Gyms and diet drug manufacturers get dollar signs in their eyes when they hear that more Americans are obese or overweight. Dentists get dollar signs in their eyes when they hear that kids are eating more sugar and drinking more soft drinks. Airbag manufacturers get dollar signs in their eyes whenever there is a fatal highway accident. US grain farmers get dollar signs in their eyes when they hear there is a famine in China or Russia. Munitions manufacturers get dollar signs in their eyes every time we take a step closer to the inevitable next war with North Korea, Iran, or whoever else.

People investing in "terrible" things that make you more money when situations go from bad to worse, and companies that try to sell shares to investors based on the cynical assumption that things are going downhill fail to shock or dismay me. On the other hand, companies that spend boatloads of money lobbying to ensure that things actually do go from bad to worse deserve all the ire we can muster. So I guess that the bigger problem that I see here is the incredible extent that we've allowed lobbying, "campaign financing", etc. to corrupt and subvert our governmental system.

Thanks a lot, JJ.
In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
*quality

Thanks man, I had forgotten about this one.
In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
*promote

Haha I totally noticed that too!

>> ^vaire2ube:

whoa! was that an ascii cock in a chat box at :15! game raelly has everything

>> ^shuac:

What the hell am I watching? Pick any random vid from Unsifted and I'll bet it makes more sense than this.


Only for those who do not know the magnificence that is EVE Online.

Why couldn't it be cheap to maintain a vacuum? It doesn't have to be anywhere near a total vacuum (which is mechanically impossible, BTW), just a relative vacuum. Any reduction in air density results in decreased air resistance, and increased top speed. I don't know the physics of it, but I'm guessing that even a 50% air density vacuum would result in a massive top speed increase. In a perfect vacuum, the theoretical top speed would be (acceleration force) x (track length). This 6,500 km/h number may be a limit imposed only by how good a vacuum they think can be reliably produced.

And about safety, obviously the track wouldn't be built in a bare tube that could dent or break. The tube could be whatever material, but then encased in something else and/or buried so nothing could fall on it/crash into it/etc. Before it went into operation, for consumer confidence (and even before production, for investor confidence) it would have to be demonstrated that the structure is strong enough to withstand any reasonably foreseeable event. I'd be mostly worried about earthquakes, personally, especially when crossing the Pacific.

Just like with aviation and normal trains, it will have its growing pains and regular disasters, but I bet it ends up being on par safety-wise with flight, and significantly cheaper, given the fuel savings.>> ^shole:

as said in the video, the cars don't move by sucking it through a straw, but by magnetic levitation
they draw the air out of the tubes and use magnets to speed it up, which is very efficient due to lack of air friction
there's a ton of problems with this though
it would need to be (relatively) airtight and stable throughout
that can't be too cheap, whatever the material
constant maintenance
what if there was an external accident that dents the tube, like a failing support structure, and the train-car later comes to that dent at this huge speed?
it would be worse than a plane coming apart midair
great for scifi, but i don't see it being reality any time soon

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security
I would rephrase this, but only slightly. I wouldn't say "Republicans", because there's plenty of the GOP that are just fine with Social Security as long as they're in charge of it. I would instead say that "fiscal conservatives" wish to liquidate SS. If you phrase it that way, then it would be more accurate.
I'm one of them. The SS program, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, are New Deal boondoggles, and if I was "King For A Day" I would instantly abolish both of them and just let the chips fall where they may. They were terrible ideas when they first started, and they are only even more terrible today. All the arguments made against these programs when they were being debated have all come true with almost perfect accuracy, and if they are allowed to continue they will bankrupt the nation. It is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. Staunching the bleeding with temporary measures is not going to solve the problem, but only postpones the day. Just eliminate them now. We got by just fine without them before, and we can do it again. Give the money back to the people in wages and lower taxes, and let people save up for thier own retirement and medical expenses. Let the states cook up their own solutions for those that are truly in need, and let's stop making disastrous Federal "One Size" programs that inevitably crash and burn. We aren't doing anyone any favors with these awful systems.


When you say "we got by just fine without" Social Security, who's the "we" you're referring to? There's very good evidence that SS is responsible for the significant drop in the rate of poverty among the elderly over the last half-century. The facts are that when social security spending (per capita) increases, the poverty rate among seniors reliably decreases, and vice versa. Opponents of SS may honestly believe that an increase in elderly poverty is a painful tradeoff that must be made in order to protect the financial future of the country. That is an honest position that can be debated. But at least acknowledge the existence of the tradeoff. The program has had a huge impact in the lives of some our most vulnerable fellow citizens.

The idea that abolishing SS will do no harm because people will be able to invest their own money to protect their future is ridiculous. First of all, investing wisely is psychologically difficult. We are not built to plan carefully for that far in the future. Second, even if you do make the decision to invest sensibly, it is not easy to do, given that the financial system has been set up to prey on small investors for short-term profit, with high fees and fraudulent advice. You just can't expect the average person, who has no idea how or why to invest in a suitably diversified portfolio of low-cost index funds, to successfully invest in the market.

