😂 You unbelievable ijit! 😂

I give you verified facts and figures…you scream “NOT!!” And send back randos whining on the interweb about low minimum wage high rent and fake food costs that all got much worse Jan 2017-2021. Typically, you have no facts or statistics to offer because they don’t support your position at all.

Whining about their low wages at entry level jobs, which is a thing conservatives fought hard to keep, never rising rock bottom low wages and ever increasing rent. Now you blame Biden for low minimum wages your party wants even lower and refuses to raise. Under Biden, wages are rising at 4.4%, double inflation and double the rate they increased under Trump, but now mostly at the low end instead of 99% of gains going to the top 1% and nothing (or cuts) to hourly workers under Trump. Profits are record setting too, driving a significant portion of inflation. 😂

Lying about $45 worth of food costing $100 (unless those drink cans are >$10 each not $2, the two old spices are $25, the hidden meat is filet mignon and another >$25 not $10 chicken, you pay $10 for fresh OJ not the $3 I pay, and the card has a gift card inside).

I live in rural Northern California, where everything is expensive…that’s well under $50 in groceries here. 😂 🤦‍♂️

Liars.

Bidenomics staved off a recession/depression everyone predicted after Trump, cut inflation faster than any other western country, raised wages twice as fast as conservatives targeting the low end, and created more jobs than the last 4 Republican presidents combined in 3 years, all while delivering record corporate profits and a strong market.
Trumpenomics was a disaster that lost 3 million jobs, lost actual earning capacity for most (wages rose slower than inflation), had the first ever negative gdp in our lifetimes, caused massive inflation, and lowered our national credit rating for the first time….failed on every metric used to gauge the economy.
And never forget he tried to end democracy, killed 1 million Americans, and IS A RAPIST.
Sleepy grandpa wiped the floor with him from his basement despite all your MAGA fervor and outrage. 😂

Thanks for the laughs. You liars are always hilarious when trying to make a point you know facts and reality don’t support.

Well, the wind could NOT EVER blow the wind into the shape of a sand Castle, because both the Humidity and Gravity are working against it. Even if there was rain or moisture that perfectly conditioned the sand to stick to itelf in the perfect consistency, then the wind couldn't quite blow it around in the way it would need to. And of course Gravity would always cause the sand to fall to it's lowest points.

I know I'm being picky here, but this just stood out to me.
Everything else in the video was engaging.

Good point. I know France recycles their expellants down to the low percentages. We should have that in North America

@newtboy
i think you are being a tad over-zealous in your commentary.
now you know i agree with you on pretty much all aspects of police:brutality,malfeasance,hubris,fascism etc etc..

but we both realize that for the majority of police officers it is a job,and one they take seriously.statistically this is just a plain fact.

so i am struggling to understand your rage induced commentary directed toward a cop who is simply saying "please,comply".

that is pretty sound advice when dealing with an agent of the state who is not only authorized to use physical force,but carries a gun.

i found his advice pretty non-controversial.

your obvious points non-withstanding,because your points are accurate and have caused incredible misery,but his advice is also just as sound,and if it could deter even just one police beating.wouldn't that be worth it?

i am telling ya man,izzo is a pretty straight up guy for a cop,and he addresses pretty much every point you brought up on his channel.i know some of those points he makes you will disagree with,because i disagreed,but this man will surprise you on a bunch of points.i know he surprised me.

here is a video of him talking about his impending termination.he knew it was coming because he exposed corruption in his precinct:
https://youtu.be/-4TpcIPKj_E
*edit:i should post this video next round,give it a watch newt.

he has one video where he talks about quotas,and the reason why they are supposedly "non-existent".they do not call them quotas,but they are penalized if they give out too many warnings,or write a lower cost infraction.

trust me man,put aside your cop hate and check this dude out.you can still disagree,but he does give a solid representation of a cops perspective.

Let's remember he's a comedian, it's pretty facile to overlook the fact that he has to be both entertaining and funny regardless of the message he wants to get across. It is extremely difficult to be funny enough to attract widespread popularity as a comedian and at the same time exhaustively cover a nuanced topic to deliver the most devastatingly convincing points.

I know it's that difficult because no one can do it. Ricky Gervais tries to do it sometimes but he either sacrifices the comedy in lieu of the message or vice versa. Who is to say if he would be as popular as he is now if he didn't do that?

So then is it better to make the perfect point to a smaller number of people, or to make a point to a lot of people and hopefully inspire them to take an interest or discuss it? Well, here we are discussing it, so i think he probably achieved exactly what he wanted to.

Carlin said that if the context is right, any word is fine. But in your "stupid" example, you try to discredit Carlin by describing a context which is clearly not right. So it turns out this is just a strawman argument. He didn't say he wants people called stupid (or retarded) or n-word like the old days, he said that words like retarded and n-word are ok in context. I don't know how you can disagree with that. I also don't know why i censored the n-word because the context was right, but it felt a bit gratuitous when i wrote it.

