewhat decent in Australia, but in Europe... it's quite a horrible experience.

Anyway, my point is that I'd rather see a lot more fiscal spending (permanent!) in the shape of public sector jobs. A lot of work cannot be valued properly by the market; should be done without the expectation of a return of investment (hospitals, anyone?); occurs in sectors of natural monopolies -- all of that should be publicly run. A job guarantee, like your fellow countryman Bill Mitchell advocates quite clearly, might be an approach worth trying out. Economy in the shit? More people on the public payroll, at rather low (but living wage!) wages. Do it at the county/city level and you can create almost any kind of job. If the private sector wants those people instead, they'd have to offer better working conditions. No more blackmail through the fear of unemployment -- you can always take a public job, even if it is at a meagre pay.

I should probably have mentioned that I don't buy into the notion of a stable market. From where I am standing, it's inherently unstable, be it through monopolies/oligopolies, dodging of laws and regulations (Uber), impossibility to price-in externalities (environmental damage most of all) or plain, old cost-cutting leading to a system-wide depression of demand. I'm fine with interfering in the market wherever it fails to deliver on our macroeconomic objectives -- which at this point in time is almost everywhere, basically.

Healthcare is all the rage these days, thanks to the primaries. I'd take the publicly-run NHS over the privately-run abomination in the US any day of the week. And that's after all the cuts and privatizations of the last two decades that did a horrible number on the NHS. Fuck ATOS, while we're at it.

Same for the railroad: the pre-privatization Bundesbahn in Germany was something to be proud of and an immeasurable boost of both the economy and the general standard of living.

In the mid/long run, the effects of automation and climate change-induced migration will put an end to the idea of full employment, but for the time being, there's still plenty of work to be done, plenty of idle resources to be employed, and just nobody to finance it. So why not finance it through the printing press until capacity is reached?

As for the Venezuela comparison: I don't think it fits in this case. Neither does Weimar Germany, which is paraded around quite regularly. Both Venezuela and Weimar Germany had massive supply-side problems. They didn't have the production capacity nor the resources to meet the demand they created by spending money into circulation. If an economy runs at or above its capacity, any additional spending, wherever it comes from, will cause inflation. But both Europe and the US are operating faaar below capacity in any measurable metric. You mentioned LRAS yourself. I think most estimates of it, as well as most estimates of NAIRU, are off quite significantly so as to not take the pressure off the wage slaves in the lowest income sector. You need mass unemployment to keep them in line.

As you said, the participation rate is woefully low, so there's ample space. And I'd rather overshoot and cause a short spike in inflation than remain below potential and leave millions to unneccessary misery.

Given the high level of private debt, there will be no increase in spending on that front. Corporations don't feel the need to invest, since demand is down and their own vaults are filled to the brim with cash. So if the private sector intends to net save, you either have to run a current account surplus (aka leech demand from other countries) or a fiscal deficit. Doesn't work any other way, sectoral balances always sum up to zero, by definition. If we want to reduce the dangerous levels of private debt, the government needs to run a deficit. If we don't want to further increase the federal debt, the central bank has to hand the cash over directly, without the issuance of debt through the treasury.

As for the independant central bank: you can only be independant from either the government or the private sector, not both. Actually, you can't even be truly independant from either, given that people are still involved, and people have ideologies and financial ties.

Still, if an "independant" central bank is what you prefer, Adair Turner's new book "Between Debt and the Devil" might be worth a read. He's a proponent of 100% reserve banking, and argues for the occasional use of the printing press -- though controlled by an inflation-targeting central bank. According to him, QE is pointless and in order to bring nominal demand up to the level we want, we should have a fiscal stimulus financed by central bank money. The central bank controls the amount, the government decides on what to spend it on.

Not how I would do it, but given his expertise as head of the Financial Services Authority, it's quite refreshing to hear these things from someone like him.

For me, winter means you don't drive like you do during the rest of the year, it's how I learned to drive and so it's what I'm used to. I did buy cheap all season tires recently and I do have some regrets there, just not enough to stop using them. I don't consider myself to be all that great a driver, it's mostly just patience and paying attention.
@newtboy
I guess I'm not rich enough for a winter only car, but I drove a Dodge Neon for a dozen years or so and at the end it only had a little rust. While I have no doubt that winter is hell on cars, I suspect that sometimes the rust factor might be a bit exaggerated.

Or maybe they are just Harley fans. I might have tried gunning it and getting the hell out of Dodge.

Cool video but he really waited right up until the last second before getting the fuck out of Dodge. Unless it was spreading that quickly?

Your video, Can a Star Wars Blaster Bolt Be Dodged?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I never saw a single person "dodge" in Star Wars, and I think it was universally agreed upon by children across the world that "Bad guys can't shoot good".

Did they really need to build a fucking set for that?

Your video, Witness the pulling power of this fully operational Dodge, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.