@radx @enoch @eric3579

For one thing, give the executive or legislative power over the printing press in a crisis and they will not willingly give that power up and end up abusing it. For another, if you're simply printing money to spend then you depreciate and inflate your currency commensurately, at least in the long term. Relying heavily on this is the kind of thing that Venezuela does. There's a reason that governments instead take on their fiscal spending as debt. On that I would say, I've also become much more skeptical of fiscal stimulus in general but particularly in corrections or recessions. I'm okay with automatic stabilizers (unemployment benefits, the largely limitless kind with strings attached we have here in Australia) but not so much direct fiscal stimulus.

The fundamental issue to me is large, even extremely large fiscal spending will not affect business confidence levels of economic conditions. There is some fiscal multiplier effects (the multiple of the effect on national income over the spending injection by the government) but the worse economic conditions are, the lower this will be. Also, yes with say infrastructure spending, you're creating immediate jobs. Problem is these are in no way permanent jobs and simply pushes the can down the road on them finding new employment. Better to provide unemployment benefits and training to get them into a more permanent job faster.

Also large bouts of spending (again to use infrastructure as an example) tends to be hugely wasteful. Good projects require appraisals, consultation and careful planning. The notion of handfuls of 'shovel ready' projects is a political myth. You can instead span it out but then you don't get the mooted fiscal boost. In fact I would argue infrastructure spending is never appropriate as fiscal stimulus. It should be in a constant, planned process of improvement irrespective of business cycles or downturns. The US stimulus under Obama was largely long term spending projects like this as giveaways to the states. There is little evidence it eased the recovery or altered behaviour though. Many states simply enacted the same civic projects they would have otherwise and used this money instead of issuing debt like they would have otherwise - effectively they saved on interest.

So what are the alternatives then? The government here in Australia also heavily spent on roads, home subsidies and schools but notably also gave all income earners a cash deposit of AUD $300-950. The latter is probably the closest you can get to a pure fiscal stimulus - immediately cash to spend, injected not into banks than might save it but given particularly to low / medium income earners most likely to spend it. Again what we saw is that it hardly altered consumer / household behaviour. Many saved it, many spent it on large one off purchases (e.g. TVs, in which case most of that value was transferred overseas). So we gave a dollop of cash as stimulus to the global economy of which Australia is a drop in the ocean. Basically my attitude is, if you maintain good infrastructure, effective education systems, adequate but efficient regulation, reasonable tax rates, and importantly competitive markets, the best way to get through a crisis is to let the market stabilize by itself. Provide assistance and retraining to workers who lose their jobs by all means, but don't expect government spending to be some kind of savior.

I agree on the inflation aspect of your post. There were certainly no shortage of self-declared monetarists buying up gold in anticipation of high inflation, but as you say dollops of cash in the economy are meaningless if they are idle and the economy under capacity. The question now with unemployment in the US at 5.5% whether capacity is finally pushing LRAS levels. Probably not, participation rate is low and falling, and the unemployment rate is woefully underrepresenting forced part timers. Also as you mention the dip in oil will temper prices on the input cost side. The Fed certainly seems to think so and has started tightening rates but as so much commentary in the investing world is saying, this may turn out to be a mistake and they may end up having to reverse course.

Exactly @newtboy...

These people are promising massive violence to defend people who were found guilty of violating the law, who purposely set fire to a forest... "They didn't mean for it to get out of control." Yeah, doesn't matter. I don't understand how they can't comprehend that. How it is an overreach of government to try them via a court of law, found guilty and then sentenced to the minimum?

I like how Fox spins it about how it would be if it were blacks, but I think a better example would be if they were Muslim. If they were Muslim Fox and the Republicans would all be screaming about how they are Radicalized Islamic Terrorist. Trump would undoubtedly be calling for Muslim Americans to be put into Internment Camps "temporarily" "while we can figure out what is going on with these people". He'd then say once we carefully vetted them, we'd let them go, but keep track of them, those we can't vet, we'd kick out... and his supporters would fall over themselves agreeing. They'd be mad at any Democrat or media who doesn't use the term "Radicalized Islamic Terrorist" rather than "Jihadist" or "Radicalized Jihadist".

Yet if somebody called these people for what they are, which is Radicalized Christian Terrorist, they'd blow a gasket. They'd say that their faith has nothing to do with it, though the leader said he was led by God to do this. Or they'd argue that the term can't apply here, and can't apply to the guy who murdered people at the Planned Parenthood clinic. "These people are freedom fighters, not terrorist." They are standing against the oppressive power of the Obama administration, and probably point out his middle name again.

So... we have people, driven by God and faith to promise violence if their political ends aren't met... Sounds like terrorism to me. Oh... and that particular God and faith is Christianity. So Radicalized Christian Terrorism. Pure and simple... unless we need to drop the term Radicalized if this is what Christianity is about now... though I'm fairly sure the Jesus of the Bible would object, then again he'd object to pretty much everything the political right stands for, but that's a rant I've done tons of times here.

