>> ^Payback:

Uh... if these magnets are so damn much more than the earth's field, why do compasses not point at them from several miles away?


The Tesla unit measures magnetic flux density. The density of the Earth's magnetic field is very low compared to this magnet but it has much more total energy (no idea how much) and we're always within its field whereas this magnet might affect compasses for a few hundred feet.

Instant upvote for Watts. I don't really know the value of what he says but it's so incredibly relaxing hearing him say it. And I do enjoy his take on things.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"High tariffs and government-sponsored deflation followed by enormous taxation and unthinkable government expenditures turned a stock market stumble into a decade-long nightmare."



Jesus. Neither of those could be attributed to FDR. The tariffs were under Hoover and massive government spending under the new deal is anything but deflationary.

I mean, go ahead and say the New Deal did not work and all that vague nonsense. You would be wrong but at least it would look like a sensible statement.

It's all sort of fair enough until the end. What's this 'elite media protecting Barrack Obama by attacking republicans' nonsense. I think he could legitimately claim no comment since it isn't our business, but he took the righteous indignation way too far.

That was close: I nearly had to respect something Newt Gingrich said.

Ahhh...come on guys. Her heart's in the right place.

The one in four trillion shit is so awful I can't believe her friends haven't had an intervention, but some of this is good sound advice. And she does seem to genuinely care...

There are a lot of problems discussed at TED but life dissatisfaction rarely seems to come up.

Gosh...I wonder what "uncle"'s real name is...

I've literally never made this statement about anything ever before, but...this is pure awesomesauce!

>> ^marbles:

>> ^crotchflame:
BUT this came at the cost of a more serious threat of deflation and bank runs, which you can easily argue is much worse.

That's a false argument. You can't have deflation without first having inflation. And your argument is well we have to suffer inflation otherwise we might suffer deflation. That's illogical. Deflation is mostly good for us and bad for banks. Deflation would mean lower food and commodity prices. When a bubble pops, it's essentially canceling out that bubble's expansion of the monetary base. The realized inflation in prices is caught in an imbalance. If left to a natural correction, prices would fall and reach an equilibrium. But the government and central bank usually step in with a monetary solution to "stabilize" the economy. This is just horseshit excuse to keep the inflation from the bubble and pass on the cost to the tax payers.


Netrunner's already pointed this out, but this is special pleading. You say that prices go up and down in the market with a fixed currency, but that's not inflation because inflation is expansion of the money supply. You're saying that inflation only happens under a fiat system, therefore a fiat system is the only way we can have inflation. It's not very interesting. Inflation can only be measured as an aggregate of general prices, like the billion prices project. If all the prices are going up, that's inflation; down, that's deflation. Arguing which came first is a chicken and egg question.

The rest of what you say doesn't address the link I gave to why deflation is worse.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^crotchflame:
There's nothing about inflation or speculation that requires fiat money.

Huh? That's what inflation is--the expansion of the fiat monetary base. WTF are you talking about?
Without a system built on fractional reserve debt, there is no method to engage in fraudulent speculation. There is no bubble, there is no artificial expansion in debt.


Inflation is a rise in general price levels. Just because the price of gold is fixed with a gold standard doesn't mean everything else is. But to be fair, inflation did tend to be lower under fixed currencies with little threat of runaway inflation and the long-run prices determined by gold mining activity. BUT this came at the cost of a more serious threat of deflation and bank runs, which you can easily argue is much worse.

What's the difference between speculation and investment? It seems people are always certain which is which after the fact, but a full reserve banking system would reduce both activities. It's a matter of degree, there are no magic bullets.

>> ^davidraine:

>> ^crotchflame:
Literally everything they're harping about here is true for any medium of exchange...be that fiat money or gold.
So what is it they're calling for here?

I don't think they're calling for anything -- Simply explaining. Also, the point is that everything they point out is not true for any medium of exchange. The hallmark of fiat currency that makes it true is banks' ability to conjure money out of nowhere, which starts the inflationary and speculative balls rolling. With a fixed money supply, this can't happen.


There's nothing about inflation or speculation that requires fiat money. You could argue that bubbles are made worse by fiat but they aren't avoided completely without them and a fixed money supply leaves you no monetary policy to readjust (this adjustment can both expand during a recession and contract to slow a bubble - which Greenspan famously didn't do). Most of the problems cited in this video are very real, but they're not directly the result of fiat but rather bad policy. It's like saying because people occasionally steer into things, cars shouldn't have steering wheels.

Depends what you mean by information.

>> ^Peroxide:

"It" doesn't "get" any information...

Literally everything they're harping about here is true for any medium of exchange...be that fiat money or gold.

So what is it they're calling for here?

*dead

This is a little ridiculous, isn't it? Saying that computers wouldn't have nice type if he hadn't lazily wondered into a calligraphy class?

I was hoping for a little insight and a little less self-serving narrative.

And I do enjoy the 'follow your dreams speech' as much as the next guy but there should be a little qualification about the method's success; i.e. it helps a lot if you're following your dreams in the right place at the right time.

>> ^SDGundamX:


@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/crotchflame" title="member since June 26th, 2007" class="profilelink">crotchflame I think the ads are both the cause and effect at the same time. They're the effect of a cultural norm that says its okay to treat women as (usually sexual) objects but they also cause that norm to be reinforced--so much so that some women even embrace that norm to their own detriment.


Our own detriment how, though? What social ill is growing as a consequence? Violence against women? Divorce? Low self-esteem? I would take any such argument seriously but most the commentary here seems to be at the introduction and not the conclusion.

There are counterpoints as well. Such as advertisers using artistic license in presenting an ideal of female beauty that we can't just assume people are taking seriously. There are women that match better to the ideal than others and we can't pretend that isn't the case any more than we should shut down the NBA because we can't all dunk a basketball. It should also be remembered that it's the ad's job to catch people's attention and it does that by bending cultural norms. We all spend much more time interacting with real people than with photo-shopped magazine prints.

I'm not defending anything here. I just feel like the subject is a great deal more complex than it's being made out to be. Not that that justifies the ugly, whiny feminist line of thought in the comments though.