Ah, Pacifica. I used to work in the area and would head there on my lunch break. Grab a sandwich from the deli at Safeway and sit on the beach watching the waves roll in while I ate. Water is cold as fuck though. I made the mistake of paddling out without a wetsuit one summer during a heatwave and got hypothermia even though the air temp was over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

They've always had problems with erosion there, so this is kinda unsurprising to me. There's really nothing they can do. In the video you can see PCH (Highway 1, the Pacific Coast Highway) and I wonder how many years it'll be before the erosion is creeping up to that point. I know that just south of Pacifica they've had to close PCH a couple of times to shore up the road because it was in danger of collapsing, and during rain storms it sometimes gets closed due to landslides from the hills next to it.

i love this guy.he is sooo pissed and is an absolute rage machine,but i was curious your take on this situation.
is this guy making valid points?
i know that an influx of 1 million refugees in a country with 60 million has to have changed the demographics of germany substantially,but since i am not there and naked ape does have a point in regards to media tap-dancing around the harsh realities.

so i would love your input on this dudes rage induced rant:
http://videosift.com/video/naked-ape-rages-against-the-syrian-refugee-crisis-in-germany

A few things struck me as odd about that video, and then that stat at the end: 700 abductions a day seems way over the top. How many of them are by family members, false/mistaken reports, runaways? I had the impression it was more like 100 per year (I looked this kind of stuff up when my kid was born almost a year ago).

I'd be interested in seeing how many kids did and didn't go with him rather than the sample that showed his point (I know the yahoo article say 3 for 3, but I'm wary given the numbers above). Having their mothers right there talking to the guy probably made a difference too.

Generally untrustworthy video in my opinion, but it does show that kids - like everyone - easily forget what they've been trained to do in extraordinary circumstances. The trick is to make the decision come naturally using their own judgment rather than training (and no, I don't know how to do that).

Couldn't agree more. But (there's always a 'but')... if a person convinces themself that they feel better without gluten, then the most passionate and data filled argument presented to tell them that what they feel is not justifiable scientifically, they're still going to be silly and tell the informed individual to screw off. The point is, some people have a reason that is good enough for them, and nobody is going to convince them otherwise. Are we really that dialed in to what's healthy and what nutrients we need for a healthy lifestyle? (whatever that means...). By example, consider the history of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - in the early 90's, people were feeling shitty and weak, in pain and suffering. They were labeled as fakers or diagnosed as having a psychological disorder, but certainly not a verifiable medical condition related to any consistent physiological disorder. Thousands then and now millions of people have been diagnosed with the disease that is finally recognized as a true medical ailment. The point: we know a lot but we don't know it all when it comes to physiology, nutrition and "sensitivities", and there is no one size fits all solution to guarantee we will be healthy. It's understandable that some are dismissive of this gluten thing as completely irrational based on current science, but parallel that with the irrational and mocked CFS sufferers from 30 years ago who now carry a disease that is has a clear diagnostic methodology and is to varying degrees treatable. Sometimes we don't even know what we don't even know, and for some if it makes them feel better, they're going to do it. Harmful? To each their own.

Thank you for the power point! I know exactly what I will spend it on...one of your videos.

He has a point you know...

Very good point. I know many females who participate in online gaming or forums who choose neutral or masculine names and avatars so they are treated equally.

I also have many male friends who create female alter egos to get special treatment online - hand holding, gifts and ESPECIALLY an army of White Nights.

As usual, reality disagrees with QM. As usual, he contributes nothing but regurgitated talking points he knows aren't true.

Waste, fraud, and abuse are not unique to the public sector. It happens just as much, if not more it's just covered up better in the private, so you can stop pretending there isn't a double standard.

People like you, QM have no moral ground to be talking about who has moral grounds or not.

The wealthy use and depend on gov't services more, so they should be charged more. It's really as simple as that. I've heard both left and right agree that corporate loopholes should be closed. But as usual, QM misses the point. It has nothing to do with left and right. Our corporate masters have their hooks in both the left and the right so while both the left and the right will pay lip service to closing loopholes, it will never happen unless there is enough public backlash to happen.

Businesses thrived in the past with higher tax rates. They will continue to do so.

Ideaology is worthless. History and countless evidence has shown that higher taxes are not job killers and that the 1 percent are just fear-mongering and attempting to hold the country hostage so they can be even more rich than they already are. You want to fight terrorism? There it is.

