Genovese Syndrome

Net Neutrality is people who don't understand how markets work trying to make unnecessary and cumbersome rules for what they think other people should do. Freedom seeking citizens would never advocate taking away the freedom of other citizens, whether or not they own big companies.

I've just come up with something awesome: Friend Neutrality. People are not allowed to chose who they are friends with anymore, otherwise they will discriminate with prejudice or be too picky. You have to be friends with everybody because every human being is entitled to friendship.

There, I've created a better world.

Why didn't anyone hand him a skateboard?

>> ^drattus:
And what the fuck is wrong with them being indoors?

Nothing! Ever heard of a dog house?!


Outdoor/indoor has nothing to do with neglecting your dog, like you said.

Hmm, that didn't cause my brain to fail, it fails for totally unrelated reasons. My brain that is.

*promote

Apparently the buses were burned down in another part of town in a concerted effort to divert police while the criminals responsible for shooting down the chopper escaped.

What are they doing indoors!?

Do they have a word for "lawsuit" in japanese?

Ten fingers on a multi-touch pad: nice
stacking windows in one dimension instead of two: dumb

So much hair, just pull it!

>> ^NordlichReiter:
In the modern world, things should not come to violence. It goes to show we are so truly evolved! How terrible we have become.

It's not right to condemn violence indiscriminately, after all, it is part of the human condition, and I don't consider eradicating any kind of violence as an unconditionally good thing, much less paramount to human evolution.

That being said, yeah, that's one terribly sloppy execution.

What a sloppy impression of Obama, is this "actor" getting paid for this?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
At the cost of weakening their own currency, only a matter of time before that doesn't work anymore, cause we sure in hell ain't paying any of that debt back. We can hardly pay interest.

Exactly, those bonds are worthless, and we're running out of suckers to buy them, fast.

>> ^yaroslavvb:
I wouldn't lend money as a restaraunt owner, which shows how different the decision-making process is made at the country level.

To me it just shows you had trouble understanding my analogy. Yes, you would lend money as a restaurant owner, even to your own customers, if you thought that they will pay you back. Ever heard of a tab?

There is no absurdity in lending money to your customers, it's only absurd to keep doing it once you realize they can't pay you back. Then you're faced with a tough decision: Whether to lose your customer and all that money they owe you or keep wasting more money hoping you'll see any of it again. Eventually, their spending becomes just an expense, because they're spending your money.

On a country level it actually makes sense for China to keep buying US bonds despite the trade deficit because it drives up employment inside the country.

Employment is good because it leads to production. China produces enough to finance our debt, but that is in no way desirable to them, consuming is not a big favor the US is doing the world. Anyone can be a consumer, hell, hand me 1 million dollars and I'll consume it real fast for you. What you want is for consumers to PAY you, something the US hasn't done for a while now.

>> ^yaroslavvb:
If there's some kind of collapse due to Fed lowering interest rates, I'll conclude that such aggressive lowering was not a good idea.

Hmm, I doubt you would make the connection that low interest rates contributed to such collapse, even if it did. I don't know, just doesn't sound very keynesian to me.

However, there's no risk of "foreign nations" stopping lending to us because they are too dependent on our spending. If China stops lending money to US, US stops buying Chinese goods, and Chinese economy crashes. So they are forced to keep lending money indefinitely

yaroslavvb, think about it, as the owner of a restaurant, would you lend money to your customers to eat at your restaurant? What if they kept borrowing so much that they couldn't ever pay you back in a timely manner? Would you keep lending to them indefinitely hoping to get paid back one day? After a while, would you actually need the spending of those borrowing customers, wouldn't it make more business sense to deal with regular non-borrowing customers instead?

We are spending THEIR money, the rest of the world is not going to be fooled forever. In business, there's such a thing as "cutting your losses".

This is kind of pointless.

Look, austrians are predicting a major collapse of the US economy in a few years, the value of the dollar falling because of all the monetary inflation the Fed is creating because they're thinking like keynesians. Once foreign nations wise up and stop lending us all this money that we're never paying back, we're screwed.

I know you don't think that will happen, that the recession is over, etc. However, IF it does happen, just like that, will you change your mind about austrian economics, or will you still stick to your keynesian view of the world?