As depressing as it is, Trump might very well be the preferable outcome for people in the Maghreb. Clinton has been a major driver behind the clusterfuck that used to be Syria and Libya.

Also, if you browse through the economics commentaries outside the mainstream, you'll notice that the US-based crowd seems to be borrowing yet another word from German: Lumpenproletariat. Old Marx is back with a vengeance.

And if people like Clinton, Cameron, Hollande, Rajoy and Merkel piss on the Lumpenproletariat, you get your Farages, your le Pens, your Trumps, your Petrys. Treat the plebs like rats, and many will follow whatever rat-catcher comes along...

Taken individually, perhaps there could be just similar sounding soundbites...but taken as a whole, it's a word for word repetition with only a few minor changes (but wouldn't it have been great if she has said "Barak and I were raised with many of the same values"). They've now admitted that 1) she didn't write her speech as she repeatedly claimed and 2) many parts were plagiarized (not that they used that word...they said "borrowed from other speeches that fit her narrative").
And, as you alluded to, FAR less than 1 in 1 TRILLION odds that she didn't plagiarize is also pretty convincing.

Yeah... our papers... I think the sort of death rattle of print news is this sort of increasing slide to sensationalism. They drop the price, they drop the standards. Honestly, if it wasn't for them I imagine the referendum would have gone the other way. The worse part is that if the Brexit is going to be as bad as some fear then they won't be printing apologies, they'll just doubledown on their junk food narratives.

But anyway. In regards to this video, I think it is quite interesting that even when you are calling to "make America White again" you can still deny racism. I mean, you'd think if you've gone that far you may as well just run with it. But I guess if us Brits are taking notes from the Trump playbook, then I suppose Americans can borrow from Orwell.

It seems really strange from an outside perspective. It isn't all that long ago - at least in my memory - when certain types of American were almost celebrating that they were willing to torture and maim people if they 'got their answers'. Even if some of those people were innocent, it was an acceptable price to pay.

When Ed Snowden came out and told us that our governments were spying on us, trawling through our data and tracking our entire history online and in reality through surveillance cameras. The majority of America was against Snowden (in all the polls I've seen) - in any other day he would have been given the Nobel peace prize and celebrated as an all-time hero that stood up to impossible odds just to give the human race full disclosure on their 'freedom'. That's the stuff of legend, the stuff that people should be talking about in 1000 years time like we talk about Genghis Khan or something. Instead he was treated like a traitor and forced to live in exile in Russia because it was the only country that wouldn't hand him over to the torturing, controlling, law-breaking bastards he'd just made to look very stupid..... Gee, I wonder why he didn't want to face "criminal proceedings"? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - except if you cross the wrong people?

Not too long ago freedom WAS an acceptable sacrifice for security.

When a lunatic got hold of an automatic rifle, killed 50 people and injured another 50, the prevailing argument seems to be "Hey, hey, let's not over react here, we can't sacrifice our freedom because of one terrorist act."

The only difference in this situation is that it isn't about "other people's" freedom and "my security" any more. It is about "my" freedom and "other people's" security.

You probably weren't one of those people, but I think it's fair to preface my comment with that contradiction.

I accept you have a decent point in this case; people shouldn't lose their freedom because the FBI made a mistake. But that's not the question being asked, let's talk about the general case rather than this specific one. The question is does legislation exist that will make mass shootings less common in the US? And I think the answer is yes, but I also think that culture is the biggest factor, not just access to guns.

As an example of what I mean - what if there were legislation that limited his ability to get hold of the weapon, registered that he had expressed an interest with the FBI who could then investigate based on his history? And maybe some other legislation could make it harder in general for him to just go and borrow one of his friends', or steal one from a local lax firing range, or whatever other illegal means exist to get hold of one.... perhaps because there were less in circulation, or those that were in circulation were more stringently secured?

At the end of the day it might not stop him getting hold of one, but it might make it harder and he might have second thoughts or make a mistake and be caught if it were harder. Hell, at least then the families of the dead would be able to say that a CRIME was committed when this fucking lunatic who had been under investigation was allowed to get access to a weapon that could so easily kill or maim a hundred people.

the "brain" itself will be ~$30K min. you need lenses, batteries/power supplies, drives to record to, viewfinders, cables, etc. on top of that. a steadicam rig will cost $50K+ too. the famous zeiss lens kubrick used (borrowed from NASA) cost over $23M (adjusted for inflation).

professional cameras are expensive. alexa and red are super cheap in comparison to traditional film camera set ups.