Crazy thing is, if the government uses force, then the political right and media will feel justified, and say "see, we are being repressed". They've learned from ISIL and the rest, the best way to radicalize people is to make them fear they are being oppressed. ISIL drives up terror attacks, sold as freedom fighting to their people, which result on people turning against Islam as a whole, which is their publicly stated goal, and when that happens it makes it easier to recruit more and more people to their cause. So Radicalized Christian Terror groups like this are using the same tactics, by forcing situations where they are put down by force. Great recruitment tool, and the brain dead follow lock step into falling for it. ISIL is the bad guy (and they are, no question) and they are the good guy for doing the exact same thing? They are both evil. Both misdirected. Both missing the point we are all in this together. One world. One humanity.

I wish the so called Left Liberal Media would stop calling them militants and start using the term Radicalized Christian Terrorist as that is more apt. Of course they still call Vaccine Deniers and Climate Change Deniers, Skeptics, which they aren't. So no hope for America anytime soon.

I'm skeptical. Why would you ever try and stand up? For what purpose other then to fall in the water? Why wouldn't you just paddle yourself in?

@oritteropo:

The video definitely answers some questions:

1. She goes to an arts school and was able to do "anything" for her final project. No dig to her, but there's some privileged shit right there.


2. She's not super attractive, but she's cute and obviously very extroverted, friendly, and undoubtedly popular. If I was a shy nerd and was confronted by her (and probably having seen her be this way before in the halls), I'd definitely be skeptical and assume she was being an asshole to me.


3. Regardless, she does seem pretty genuine.


4. God damn, college art kids are annoying with all their "wow, I'm so laid back I fucking curse all the fucking time for no fucking reason or some shit. Fuck."

I wonder how this would go with a male photographer -- quite differently I believe, especially with the generally patriarchal society we live in.

What I loved about this video is even the people who one could argue weren't so attractive, when they smiled and when you took a moment to look at them in the right light, they were quite beautiful.

I agree that that one woman probably had some sort of traumatic experience that gave her such skepticism. I also found it really interesting that there were a handful who you could tell were really, really skeptical, but just not to the point of profanity. Poor people -- they don't believe anyone could find them beautiful.

Lastly, I'm curious as to how objectively beautiful Shea is. If she's a very attractive woman, I could see why some of the people were skeptical. They assumed it was some sort of joke or prank. I could easily see this being a joke or prank and Shea posting this on youtube saying, 'LOLZ LOOK AT THESE UGLY PPL HOO THINK THEIR BEUTIFUL! LULZ!!!!'

I've seen the Armored Skeptic take him down several times... pretty convinced that is some religious, right-wing nuttery at work through and through

Gotta say, I was skeptical of Colbert leaving his persona but he is even funnier as himself.

LOL
first... it is a quote from the Lego Movie.
Second, I was being skeptical... like he said to be.

In other words, just a joke.

huh?
you mean realizing that our reality is subjective?
that we should remain skeptical of others belief systems?
especially when they are often pressed upon us?
to realize that we do not know everything,and that we must be ready to change our belief when new evidence is exposed?

THAT sounds like hippy-dippy-baloney?

do you even know what a hippy is?

OK, the video's point, and your first 2 answers to it in the comments. @ChaosEngine explained how I see it quite well.

This 'anecdote' proved that you were wrong in your blanket assertion that condoms are only >98% effective in the lab, because condoms are >98% effective outside the lab....at least in one case I know of, and certainly others.

I do understand that deniers want to be called 'skeptics', but I also understand that that's not at all what they are.

I/we don't need to convince those that are clearly closed to convincing if I/we don't allow their obstinacy to be a road block to progress. Giving them more hearings, more time, and more chance to kick the can down the road gives them that opportunity.
I don't WANT to leave them behind, but I also won't die on the beach because Bubba wants to sit in the bus parked in the soft sand at the low tide line, and debate whether there is such a thing as a tide...especially when the tide is already 1/2 in, the motor's sputtering, and the wheels are under water. At some point one must decide to not let them and their never ending, constantly changing, factually challenged 'argument' doom all of us, even if it means ignoring their continuing argument and acting without their consent. I'm not sure we should kick them off the bus...but they are starting to mess with the driver and sometimes steal the keys....so it might come to that some day.

The point of the video.

