Roger Moore will always be the real James Bond to me.
First Bond film i watched at a theater was Live and Let Die(blew my mind as a child).
Last one was Moonraker.
I think i've seen a few bond films made after those, and a few of Connery's also
Daniel Craig is hardly charming or smooth enough to be a bond imo.

Your video, Epic Rap Battles of History: James Bond vs Austin Powers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It doesn't work like that. What you end up with is something akin to Australia's gun laws, which 'technically' still allow certain people to own guns, realistically most won't or can't

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), circuit loaded firearms. shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles including semi automatic, and paintball gun. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm. [AKA, you have to prove you have a reason to own these weapons. Newsflash, the majority of police will automatically deny you. Oh yeah, for a PAINTBALL gun as well.]

Category B: Centrefire rifles including bolt action, pump action, circuit loaded, and lever action (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. [Same as Cat A, must have a 'genuine reason' to own one, be registered, have a fee, ton of other limitations, so basically hard to own]

Category C: Pump-action or self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer rounds and semi automatic rimfire rifles. [Only Primary producers, farm workers, firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.]

Category D: Self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds. [Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers in some states. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.]

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. [This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club. Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, larger calibres such as .45 were approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia in 2014. Barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds.]

Category R/E: Restricted weapons, such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, howitzers and other artillery weapons [Obviously this class is right out...]

You can own some muzzleloading weapons without restrictions, although percussion cap pistols are restricted. In addition to these minor rules, all guns must be secured in a safe or other similar location, all must be fully registered so that the government knows the location of every single weapon/owner, and you can't sell them to another person, only to a dealer or the law to be destroyed.

After a few years of de-fanging and getting the citizens used to not having weapons, the Australian government and law enforcement routinely quietly hold gun buybacks to persuade more people to give up their weapons. They also do amnesty turn ins now and then.

So, that is the AMAZING suite of laws Australia put in place to stop mass shootings. Forgive me if, when combined, those type of laws would basically neuter the 2nd amendment. We've already neutered the 1st with 'hate speech' and the ability to sue over getting your feelings hurt. The 4th has been steadily under attack, because GOOD citizens shouldn't mind if the government rummages through everything you own or do. We haven't messed with the 5th amendment too much, so we could look at that next, maybe allow torture of everyone for confessions.

I'm getting tired of listing points, so let me just say this. I am incredibly sorry that people died, they shouldn't have and it is an utter shame. However, we are already fighting on a daily basis to keep a facsimile of the rights that were fought for when we built this country. Watering them down further only helps our government tighten the bonds of enslavement upon us. I can't agree with that.

I was not talking about Vantablack in my comments. I was talking about other, older hydrophobic coatings.

Also, I'm fairly sure they bond the nanotubes with something to make them stick and stay in place. Pure nanotubes are just a powder, they would not act like paint. Nanotubes are not a new discovery and have been used in consumer products already, mostly electronics, google it.

Wrong music. Needs James Bond Theme.

Another entry in our series "Prison is For Plebs":

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-11/goldman-to-pay-5-1-billion-to-settle-u-s-mortgage-bond-probe

Edit: That's less than their net earnings in '06 alone, nobody gets his/her anus stretched on a daily basis, everyone gets to keep all the bonuses that were based around fraud, aaaaaand.... >50% of this penalty is tax deductible again. So yeah... a job well done by Schneiderman and his band of merry men.

meh, seem to be really grasping at straws here... video could be 1/10th the length if it didn't include so many non-issues. I mean the number of lamps in the set-dressing of a room is something 'wrong' with a bond film? Just no.

I only let my kids watch 1 hour of documentary TV per week, but even I can see that the bonding between that father and his daughter far outweighs any damage that might come from looking at a screen.

That's the girl from craig's first bond...cool

@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.

Well, cheers for sticking with it anyway, I really appreciate it.

It's a one hour talk on the deficit in particular, and most of what she says is based on MMT principles that would add another 5 hours to her talk if she were to explain them. With neoclassical economics, you can sort of jump right in, given how they are taught at schools and regurgitated by talking heads and politicians, day in and day out. MMT runs contrary to many pieces of "common sense" and since you can't really give 10 hour talks everytime, this is what you end up with – bits and pieces that require previous knowledge.

I'd offer talks by other MMT proponents such as William Mitchell (UNSW), Randy Wray (UMKC) or Michael Hudson (UMKC), but they are even less comprehensible. Sorry. Eric Tymoigne provided a wonderful primer on banking over at NEP, but it's long and dry.

Since I'm significantly worse at explaining the basics of MMT, I'm not even going to try to "weave a narrative" and instead I'll just work my way through it, point by point.

@notarobot

"Let's address inequality by taking on debt to increase spending to help transfer money to large private corporations."

You don't have to take on debt. The US as the sole legal issuer of the Dollar can always "print more". That's what the short Greenspan clip was all about. Of course, you don't actually print Federal Reserve Notes to pay for federal expenses. It's the digital age, after all.

If the federal government were to acquire, say, ten more KC-46 from Boeing, some minion at the Treasury would give some minion at the Fed a call and say "We need $2 billion, could you arrange the transfer?" The Fed minion then proceeds to debit $2B from the Treasury's account at the Fed (Treasury General Account, TGA) and credits $2B to Boeing's account at Bank X. Plain accounting.

If TGA runs negative, there are two options. The Treasury could sell bonds, take on new debt. Or it could monetise debt by selling those bonds straight to the Fed – think Overt Monetary Financing.

The second option is the interesting one: a swap of public debt for account credits. Any interest on this debt would be transfered straight back in the TGA. It's all left pocket, right pocket, really. Both the Fed and the Treasury are part of the consolidated government.

