It's not so hard to see how two different ideas can exist in the same person. Just ask Tim Curry.

Squirrel! Adam Curry uses that sound bite on every podcast of No Agenda. ITM!

@westy

Yes nearly every business tries to game the system that's the point of capitalism and that's why it will always fail ( im not on about simply ballencing your books and deprecaiting assets and playing that sytem , evan though that is gamed in the same way) I'm on about the system at large , surely you can see the difference between a butcher and a company that offers high interest loans to desperate people , when instead of offering the loan the ethical thing would be for them to tell them to contact citizens advice ?

I don't think capitalism (by which I mean a regulated but moderately free market) will fail as (at least so far) it's provided the best manner of funneling people's naturally selfish/nepotistic tendencies in a productive way.

Let's be clear here, generally brokers were responsible for writing subprime loans with botched (or outright false) assessments of income and capacity to pay. These brokers were essentially gaming the investment banks (like Bear Sterns) into buying fraudulent securitised loans. Bear Sterns along with Lehman Brothers didn't survive and many other banks got taken over. There was clear motivation for them to perform more due diligence and they paid for their mistakes by going bankrupt or being taken over. The credit rating agencies and the insurers who backed CDOs also had poor judgement. My point is, the people who benefited from writing these bad loans weren't the banks.

thats the piont im making , you can have companies that game the system but also privde a service but the people that have caused this economic crisis are people that are at the pinicale of gaming the system and do not care to provide a service and purely participate to game the system purely exist to make money at whatever cost to society.

They're not gaming the system if they're going bankrupt. You know as well as I do that banks borrow money from those with savings and selectively lend them out to generally good investments thus creating economic growth and jobs. Let's not get carried away with populism here.

luckily we have people that are ethical and don't just think of the profit bottom line , but in general you will see that a good proportion of those successful at business and profiting are ones that couldn't give a shit about other people or there effect on the environment.

The difference between the butcher and a large financial institution is size. If this was a national specialty chain business, you can bet that they would be lobbying their congressman and receiving favors and payouts. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for crony capitalism and I understand that banks weild considerable leverage over the economy and politicians. They should be more regulated commensurate to their significance and intractability with the economy, particularly shadow banking system (securitisation of loans and credit derivatives) should be regulated to prevent crises. This is a failure of regulation though, not a failure of banking in general. As I mentioned, every large industry/corporate body curries favors.

"Either way they are both pretty beneficial to a functioning economy"

so the bankers that turned a blind eye to the toxit assits were beneficail to the econimy ?

how about the lobiests and deregulation that made it possable ?
what about the real estate agents that knew the people they were selling the houses to could not maintain the mortgage?

What about the marketeers that designed the sales materail to obscure the mortgage rates to hide the fact that they would increase and specifcaly designed the brouchers and trained the sales teams to exploit unknowlageable people ?

No they weren't and many of their businesses went out of business. These are all issues of regulation. Corporations (as opposed to say partnerships) are by legal design geared towards maximising profit. If you come in with expectations that any corporation will not do this, you are making flawed assumptions.

"hedge funds don't gamble shares, they trade them based on discrepancies between actual price and fundamentals"

Defanitoin of Gambling from Wikipedia - "Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods."

something doesn't have to have unfavourable odds to be considered gambling for example there are many professional gamblers that make a living of horse betting , and in that exact same way there are many people that profestinaly gamble on the stock market , and I would argue that they are themselfs not providing a use to socity. I would however contrast that against sum-one that invests in a company because that company is doing good or employs many people or is developing beneficial technpligy.

the problem is in general capitalism in its current form is fucked , and i belive we need to move towards something that is what I would describe as a

"democratic socialist capitalist system" where we have as free a market as possable and that is achived through democratic regulation guided by socialist princapels. so you try to give every citizen as equal a chance as possible at having free will and succeeding in what they want to do.

the current system allows the top 10% fantastic freedom and chances but at the expense of the majorty of people.

It's not a wager of value, it's a transfer of value. Which is critically what makes it different from gambling. If you have agricultural produce and you want to hedge the risk that your harvest will go down in value when it comes to fruition, it's typically an investment bank/hedge fund/commercial bank that takes the counterparty position. Without someone taking that counterparty position, you couldn't eliminate your risk of a fall in prices. If someone buys a newly listed share of your company, they're contributing to your capacity to invest and pay wages. During the process of gambling before someone is declared the winner, there is no value being created. That's a pretty crucial difference. The main point is though that banking creates value, hopefully I've already illustrated that beforehand.

I don't disagree with what you're saying at the end, but as far as I'm concerned you should be resentful towards campaign finance rules. Instead, it's like trying to treat the symptom not the cause.

Dag, you're looking a lot like Tim Curry-- http://nndb.com/people/763/000023694/tcurry.jpg --and I'm digging it.

>> ^cheesemoo:

Awesome! I think I've thoroughly enjoyed every Tim Curry movie I've ever seen.


Didn't see Time Square, I bet...