So I think there is very good reason to think that getting rid of SS will have a significant cost attached. Of course, it is also true that SS faces a long-term financing problem, and we need to be having a discussion about how to deal with it. But it does neither side any good to just deny that there are any worthwhile arguments on the other side.

The video numbered 13/14 is clearly faked. There is a "convenient" pan to the ground, a very strange change of the stuff on the ground at 1:53 just as the camera pans back up, and suddenly the darkness of the shadows has changed. The one posted here, 14/14 is better, but it's still faked. There is a strange blur and movement when the guy runs toward the camera at 21 seconds, then at 22 you can see his shadow goes straight off to the right, while the other guys who run back have shadows that are angled away and to the right.

I really hate shit like this, because it's a "boy who cried wolf" sort of thing. When someone else actually builds new technology, potential investors are going to remember all of the hoax crap that has been pulled before.

>> ^fissionchips:

Haha, great stuff, especially the surprise ending!


Yeah... apparently Chinese oil companies and investors own the majority of the tar sands projects. So when the U.S. buys oil from Canada, they're actually buying it from China.

Even if every other part of that video was false. Speculation is a non-value adding force to most aspects of the economy. Especially when you get to speculators speculating on other speculation, and it exists. The money being funneled into pockets via most speculation adds NOTHING but cost.

To claim that the amount of speculation that is allowed in the US, to the detriment to everyone BUT the speculators, is a good thing is crazy. We've had videos about this stuff on here all the time, why speculation began (to facility sales between farmers and bakeries/whatever by setting firm prices to buy at and be sustainable). Any speculation beyond that first step is just adding cost to fill some other guys pockets who does NOTHING.

They need to be forced to take their money and invest/produce instead of cashing in on other people's labor. It's just another tax you are forced to pay, but it ends up in the pockets of private investors and such. It does not help you in anyway whatsoever. It just creates an unnecessary layer of "investment" that doubles the pressure on manufacturing and production, increasing costs but not creating more goods, better goods, or cheaper goods. And when the economy has downward trends, it makes it worse.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So Jim Rogers is a hypocrite, what's your point?
Are you implying/concluding something about Ron Paul's economic policies?

Not so much Paul's policies so much as Paul's supposed knowledge of macroeconomics.

Paul's Austrian economics says that expanding the monetary base the way the Fed has should result in immediate inflation since monetary "stimulus" doesn't do anything but raise the overall price level. According to Paul's prediction, anyone holding a stock of U.S. dollars in cash is a moron, because those dollars are expected to fall in value dramatically any day now. Smart investors would "sell" their dollars and move their wealth to a better investment instrument.

Similarly, Paul's Austrian economics say that running massive government deficits never have a positive effect, and will only lead to inflation and a rise in the government's borrowing costs. In investor terms, that means that you should expect treasury bond prices to fall -- and an investor looking to capitalize on that knowledge can make a profit by shorting bonds.

Jim Rogers is not doing either of those things. Which means one of two things:

1) Jim Rogers is a moron who knows nothing about investments.
2) Jim Rogers thinks Ron Paul's central economic predictions are wrong.

Either way, that means this is not a particularly ringing endorsement of Paul's economic chops. Either he's being praised by a Grade A moron, or his so-called supporter thinks Paul is actually full of shit on the economy, and was stupid enough to make that abundantly clear on TV.

The title I'd probably have sifted this with would be "Paul endorser forced to admit Paul doesn't know jack about economics." Well, at least I would have if titles could be that long...

A summary of what I saw:

Dude says Romney, Santorum and Obama are clueless on the economy, but Ron Paul is super-fantastic with his talk about hyperinflation and dollar devaluation.

Smart interviewer asks "So tell me Mr. Smartypants Ron Paul supporter guy, are you putting your money where your mouth is? Are you selling your dollars? Are you shorting U.S. Treasuries?"

The answer? "Uh, no, I'm holding onto my dollars, and I'm gonna go long on Treasuries, because there are 'lots of reasons' to do the exact opposite of what Ron Paul says a smart investor would do..."

Indeed there are, indeed there are.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Do you believe that the demand for cars would have decreased if the big 3 went under? If so, please explain how and why.
I think, if the big 3 tanked, people who would have bought those cars would still need cars and would have bought cars from other manufacturers. That means increased business for those other manufacturers which means they place more demand on the material manufacturers, the parts suppliers, etc. Some of that demand would have manifested overseas, but I believe much of it would have gone to the same businesses that Ford, Chrysler and GM use. After all, as I said above, there's lots of other manufacturers that do assembly here and it's easier and cheaper to have your suppliers nearby.
No, like you say it's mostly a supply-driven story, not demand-driven. My point is that dismantling the Detroit-centered auto manufacturing infrastructure would be a huge shock to the American economy.

Like you say, eventually the economy would readjust, but even in a good economy it'd take a long time for it to adjust to a shock of that size. In a time where the financial markets had just gone into a crisis of historic proportions, it might've taken more than a decade.