I've used well over 100 condoms, and never once had a failure, a pregnancy, or an STD. Then again, I not only read the instructions, I was also shown how to use them, and I don't try to use expired or damaged condoms, or store them in heat and sun, or any of the other things people often do wrong with them....so you're wrong, they are not only >98% effective in labs...they have been 100% effective in my experience, for instance, which is >98%, and not in a lab. ;-)

It is not a lazy abandonment of people who disagree with me, it's a long over due abandonment of people who disagree with reality and science (honestly or not) usually in order to be a roadblock for action.
The skeptics have had their hearings, time and time again. At some point, you must admit that those still 'skeptical' either pick and choose/misinterpret information that allows that mindset, are knowingly lying for some gain, or are completely ignorant and only listening to those that pick and choose information or are liars, and they're doing so willfully. Because further 'debate' is consistently at the expense of any overdue mitigating action, and action is imperative for long term survival, the time for more 'listening' to deniers should have ended decades ago.
Examining theories with a critical eye and being a denier are not the same thing by far. Deniers examine theories with a pre-conception, and if it's not agreed with, they discard the theory, then figure out a reason why.
Deniers aren't 'skeptics', they're conspiracy theorists. The only way their argument stands up is if they can convince you that the overwhelming majority of scientists are actually not scientists, but are really just liars that somehow stand to make a fortune if they convince people of the big lie....to most people that's just nuts....and to reasonable people it's long past time to stop giving the nuts equal time and consideration.

That may be true, and I am not taking everything he said entirely seriously, but I think he was being more honest than you might think.

The popular image of a Satanist, now a days, is some kind of hyper skeptic, but that isn't always the case. There are also religious Satanists, some who believe in the literal existence of the devil, and some who don't, but they worship and serve dark spirits. I think the majority of Satanists have a supernatural element to their beliefs.

The simplest and best answer is just that people are stupid.

A lot of people though don't believe based on evidence their view is right, but through evidence that an opposing view is wrong. That one logical fallacy just murders our species and public education aught to spend 1 whole year just shaming that out of the populations heads. This is not just on scientific matters, but the very, very common I'm not voting for candidate X I'm voting against candidate Y.

That all said, Michael Mann is IMO contributing to the problem of skepticism of climate research. I'm not even referring to his extracurricular stuff like this and blogging. Go and read his journal articles and dig into the appendices and look at the math and graphing methods used... not the lynch pin kind of work we really want being championed as the state of climate science research unless we want it to be relegated to the status of 'soft' science .

Because Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the rest... "CO2 is good for the Earth, it helps plants" (ignoring that most plants are absorbing about as much CO2 as they can already, and ignoring the bigger problem that very little of the Earth is green, and no walls or ceilings to keep the CO2 where plants are), "compact fluorescent bulbs are stupid, they have mercury in them!" (ignoring that the mercury in them and the mercury put into the air by the power plant is less than the mercury put into the air by the power plant to power regular bulbs). And the news media paints it as a debate, having one climate change scientist debate one climate change denier (though the media still refuses to call them deniers and paints them as skeptics) and this isn't just the right wing media, almost all the media in the US presents it as a debate. They don't present the fact that a 97% consensus exists.

Then there is religion. They talk how insane it is to assume that humans, made of God could destroy God's work. That we can't damage the Earth as God made it... of course they take the idea of destruction literal, and not in the way people actually mean when they say it's destroying the Earth. They also don't care about the repercussions of future generations as "Jesus is coming soon, well before any of this will matter"... more or less an actual quote. They believe also that God has granted mankind all authority over the Earth and not that it was stewardship over the Earth, so we can and should do whatever we want.

There's also ignorance. The media, especially the right wing media, portray the idea of climate change as presented is being presented as being only 100% caused by humans, they claim that the pro climate change scientists won't acknowledge any part of it might be natural. The media is playing it as an all or nothing scenario, either humans caused it all, or caused none of it. This isn't what any scientists are saying. They are just pointing out the natural uptick vs the uptick we are seeing is explained by human burning of fossil fuels, and that's what the 97% consensus is about, the uptick we are observing vs what would be expected naturally. But not understanding, and thinking science is ignoring all possible natural causes, they deny the whole thing.

Heck, just look at the media uproar over the supposed mini ice age that is coming in 2030 or so. Of course the actual paper never mentions an ice age or climate at all, and neither did the presentation. The problem was the press release for presentation mentioned the Maunder Minimum and linked to the Wikipedia article about it, and from there the media assumed that would mean a new mini ice age, even though the mini ice age during that time was started before the Maunder Minimum. Nobody in the climate change community is really calling for a mini ice age (just like it was never widely thought in the 70s that we were heading for global cooling, it was understood even then it was warming, the cooling thing came from an article in Time if I recall correctly, not exactly a peer reviewed science journal) come the 2030's, at best we may get a very small slow down of the warming, but CO2 levels are 40% higher than during the Maunder Minimum. Anyhow the media tends to mislead the public with things that wasn't actually said. The right wing media machines especially know that their audience won't vet their sources or information and will trust them and talk about conspiracies to hide the truth. Heck most of the media never even cleared the air over climategate emails, so most of the deniers still cite the climategate emails as a valid thing, even though in context and with scientific understanding none of the climategate claims are valid, and in fact still point to global warming... (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant-failure-science-communication)

There's also the change from "global warming" to "climate change" which they don't understand to be an escalation of the term, and think instead it's toning it down.