But that's the only one I've ever seen that I didn't enjoy, so you've got most of a point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'it, clown, pennywise, georgie, boat, baloons, gutter, sewer' to 'it, clown, pennywise, georgie, boat, balloons, gutter, sewer, tim curry' - edited by berticus

Man, I read the title as 'Cannabis discuss the person they ate and why". I thought this was going to be some absurdist Onion thing about people getting high and thinking they were consumed by the cannabis, not the other way around.

I was eating a curry while watching them talk about eating organs.

On the whole, while interesting, this has been a total bummer. One star.

Yeah I realize, but they would bring food into the labs because they literally spent 8-10 hours a day in the labs. Due to all the body heat and food that place smelled like that forever.

Anecdotal, but there was a guy from I believe Israel who lived with a couple of local college students, they told him to stop cooking and eating his food in the house because it made their clothes smell. So he switched to eating what they ate, and eventually he began to notice how bad the other middle easterners smelled. He said it was because they cook that stuff and it gets in their clothes, but also because many of them didn't shower daily or wear strong deodorants. He got to the point where he couldn't stand to be around them, and he used to eat that kind of food. So I suspect it's more than just the dislike of the smell of that food but hygiene related.

Just like heavy smokers don't notice how bad they smell...and they quit smoking and notice how bad their house/car/jacket smell. It's like they are so exposed to that scent all day and night they become unable to notice it anymore. Like people who sleep soundly when the train comes if they've lived near a train track long enough.

>> ^westy:

>> ^Porksandwich:
At my college it was Indians, in hot cramped computer labs. So when the heat started to get bad the BO would be off the charts. What was the worst, you had to use those labs for your projects and it was like the Indian club house...they'd bring food with them. The place smelled like a gym locker even when it was empty. After two years of that I got access to an upper floor lab where the chairs and carpet didn't smell like someone's shoes or armpit.
I can definitely see the girls point, but this video was great. Although with Indians, they hated Indians born in the US, so........the US-born ones were some of their loudest critics.

Intresting thing with that is that Indeans dont generally have more BO than westerners , but your BO smells of what you eat , and most people are less aware of there BO or there cultures back ground BO , To Indians westerners that have a prodiminatly dairy dait smell like off milk , where as indeans to westerners tend to smell like curry / spicy BO.
I know allot of western people that complain about smell of Indians , its not something that bothers me I evan have one friend that would refuse to go into indean shops because they hated the smell of the spice so much.
Its also a scientific fact that all russans smell of vodka

>> ^Porksandwich:

At my college it was Indians, in hot cramped computer labs. So when the heat started to get bad the BO would be off the charts. What was the worst, you had to use those labs for your projects and it was like the Indian club house...they'd bring food with them. The place smelled like a gym locker even when it was empty. After two years of that I got access to an upper floor lab where the chairs and carpet didn't smell like someone's shoes or armpit.
I can definitely see the girls point, but this video was great. Although with Indians, they hated Indians born in the US, so........the US-born ones were some of their loudest critics.


Intresting thing with that is that Indeans dont generally have more BO than westerners , but your BO smells of what you eat , and most people are less aware of there BO or there cultures back ground BO , To Indians westerners that have a prodiminatly dairy dait smell like off milk , where as indeans to westerners tend to smell like curry / spicy BO.

I know allot of western people that complain about smell of Indians , its not something that bothers me I evan have one friend that would refuse to go into indean shops because they hated the smell of the spice so much.

Its also a scientific fact that all russans smell of vodka

My gf and I constantly tease our cat that if she doesn't behave, we'll be having kitty curry. Hope the asshole that killed the cat serves some jail time.

You never can tell because the taste of cat is usually smothered in curry.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=

Sorry, but this is a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/CP30-and-R2D2-Enjoy-an-Night-at-Currys-PC-World-Megastore.

How can you say you support small government while supporting laws that allow the government to decide who can marry? Why should government have any say in marriage?

The issue is one of State's rights versus Federal - and it is a discussion this nation has had before we even declared independance. The founders favored strong state's rights over strong federal authority (for obvious reasons). The concept was that the states would be government 'labs' where different ideas could be tested. In one state, people would use method "A" while another state would use method "B". Citizens who disliked a method could go whereever they preferred. Successful systems would be duplicated and refined, while unsuccessful systems would fail as people voted with their feet - literally. A strong federal system imposing a nationalized 'one size' policy on all aspects of life disrupts this marketplace of ideas - almost always to the people's detriment.

The response to your question then is this... I am against the FEDERAL government imposing a solution on gay marriage, immigration, drug legalization, et al. I think the states should make these calls via their referendum process. That way the people will decide and not distant, mercurial federal bureuecrats.

Some states will invariably choose to allow gay marriages while others will not. The gay population would go to states that curried to them. If the resulting population shift brought prosperity, then the model would be duplicated. If the population shift brought economic problems and conflicts then states would notice it and hew more towards traditional family models.

Let the case be made at the state level. If the case in compelling then it will succeed. If the case it not convincing it will fail.

Is
Righted
I-yah
Everything cook and curry

Mos def
Ovastan
Nuff