Such a good series. Episodic cartoons are fine and all, but I loved that Avatar presented a well-planned, multi-season story arc that actually had a satisfying resolution. Shows, animated or live action, rarely seem to have a decent ending, but both Avatar and Korra nailed it in my opinion. If you've written it off as a show for kids and not watched it, do yourself a favor and get to it. If you need an excuse, find / borrow / steal a kid or two first (but really, no excuse should be needed).

Plus, we owe most of that money to ourselves.

So it's not like going to a bank to raise your limit. It's more like, you've borrowed money from your retirement fund and your kid's college fund while times are hard and you'll pay it back when your economic situation improves. Because basically, when things are tough, everyone dips into their savings to pay their mortgage and utilities. If you don't, try to explain that to your mortgage company while they're foreclosing on your house.

*quality

How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore
And a Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a forgotten spot
In the Caribbean by Providence, impoverished, in squalor
Grow up to be a hero and a scholar?
The ten-dollar Founding Father without a father
Got a lot farther
By workin' a lot harder
By bein' a lot smarter
By bein' a self-starter
By fourteen they had placed him in charge of the trade and charter
And every day while slaves were being slaughtered
And carted away across the waves
Our Hamilton kept his guard up
Inside he was longing for something to be a part of
The brother was ready to beg steal borrow or barter
Then a hurricane came and
Devastation reigned and
Our man saw his future drip drippin' down the drain
Put a pencil to his temple
Connected it to his brain
And he wrote his first refrain
A testament to his pain
When the word got around, they said, "This kid is insane, man!"
Took up a collection just to send him to the mainland
Getcha education, don't forget from whence you came
And the world is gonna know your name!
What's your name, man?

Alexander Hamilton, his name is Alexander Hamilton
And there's a million things he hasn't done
But just you wait, just you wait

When he was 10, his father split
Full of it, debt-ridden
Two years later, see Alex and his mother, bed-ridden
Half-dead, sittin' in their own sick, the scent thick
And Alex got better but his mother went quick
Moved in with a cousin, the cousin committed suicide
Left him with nothin' but ruined pride
Somethin' new inside
A voice saying Alex, you gotta fend for yourself
He started retreatin' and readin' every treatise on the shelf
There would've been nothin' left to do
For someone less astute
He would've been dead or destitute
Without a cent of restitution
Started workin', clerkin' for his late mother's landlord
Tradin' sugar cane and rum and other things he can't afford
Scannin' for every book he can get his hands on
Plannin' for the future, see him now as he stands on
The bow of a ship headed for a new land
In New York you can be a new man
The ship is in the harbor now
See if you can spot him
Another immigrant comin' up from the bottom
His enemies destroyed his rep, America forgot him
And me? I'm the damn fool that shot him

Alexander Hamilton
We were waiting in the weeds for you
You could never back down
You always had to speak your mind
But Alexander Hamilton, we could never take your deeds from you
In our cowardice and our shame
We will try to destroy your name
The world will never be the same, Alexander!

Yeah, I'm the damn genius that shot him

My biggest issue is that she is the consummate politician. She will lie, cheat, steal, buy, borrow, and beg for anything and everything she needs to get into power.

Now you can say that is what a perfect politician is supposed to do and you would technically be correct. The problem is that career politicians don't care about voters and they end up owing a lot of rich private interests favors.

Sadly, until we change the system to allow the people to truly pick who we want via a popular vote, we will be stuck with politicians. People who actually give a damn will never make it past the system to the highest levels.

@greatgooglymoogly

Thanks for taking the time to watch it.

Like I said in my previous comment, this talk needs to take a lot of shortcuts, otherwise its length would surpass anyone's attention span.

So, point by point.