Rationality and reason, not ideaology and myth will always win in the end.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Thanks for the reply. There were things I really didn't understand about Krugman's Hangover Theory article, especially that very point that you quote. In fact I tried to ask in a post above about this but maybe you missed it. To me it seems only natural that there is no unemployment in the boom and there is some in the bust. Both are big reorganisations of labour, it is true. However, to start with the boom is much slower and longer so adaptation is easier. Also the booming industry can afford to pay slightly above average wages so will easily attract unemployed or 'loose' labour. As it is paying above average, there will be little resistance to people changing work to it. The boom is persistent enough that people will train and invest to enter the work created by it. The information for entering the boom industry is clear and the pay rise makes the work change smooth. I see no reason for unemployment.
The bust however is short and sudden. There is no other obvious work to return to. That information of what the worker should do is much less clear. The answer may involve taking a small pay cut or on giving up things in which people have invested time and money. Many people wait and resist doing this. They may well not know what to do or try to wait for opportunities to return. Thus there is plenty of reason for unemployment to be generated by the bust.
If I hire 100 people it can probably be done in a month or two. If I fire 100 people it may be a long time before they are all employed again. For me this difference seems so obvious I have a real trouble to understand Krugman's point. I know he's a very smart guy but I can't make head nor tail of his argument here. Can you explain it to me?


I'm trying to think how to connect what you're saying to the point Krugman's making (at least as I understand it).

At a minimum, he're Caplan making the same point in less space:

The Austrian theory also suffers from serious internal inconsistencies. If, as in the Austrian theory, initial consumption/investment preferences "re-assert themselves," why don't the consumption goods industries enjoy a huge boom during depressions? After all, if the prices of the capital goods factors are too high, are not the prices of the consumption goods factors too low? Wage workers in capital goods industries are unhappy when old time preferences re-assert themselves. But wage workers in consumer goods industries should be overjoyed. The Austrian theory predicts a decline in employment in some sectors, but an increase in others; thus, it does nothing to explain why unemployment is high during the "bust" and low during the "boom."

Krugman saying the same thing in more accessible language:

Here's the problem: As a matter of simple arithmetic, total spending in the economy is necessarily equal to total income (every sale is also a purchase, and vice versa). So if people decide to spend less on investment goods, doesn't that mean that they must be deciding to spend more on consumption goods—implying that an investment slump should always be accompanied by a corresponding consumption boom? And if so why should there be a rise in unemployment?

And as a bonus, here's Brad DeLong making a similar case.

My real handicap here is that I'm not familiar enough with the fine details of the Austrian theory to say with authority what they believe. So if I misrepresent their position, it's out of ignorance.

What I gather is that ultimately the Austrian theory of boom and bust is that central banks are messing with the "natural" balance of investment and consumption goods, with a boom happening when investment is being artificially stimulated (by low interest rates), and a bust happens when interest rates eventually go back up (due to inflation, or expectations thereof).

The response from people like Caplan and Krugman is to point out that since aggregate income has to equal aggregate expenditure (because everyone's income is someone else's expenditure, and vice versa), a fall in investment should mean a rise in consumption, and a rise in investment should mean a fall in consumption. Which means we should never see an overall boom or an overall bust, just periods of transition from a rise in consumer goods and a fall in investment, to a fall in consumer goods and a rise in investment. We should never see a situation where they both fall at the same time.

But we do see a fall in both during the bust. Why?

Keynes's answer was that it happens because people are hoarding cash. Either people are themselves stuffing mattresses with it, or more likely, banks start sitting on reserves and refusing to lend out, either out of a fear of their own solvency (Great Depression), or because a deflationary cycle with high unemployment makes sitting on cash look like a good, safe investment for them (Great Depression, and now). Put simply, depressions are the result of an excess demand for money. And since money is an arbitrary thing, it doesn't have to be a scarce resource, we can always just make more...

@NetRunner
Thanks for the reply. There were things I really didn't understand about Krugman's Hangover Theory article, especially that very point that you quote. In fact I tried to ask in a post above about this but maybe you missed it. To me it seems only natural that there is no unemployment in the boom and there is some in the bust. Both are big reorganisations of labour, it is true. However, to start with the boom is much slower and longer so adaptation is easier. Also the booming industry can afford to pay slightly above average wages so will easily attract unemployed or 'loose' labour. As it is paying above average, there will be little resistance to people changing work to it. The boom is persistent enough that people will train and invest to enter the work created by it. The information for entering the boom industry is clear and the pay rise makes the work change smooth. I see no reason for unemployment.

The bust however is short and sudden. There is no other obvious work to return to. That information of what the worker should do is much less clear. The answer may involve taking a small pay cut or on giving up things in which people have invested time and money. Many people wait and resist doing this. They may well not know what to do or try to wait for opportunities to return. Thus there is plenty of reason for unemployment to be generated by the bust.

If I hire 100 people it can probably be done in a month or two. If I fire 100 people it may be a long time before they are all employed again. For me this difference seems so obvious I have a real trouble to understand Krugman's point. I know he's a very smart guy but I can't make head nor tail of his argument here. Can you explain it to me?