So far, 94 and counting…
94. James Levine – Iconic Artistic Director/Composer at the Metropolitan Opera House

Suspended over three allegations of child molestation.

93. Israel Horovitz – Playwright
Nine Allegations of sexual assault.

92. Geoffrey Rush – Oscar-Winner
advertisement

Resigned as the president of the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts following allegations of “inappropriate behavior.”

91. Nick Carter – Former Backstreet Boy
Accused of rape.

90. John Lasseter – Top Disney Executive
Forced leave of absence after numerous accusations of harassment, unwanted kisses, groping.

89. Russell Simmons – Mogul

Multiple accusations of sexual assault.

88. Murray Miller – Girls Writer

Accused of rape.

87. Adam Fields – Producer

Multiple accusations of sexual harassment.

86. John Singleton – Director

Accused of sexual harassment.

85. Jason Mojica – Executive Producer Vice Documentary Films

Suspended over allegations of sexual misconduct.

84. Cameron Mitchell – CAA Agent

Accused of sexual harassment.

83. Sylvester Stallone – Actor, Director

Accused of the sexual assault of a 16 year-old girl.

82. Al Franken – Comedian, U.S. Senator

Groping, misconduct , bullying.

81. Matt Zimmerman – NBC Exec

Fired for sexual misconduct.

80. Andy Henry – Casting Employee

Accused of manipulating auditioning actresses to get undressed.

79. Benny Medina – Producer

Accused of attempted rape.

78. Peter Aalbæk Jensen – Co Founder of Zentropa

Harassment, bullying.

77. Eddie Berganza – Editor DC Comics

Accused of two decades of sexual misconduct.

76. Gary Goddard – Producer

Accused of child molestation.

75. Andrew Kreisberg – TV Producer

Suspended over allegations of misconduct.

75. Richard Dreyfuss – Actor, Activist

Accused of sexual misconduct.

74. George Takei – Actor, Activist

Accused of sexual assault.

73. Ethan Kath – Musician

Accusation of rape.

72. Matthew Weiner – Mad Men Creator

Accused of sexual harassment.

71. Robert Knepper – Actor

Accused of sexual assault.

70. Mariah Carey – Singer, Actress

Accused of sexual harassment.

69. Jeffrey Tambor – Emmy-Winning Actor

Accused of sexual harassment.

68. Ed Westick – Actor

Accused of rape.

67. Alec Baldwin – TV Actor

Bullying and sexist behavior towards women.

66. David Guillod – Co-CEO Primary Wave Entertainment

Alleged sexual assault.

65. Unnamed Director

Alleged sexual harassment.

64. Adam Venit – Powerful Talent Agent

Suspended for allegedly groping Terry Crews.

63. NBCUniversal

Targeted in lawsuit over “inappropriate gender-based, sexual comments”

62. Kirt Webster – CEO Country Music Firm Webster PR

Multiple allegations of sexual harassment, assaulting and drugging a client.

61. Ryan Ly – CAA Agent

Fired over multiple allegations from female staffers, including groping.

60. Erik Horine – ICM Agent

Fired for “inappropriate behavior.”

59. John Grissom – Actor

Accused of molesting Corey Feldman.

58. Danny Masterson – Actor

Four accusations of rape.

57. David Corn – Reporter, Actor

Accusations of sexual touching of female staffers, rape jokes

56. Brett Ratner – Director, Powerhouse Producer Behind RatPac Entertainment

Multiple accusations of sexual assault, harassment.

55. Dustin Hoffman – Oscar-Winning Actor

Accused of sexual misconduct, groping of 17 year-old actress.

54. Jeremy Piven – Emmy Award Winning TV Star

Accused of sexually assaulting an actress.

53. Hamilton Fish – Documentary Film Producer

Suspended over allegations of sexual harassment.

52. Andy Dick – Actor/Comedian

Fired over allegations of sexual harassment, groping.

51. Warner Bros.

Allegations of sexual harassment by former producer.

50. Andrew Kramer – Lionsgate Executive

Resigned due to allegations of sexual harassment.

Stanislav Petrov died. Not sure how well known he is in the US, but he's the bloke who basically prevented a thermo-nuclear war in '83.

Congratulations! Your dedication to finding diamonds in the rough and pushing videos of other members to success has earned you your "Assister" Level 83 Badge!

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Wink+eyewear/@38.969065,-95.2358971,3a,60y,94.85h,83.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJRSi5tIaph7tlIilpyea4g!2e0!7i13312!8i665
6!4m5!3m4!1s0x87bf6f5b670e5ccd:0x2b82e2719f725128!8m2!3d38.9690535!4d-95.2357133!6m1!1e1

Congratulations! Your video, When you finally make your way to New York City..., 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 83 Badge!

Your video, Excited 4th Grader Talks On First Day Of School, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 83 Badge!