By "balanced budget", I suppose you refer to the federal budget. A balanced budget is not neccessarily a bad thing, but it is undesirable in most case. The key reason is sectoral balances. The economy can divided into three sectors: public, private, foreign. Since one person's spending is another person's income, the sum of all spending and income of these three sectors is zero by definition.

More precisely: if the public sector runs a surplus and the private sector runs a surplus, the foreign sector needs to run a deficit of a corresponding size.

Two examples:
- the government runs a balanced budget, no surplus, no deficit
- the private sector runs a surplus (savings) of 2% of GDP
- the foreign sector must, by definition, run a deficit of 2% of GDP (your country runs a current account surplus of 2% of GDP)

- the government runs a deficit of 2% of GDP
- the foreign sector runs a surplus of 3% (your current account deficit of 3%)
- your private sector must, by definition, run a deficit of 1% of GDP, aka burn through savings or run up debt

If you intend to allow the private sector to net save, you need to run either a current account surplus or a public sector deficit, or both. Since we don't export goods to Mars just yet, not all countries can run current account surpluses, so you need to run a public sector deficit if you want your private sector to net save. No two ways about it.

Germany runs a balanced public budget, sort of, and its private sector net saves. But that comes at the cost of a current account surplus to the tune of €250B. That's 250 billion Euros worth of debt other countries have to accumulate so that both the private and public sector in Germany can avoid deficits. Parasitic is what I'd call this behaviour, and I'm German.

If you feel ambitious, you could try to have both surplus and deficit within the private sector by allowing households to net save while "forcing" corporations to run the corresponding deficits. But to any politician trying that, I'd advise to avoid air travel.

As for the "devaluation of the currency", see my previous comment.

Also, she didn't use real numbers, because a) the talk is short and numbers kill people's attention rather quickly, and b) it's a policy decision to use debt to finance a deficit. One might just as well monetise it, like I explained in my previous comment.

Helicopter money would be quite helpful these days, actually. Even monetarists like AEP say so. If fiscal policy is off the table (deficit hawkery), what else are you left with...

As for your question related to the Fed, let me quote Eric Tymoigne on why MMT views both central bank and Treasury as part of the consolidated government:

"MMT authors tend to like to work with a consolidated government because they see it as an effective strategy for policy purpose (see next section), but also because the unconsolidated case just hides under layers of institutional complexity the main point: one way or another the Fed finances the Treasury, always. This monetary financing is not an option and is not by itself inflationary."

MMT principle: the central bank needs to be under democratic control, aka be part of government. The Fed in particular can pride itself on its independance all it wants, it still cannot fulfill any of its goals without the Treasury's help. It cannot diverge from government policies too long. Unlike the ECB, which is a nightmare in its construction.

Anyway, what does he mean by "one way or another the Fed finances the Treasury, always"? Well, the simple case is debt monetisation, direct financing. However, the Fed also participates by ensuring that Primary Dealers have enough reserves to make a reasonable bid on treasuries. The Fed makes sure that auctions of treasuries will always succeed. Always. Either by providing reserves to ensure buyers can afford the treasuries, by replacing maturing treasuries or buying them outright. No chance whatsoever for bond vigilantes. Betting against treasuries is pointless, you will always lose.

But what about taxation as a means to finance the Treasury? Well, the video's Monopoly example illustrated quite nicely, you cannot collect taxes until you have spent currency into circulation. Spending comes before taxation, it does not depend on it. Until reserves are injected into the banking system, either by the Fed through asset purchases or the Treasury through spending, taxes cannot be paid. Again, monetary financing is not optional. If the Treasury borrows money from the public, it borrows back money it previously spent.

Yes, I ignored the distribution of wealth, taxation, the fixation on growth and a million other things. That's a different discussion.

So just perpetual expansion for ever and ever? I don't know why having a balanced budget is such a bad thing. Increasing the money supply simply devalues all the existing money, essentially a property tax.

I wish she had used some real numbers, say it's 2030 and the debt is 26 trillion, and you are starting to get some huge deficits to pay for social security. Keep borrowing and by 2050 pay 50% of your budget in interest payments? Start printing money and by 2050 have an inflation rate of 8%? If the gov't needs to run continual deficits, why not just keep a balanced budget then drop cash out of helicopters on the 4th of July? Same money added to the system.