A decade in which that circular flow is moving more slowly, dragged down by all the human and industrial capital that we leave idle as workers in Detroit look for new jobs, and while we wait for the prices of Toyotas and Hondas and BMW's to rise in response to the decline in supply, then wait for those price increases to build up as excess capital to the point where those companies decide to invest in opening new factories to meet the demand.

In the long run, the circular flow of our economy would eventually get back up to the rate it was at before, but in the long run we are all dead.

Or instead we could spot 'em 50 billion and avoid taking that kind of hit. Unless of course, you think there are inherent insurmountable problems with Chrysler and GM that can't be fixed with new management and some debt forgiveness?
>> ^xxovercastxx:

All the independent analyses that I read back in 2008 concluded that the cost of the bailouts vs letting the big 3 tank was close to a wash.

I'm not sure if the analyses you looked at were talking about the overall macroeconomic effects, but I bet not. I bet they just looked at "will it increase the government's debt load?" That's all most investor analyses do in situations like this.

The analysis I'm talking about would be comparing GDP forecasts with the bailout vs. without.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
There's also a cost to other businesses that comes with these sorts of bailouts that is rarely mentioned. I used to work at a small property insurance company. When the economy got rough, they played things smart. They minimized their risk, invested heavily and were one of the only companies of their kind to maintain a profit through the whole debacle. AIG, on the other hand, bet on high risk business and lost fortunes. They got a government care package and put themselves back together and now, as a result, are destroying the insurance market. My old company is struggling to stay in business (next year is their 100th anniversary) and AIG is swimming in ill gotten money.

The smartass in me wants to say "what's the cost?" After all, both companies made a profit. What's wrong with that?

But seriously, you're talking about "moral hazard". Believe me, that's not some topic nobody talks about, it's what right-wing economists and business journalists scream as loud as they can whenever there's talk about government stepping in to stave off major disruptions in the economy.

The my answer is that bailouts shouldn't be no strings attached, like the bailout of AIG was. The management of the companies that get rescued should lose their jobs, and be stripped of all their personal wealth. Depending on their actions, maybe tossed in jail too.

That way the value of company itself is preserved (and not liquidated), while there's a strong disincentive for the management to make a business plan that centers on expectations of being bailed out if the shit hits the fan.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

So the question I pose (and I know we can only speculate on the answer) is what effect have the bailouts had on Toyota, Honda, etc? Or do we not care because they don't employ as many Americans as the domestics?


Since this comment is approaching an epic length already, I'm just gonna say that it wasn't really about foreign vs. domestic ownership, but about minimizing the number of years we stay below trend in GDP during a severe recession. If you want to view it as a region vs. region dispute, it was also about keeping the perfectly good Detroit manufacturing cluster from being needlessly dismantled and rebuilt elsewhere.

What you're saying here is demonstrating the problem I was speaking about earlier. You bought the narrative of the story but failed to investigate the facts. Romney is paying the same tax on that money that he would if it were invested in the USA. He hasn't done anything illegal. The cayman island *used* to be a tax haven, which is why there is this stigma. It isn't anymore. The banks fully cooperate with the IRS. Romney could have the money there simply to attact foreign investors. Do you think that no one is allowed to invest their money anywhere but in the United States?

Here is a statement his campaign released..he doesn't even control the fund that invested that money:

"The Romneys' investments in funds established in the Cayman Islands are taxed in the very same way they would be if the Romneys held their shares of the fund investments directly in the US rather than through a Cayman fund.

Nothing is changed from four years ago in relation to these funds. Governor and Mrs. Romney's assets are managed on a blind basis. They do not control the investment of these assets. The assets are under the control and overall management of an independent trustee.

Furthermore, only the sponsor of the fund decides where it is established. That responsibility is totally outside the control of a passive investor like Gov. Romney or the trustee of this blind trust.

Also, in regards to the Unrelated Business Income Tax: Governor Romney’s IRA is tax deferred, just like the IRA’s of every other American. Its investments are in compliance with rules created to keep it tax deferred, just like it was intended to be."

I wouldn't vote for Romney but the story itself is deliberately portrayed as if Romney has done something illeagl, which he hasn't. They're counting on people not to investigate the facts, which is why I came to state what they are.


>> ^volumptuous:
The guy is running for President of The United States and yet he is evading taxation on the wealth he has generated in our country. (leaving aside the fact that a lot of it came from other people's misery)
Yes, I have an enormous fucking problem with that as do most people in this country.
He's not just your average rich fucker, he's the guy who is running for POTUS. How can you NOT have a problem with him doing this shit? He obviously doesn't give enough of a fuck about the citizens to pay his fair share. He's bilking this country, and firing scores of people his entire life. Fuck this guy in the face.

The people paying NO income taxes are as much or more a burden on society than the wealthy the left keeps lying about not paying their "fair share". Taxwise, the wealthy aka investors aka job creators are already put through the ringer, and frankly, so is the middle class.

No one is suggesting the poor pay crippling taxes, but as His Earness would say, shouldn't they put some "skin in the game"?