The problem remains the Supreme Court. Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80, and Breyer is 78... So the next 4 years is likely to see up to 4 replacements in the court. While Scalia was a conservative, and a conservative replacement wouldn't be overly bad, Ginsburg and Breyer, were they to be replaced with a far right justice... and the Republicans would push as far right as they can, would bring about the end of most of the progress this nation has seen. We'd see them retake on abortion and rule it out, gar marriage illegal again... all this is not only possible, but most likely with any Republican in the Presidency... the Conservatives know this, in fact it is the main reason they are going out and voting this election, even if they hate Trump. They will not only hold onto the lead the Conservatives have in the court, they will be able to tilt it very far in a Conservative direction that will be that way for a very long time as they serve for life (or until they want to step down). Every President of late has done 2 appointments (Obama would have done 3 had Congress done it's job and moved on his nomination for Scalia's replacement), and the next likely has 3 to 4 in the next 4 years counting Scalia. This is the long term danger... beyond the rhetoric making it far more likely for lone wolf attacks, which I'd put up with if it meant a better turn in the Supreme Court.

Your video, STAR TREK BEYOND Official Trailer #2 (2016), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 83 Badge!

Well, cheers for sticking with it anyway, I really appreciate it.

It's a one hour talk on the deficit in particular, and most of what she says is based on MMT principles that would add another 5 hours to her talk if she were to explain them. With neoclassical economics, you can sort of jump right in, given how they are taught at schools and regurgitated by talking heads and politicians, day in and day out. MMT runs contrary to many pieces of "common sense" and since you can't really give 10 hour talks everytime, this is what you end up with – bits and pieces that require previous knowledge.

I'd offer talks by other MMT proponents such as William Mitchell (UNSW), Randy Wray (UMKC) or Michael Hudson (UMKC), but they are even less comprehensible. Sorry. Eric Tymoigne provided a wonderful primer on banking over at NEP, but it's long and dry.

Since I'm significantly worse at explaining the basics of MMT, I'm not even going to try to "weave a narrative" and instead I'll just work my way through it, point by point.

@notarobot

"Let's address inequality by taking on debt to increase spending to help transfer money to large private corporations."

You don't have to take on debt. The US as the sole legal issuer of the Dollar can always "print more". That's what the short Greenspan clip was all about. Of course, you don't actually print Federal Reserve Notes to pay for federal expenses. It's the digital age, after all.

If the federal government were to acquire, say, ten more KC-46 from Boeing, some minion at the Treasury would give some minion at the Fed a call and say "We need $2 billion, could you arrange the transfer?" The Fed minion then proceeds to debit $2B from the Treasury's account at the Fed (Treasury General Account, TGA) and credits $2B to Boeing's account at Bank X. Plain accounting.

If TGA runs negative, there are two options. The Treasury could sell bonds, take on new debt. Or it could monetise debt by selling those bonds straight to the Fed – think Overt Monetary Financing.

The second option is the interesting one: a swap of public debt for account credits. Any interest on this debt would be transfered straight back in the TGA. It's all left pocket, right pocket, really. Both the Fed and the Treasury are part of the consolidated government.

However, running a deficit amounts to a new injection of reserves. This puts a downward pressure on the overnight interest rate (Fed Funds Rate in the US, FFR) unless it is offset by an increase in outstanding debt by the Treasury (or a draw-down of the TT&Ls, but that's minor in this case). So the sale of t-bonds is not a neccessity, it's how the Treasury supports the Fed's monetary policy by raising the FFR. If the target FFR is 0%, there's no need for the Treasury to drain reserves by selling bonds.

Additionally, you might want to sell t-bonds to provide the private sector with the ability to earn interest on a safe asset (pension funds, etc). Treasury bonds are as solid as it gets, unlike municipal bonds of Detroit or stocks of Deutsche Bank.

To quote Randy Wray: "And, indeed, treasury securities really are nothing more than a saving account at the Fed that pay more interest than do reserve deposits (bank “checking accounts”) at the Fed."

Point is: for a government that uses its own sovereign, free-floating currency, it is a political decision to take on debt to finance its deficit, not an economic neccessity.

"Weimar Republic"

I'm rather glad that you went with Weimar Germany and not Zimbabwe, because I know a lot more about the former than the latter. The very, very short version: the economy of 1920's Germany was in ruins and its vastly reduced supply capacity couldn't match the increase in nominal spending. In an economy at maximum capacity, spending increases are a bad idea, especially if meant to pay reparations.

Let's try a longer version. Your point, I assume, is that an increase in the money supply leads to (hyper-)inflation. That's Quantity Theory of Monetary 101, MV=PY. Amount of money in circulation times velocity of circulation equals average prices times real output. However, QTM works on two assumptions that are quite... questionable.