However, running a deficit amounts to a new injection of reserves. This puts a downward pressure on the overnight interest rate (Fed Funds Rate in the US, FFR) unless it is offset by an increase in outstanding debt by the Treasury (or a draw-down of the TT&Ls, but that's minor in this case). So the sale of t-bonds is not a neccessity, it's how the Treasury supports the Fed's monetary policy by raising the FFR. If the target FFR is 0%, there's no need for the Treasury to drain reserves by selling bonds.

Additionally, you might want to sell t-bonds to provide the private sector with the ability to earn interest on a safe asset (pension funds, etc). Treasury bonds are as solid as it gets, unlike municipal bonds of Detroit or stocks of Deutsche Bank.

To quote Randy Wray: "And, indeed, treasury securities really are nothing more than a saving account at the Fed that pay more interest than do reserve deposits (bank “checking accounts”) at the Fed."

Point is: for a government that uses its own sovereign, free-floating currency, it is a political decision to take on debt to finance its deficit, not an economic neccessity.

"Weimar Republic"

I'm rather glad that you went with Weimar Germany and not Zimbabwe, because I know a lot more about the former than the latter. The very, very short version: the economy of 1920's Germany was in ruins and its vastly reduced supply capacity couldn't match the increase in nominal spending. In an economy at maximum capacity, spending increases are a bad idea, especially if meant to pay reparations.

Let's try a longer version. Your point, I assume, is that an increase in the money supply leads to (hyper-)inflation. That's Quantity Theory of Monetary 101, MV=PY. Amount of money in circulation times velocity of circulation equals average prices times real output. However, QTM works on two assumptions that are quite... questionable.

First, it assumes full employment (max output, Y is constant). Or in other terms, an economy running at full capacity. Does anyone know any economy today that is running at full capacity? I don't. In fact, I was born in '83 and in my lifetime, we haven't had full employment in any major country. Some people refer to 3% unemployment as "full employment", even though 3% unemployment in the '60s would have been referred to as "mass unemployment".

Second, it assumes a constant velocity of circulation (V is constant). That's how many times a Dollar has been "used" over a year. However, velocity was proven to be rather volatile by countless studies.

If both Y and V are constant, any increase in the money supply M would mean an increase in prices P. The only way for an economy at full capacity to compensate for increased spending would be a rationing of said spending through higher prices. Inflation goes up when demand outpaces supply, right?

But like I said, neither Y nor V are constant, so the application of this theory in this form is misleading to say the least. There's a lot of slack in every economy in the world, especially the US economy. Any increase in purchases will be met by corporations with excess capacity. They will, generally speaking, increase their market share rather than hike prices. Monopolies might not, but that's a different issue altogether.

Again, the short version: additional spending leads to increased inflation only if it cannot be met with unused capacity. Only in an economy at or near full capacity will it lead to significant inflation. And even then, excess private demand can easily be curbed: taxation.

As for the Angry Birds analogy: yeah, I'm not a fan either. But all the other talks on this topic are even worse, unfortunatly. There's only a handful of MMT economists doing these kinds of public talks and I haven't yet spotted a Neil deGrasse Tyson among them, if you know what I mean.

Agreed, and a very important point.

However what I see as worst of all here is so many other students standing around, and none of them are intervening and correcting her.. so I wonder, do they think she's right or that she has a valid point, or maybe just don't realise that the professor is limited in how he interacts with this increasingly-emotional scenario. Whereas she's free to slip the bonds of reality.

Why did she take her backpack off?
If she was male, anyone standing in front would interpret it as likely being preparation for physical interaction (violence)

Makes incorrect claims, gets abusively emotional during discourse and seems to have some sort of partial-interest in either violence or at least to be threatening, these are all good reasons not to take her points seriously.

Exorcist 3 was way better than the second movie, although technically it is a sequel to the first.

Mad Max Fury Road was better than... well, all of the Mad Max movies.

Die Hard 3 was WAY better than the snooze fest sequel. Samuel L. Jackson, man.

Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country is WAY better than the original, 3, 4, and 5. So sometimes the sequel is good and then it takes 4 more movies before you get a good one in.

James Bond arguably got better with age. Maybe not the most recent ones, but Golden Eye was amazing. Great games can also be spawned from over making a franchise!

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is hands down the best of Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy. It wasn't just a western, it was an epic civil war movie in the west. And the ending with the Mexican stand off; soundtrack?!?! Hot damn! Not that the "sequel" sucked but the third was the BEST.

I know there are a couple good horror series that had a better third or fourth movie. Any Hellraiser is better than Hellraiser 2, same goes for Halloween. Though I can't say they were ever as good as their originals. It's still a hope I reserve for horror movies that make it past their shitty sequel.

The next Ring might be awesome. "Might." It's had a fairly massive career spanning 4 countries, 12 movies, 2 telvis ion series, 2 video games and a bunch of manga. Movies most people don't even know exist. I think the seventh iteration of the Ring (2002's American Ring) is the best.

And, while it might just technically count, it's worth noting that while i like Gaspar Noe's despair trilogy, his third movie Enter the Void is the only movie in the trilogy I can enjoy watching a third or fourth time. I once recommended his movies and alienated an entire office space. The only movie anyone enjoyed was his third movie.

Ghostbusters 3 will probably be better than 2. Blasphemy!! Hah, we will see. Girl power!

I think Batman also got better because of Nolan. Does that count? I mean, if a franchise goes on that long, it's all just sequels, despite the so-called canon and concept of "rebooting" a FAKE universe.

(Does Harry Potter count as the third movie in the Troll series?)

I was not that amazed with her although appreciated her Bond single...but this plus the impersonator gag up her coolness factor in my eyes.
[http://videosift.com/video/adele-pranks-adele-impersonators]