Really disappointed she didn't mention the Federal Reserve. Why is the US paying interest to a private entity that creates money out of thin air? Are they more credit worthy than a government that can also create money out of thin air?

Who is this woman and why did I give her an hour of my time?

I listened to the whole thing.

I don't disagree with everything she said. She's right that supply side tricklenomics doesn't really work that well, and she does a good job outlining problems. But the narrative she weaves is all over the place when she starts talking about solutions. "Let's address inequality by taking on debt to increase spending to help transfer money to large private corporations." (I'm paraphrasing.) Increasing debt transfers power to the lender. Will they borrow from big banks? The Rothschilds? China? What's that quote? "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."

And "lets pay our debts by just printing more money." What kind of solution is that? The Weimar Republic called. They'd like to have a word with you about hyper-inflation.

And her "angry birds" analogy was insufferable.

@radx

I tend to see controlling the quantity of money along with the interest rate as a valid way for central banks to influence the economy when necessary but I admit in or after crises they are generally almost useless. Economics being a social science is always going to be notoriously unreliable in both prediction and in isolation the causes of a prior event, some would say almost useless.

Controlling purely the interest rates on overnight bank deposits for banks at the central bank (what setting the rate is, as opposed to the commonly held belief that the central bank dictates lending and borrowing rates) is if anything of little impact. These rates can be at 0% and if banks consider economic prospects poor, that will not cause them to lend any further.

Such was the case in the US in the immediate years after '08. i would argue the only action to have real economic impact was the buying up of distressed mortgage securities by the Fed. The parts of QE1, 2 that involved injecting money into the banks basically just led to them investing in low risk securities and earning interest (effectively just sitting on it) because they were not willing to risk lending it.

While I'm not a big fan of ceding authority to a largely independent organisation, I have to admit that since central banks have become independent, inflation in those countries has become a thing of the past. Now granted they get things wrong (e.g. Greenspan inflating the '08 bubble) but their main advantages is being willing to take measures that cause short term pain but long term gain. I don't think any elected politician would have been willing to take the measures Volcker did to curb inflation for example. In fact, while he was at the Fed, Reagan's government effectively inflated the Savings and Loans bubble.

Initially saw this as a TF2 rip-off but actually pretty excited about it now having seen the streams of the closed beta.

A lot of concepts borrowed from TF2 sure, but also plenty of new ability and weapon ideas. The ultimates as clutch abilities and more tightly knit maps give it a different feel.

Also happy to see it's not free to play and it has been promised future heroes will be free. Suspect they'll probably still have some form of gameplay based DLC but it could be worse.

There are far better qualified and knowledgeable people on here (@radx) who could explain that, but i'll try and explain why the video isn't bullshit.

Let's say the government spends a certain amount of money to build a road. That money goes a lot further than you think it does.
- whoever you pay to build it pays taxes on what they earn
- same for whoever you buy the materials/machinery from
- the road will probably be used by individuals and businesses spending money, so you've made that easier for them
- businesses stay afloat and keep trading, people's skills/training are not lost as they become unemployed
- saved yourself a whole bunch of money you would have had to spend in unemployment welfare

Because governments are not like people, they CAN spend money they don't have, to buy things that save them money! It's a simplistic analysis of a road and i'm no road building expert, but the term is "fiscal multiplication" and is used by governments to evaluate an investment. Governments are not like households, they can borrow £1.00 and get £2.00 back from it or more. For example over here in Britain there is a significant housing shortage, and one way of resolving that is by borrowing to invest in affordable & social housing. I think it was suggested that for every £1 spent on house building generates £2.50 back into the economy.

America is a sovereign nation that issues its own floating currency. Greece was not. There is no chance whatsoever of America, UK, Japan etc. becoming like Greece. Anyone saying that's possible is either scaremongering or heard it from someone who was.

I'm not saying the money has been spent or invested correctly, corruption and cronyism is rife in western politics. But that's an argument against government corruption rather than one against investment and debt. This isn't the first time we've tried austerity, it also isn't the highest debt-GDP ratio has been either for the US or the UK. The lessons of history have been you can't cut your way to prosperity, you have to invest towards it. That's the weight of economic thought right now afaik.