First, it assumes full employment (max output, Y is constant). Or in other terms, an economy running at full capacity. Does anyone know any economy today that is running at full capacity? I don't. In fact, I was born in '83 and in my lifetime, we haven't had full employment in any major country. Some people refer to 3% unemployment as "full employment", even though 3% unemployment in the '60s would have been referred to as "mass unemployment".

Second, it assumes a constant velocity of circulation (V is constant). That's how many times a Dollar has been "used" over a year. However, velocity was proven to be rather volatile by countless studies.

If both Y and V are constant, any increase in the money supply M would mean an increase in prices P. The only way for an economy at full capacity to compensate for increased spending would be a rationing of said spending through higher prices. Inflation goes up when demand outpaces supply, right?

But like I said, neither Y nor V are constant, so the application of this theory in this form is misleading to say the least. There's a lot of slack in every economy in the world, especially the US economy. Any increase in purchases will be met by corporations with excess capacity. They will, generally speaking, increase their market share rather than hike prices. Monopolies might not, but that's a different issue altogether.

Again, the short version: additional spending leads to increased inflation only if it cannot be met with unused capacity. Only in an economy at or near full capacity will it lead to significant inflation. And even then, excess private demand can easily be curbed: taxation.

As for the Angry Birds analogy: yeah, I'm not a fan either. But all the other talks on this topic are even worse, unfortunatly. There's only a handful of MMT economists doing these kinds of public talks and I haven't yet spotted a Neil deGrasse Tyson among them, if you know what I mean.

Your video, 20 Facts About James Bond You May Never Have Heard - Slapped, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 83 Badge!

It's also the location of a couple of sodding great horse statues - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/The_Kelpies,_at_The_Helix,_Scotland.JPG - which I confess I still haven't got round to going and visiting.

Sorry to jump the thread here; not sure if dubious is the word either, but pretty amateur and more fear mongering with no supporting data.

First, the suggestion that no more reactors should be built because people use them to aid in production of nuclear weapons. Well kids, that ship has already sailed: In June 2014, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that nine nations (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea) possessed approx. 16,300 nuclear weapons in total. So someone builds one or 10 more? Yeah, that will matter. Someone needs to read up on the concept of deterrence.

When talking about waste: "Germany has literally tons of the stuff just laying around" - well, that's just horseshit.

Regarding accidents and number of deaths due to nuclear reactors: "devastating disasters every 30 years" - devastating? Come on, people died, but compared to other sources of energy, according to the WHO, it is by far the safest. Consider:

Energy Source Mortality Rates; Deaths/yr/TWh

Coal - world average, 161
Coal - China, 278
Coal - USA, 15
Oil - 36
Natural Gas - 4
Biofuel/Biomass - 12
Peat - 12
Solar/rooftop - 0.44-0.83
Wind - 0.15
Hydro - world, 0.10
Hydro - world*, 1.4
Nuclear - 0.04

* Includes the 170,000 deaths from the failure of the Banquao Reservoir Dam in China in 1975

So, if not dubious, certainly cheap and pedantic.

@newtboy,

I also noticed my point on CO2 forcing was missed earlier in thread still, I'll try one last time to express this.

In 1900 CO2 concentrations were under 300ppm, today they are nearly 400ppm. Climate model estimates place the impact of that extra 100ppm of CO2 as increasing the TOA energy imbalance by 3W/m-2. Observations of TOA energy imbalance are well agreed that the net imbalance is 0.5W/m-2. That means that natural processes(likely largely the 0.8C warming we've already had) have already cancelled out 2.5W/m-2 of that 3W/m-2. That is to say, 83% of the impact of increased CO2 concentrations has already been balanced out to date. How long it takes to get that all the way to 100% is part of the problems that climate models are trying to solve, but regrettably it's tied to TOA energy so models still don't have a great deal of veracity yet on that for us. Still, it's reason for a lot less gloom and doom than so many are calling for.

Congratulations! Your dedication to finding diamonds in the rough and pushing videos of other members to success has earned you your "Assister" Level 83 Badge!

From what the police report, there were over 45 shootings by police in Chicago last year (well over 2% of the total shootings in Chicago, and 4% of shooting deaths by under .45% of the population), and well over 1/3 of those shot by cops were killed last year VS the average of only 17% of those shot by non-cops being killed, so if you're being shot, you sure don't want it to be a cop on the other end of that gun or you have at least twice the chance to end up dead over a non-cop shooting.

I think it's clear which group is most threatening per capita, and which group they usually threaten. "Blacks" are 32% of the 2700000 population, or about 864,000 people, from which there were 83 homicides, or less than .01% of that population...
The police have 12,244 from which there were 17 homicides, or .14% of that population...
...so it's 14 times more likely that any single officer will kill you than it is that any single black man will...14 times more likely!
So who's threatening now? Who's the biggest threat?