@MilkmanDan

i do not want to speak for eric,so i will just explain why i downvoted.

this video attempts to explain the syrian crisis,with almost zero critical examination.the video practically regurgitates the current american political narrative and never mentions the conflicts of information.

let me explain:

1.the video states this all started due to the arab spring,but totally fails to mention that the MAIN reason for the continued conflict is not arab spring,but the fact the both qatar and saudi arabia have been pushing syria to allow them to build a pipeline through syria in order for those countries to sell oil and gas to europe.

which would be in direct competition with russia,which is the main provider of oil and gas to europe.

2.this video claims..twice..that assad has used chemical weapons against his own people.while convenient for a western power which may,or may not,wish to engage militarily.there was no evidence in 2013,and there is no evidence this time (mainly due to time.i mean come on,TWO days? and BOOM.assad did it,nothing to see here.move along).

the only journalist in 2013 that challenged the narrative was seymor hersh.who was ridiculed and chastised,and ultimately vindicated in 2014 by the UN securities commission,that assad was not the perpetrator,but rather the al qeada off shoot el nosra.

which was barely covered,if at all,in american corporate media.

it is also important to mention that the assad regime,in full compliance with the UN,handed over all materials that could be used in chemical warfare.i.e:sarin gas.

3.while the video DOES mention it,it does so in a very slick way,and if you are not following this situation,you will miss it.

america IS supporting and funding "rebels",but pay attention to who those rebels are:they are the offshoot of al qeada,el nosra.

so in effect,america sis funding and supporting al qeada to fight against the assad regime.

i will give you time to allow that to sink in a moment.

these are only a few of the glaring inconsistencies in this video,but i will agree that the situation in syria is complicated,but the reasons for that complication are not being mentioned in this video..at all.

and one final thing to chew about before i go,because i think it is an important aspect to ponder,and as of right now,thats all it really is:speculation.

assad was set to meet with a UN peace council in a week to discuss possible diplomatic solutions.add to this that trump had just recently (last week) backed off obama's "red line" approach,and stated quite clearly that america is ONLY interested in dealing with ISIS,and had NO interest in dealing with assad.

question:

why would assad,with only a week to go before peace negotiations,commit politicial suicide by gassing his own people?

who benefits from this attack?

because it sure is not assad.

we all know the situation in syria is dire,complicated and grotesque,but the current narrative being fed to americans simply does NOT add up.

2+2 does not = 5

and this video does nothing to clear that up,it simply regurgitates american corporate media's narrative.

and i refuse to upvote that.

What do you think Hilary could have done that would have been so dangerous and insidious? Maybe I am lacking in imagination, but I actually can't think of anything that the Trump presidency hasn't already eclipsed. Travels bans, demonising the press, Russia, the EPA, Trumpcare... Like, I'm not 100% sure I would have voted at all if I could have, but yeah, I really struggle to see Hilary as more dangerous than a Prez who just regurgitates whatever he absorbed that morning reading Breitbart.

My counter is the previously mentioned authors who have spent there lives researching and living the things they write about. I'm not referring to their work to be condescending or to have a pissing contest. I've mentioned previously that anything I say will just be a poor regurgitation of their work, and it's a massive time saver for both of us when I can just refer you to them.

Yes I have an agenda. It's to stop this madness from both the left and right. The right are a lost cause, but the left can get there.

Bob doesn't do any of that pesky thinking. He just regurgitates what his bosses tell him to and then moves on.

As far as Trump goes, Keith is spot on yet again. That's why you see Bob propagandizing against him here.

Laughable. First you quote from a site that anyone would recognize as 100% pushing it's own agenda, then you fail to see that the site you are referencing is happy to toss terms like apex predator around. The very definition of Apex Predator is a predator at the top of a food chain.

If you bothered to learn anything other than regurgitate information that is basically dogma that they want you to spread, you could have easily clicked on one of the links at the bottom of the paper you reference, links that blow gaping holes into the 'science' that supports yours viewpoint.

Here is one: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/E796.long

The scientist used the same methodology and proved that in a REEF environment, Humans ARE apex predators. Why doesn't your dogmatic site list competitive theories? Does it not bother you that they are giving you information designed to influence others into following your beliefs without bothering to suggest counter-theories?

Personally, I consider both studies to be flawed, as we developed into an apex predator through use of tools. We trump other apex predators by either outsmarting them, using tools to defeat them (weapons,traps), or by changing their environment to suit ours (domestication, eradication).

For someone who is telling others to think outside the box, you have buried yourself IN the box on this issue. That's perfectly fine if you like it, but don't expect to not be called to task for it.

As far as morality goes, I know at least one of the two vegans here absolutely supports the development of new technological terrors (heh) that are designed to kill other humans. Since we are designing weapons to kill other humans, doesn't that go directly against the vegan outlook of do no harm to other sentient species for our own benefit? Eh, @transmorpher?

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.

this is pretty high on the retarded scale.
and tagging this in the *education *philosophy and *learn channels is insulting to those who use their brains.

look man,i get that you disagree with socialism as an economic system,and you are perfectly within your rights to hold that opinion,but it is apparent that you have no clue what socialism is and continue to regurgitate the tired old tropes from the mcarthy era.

you,my friend,suffer from an incredibly bad case of doublethink.

you cannot on the one hand view taxes as theft and then turn around and support the military.which is a socialist institution and uses taxes to fund itself.

what you fail to realize is that this discussion goes back to the beginning of this country:what is the governments role.since the constitution was a brilliant document,and what made it brilliant was NOT simply the words written but the fact that our forefathers KNEW that they didnt know everything and they allowed for the constitution to be changed,as our society changed.

which is why we got rid of slavery,and allowed women to vote.we expanded the bill of rights to include blacks.

we did these things as a society.

we got rid of child labor and we decided that basic education was a fundamental right.

socialism is not a utopian philosphy.it is an economic philosophy and it can be just as abused as capitalism.the bank bailouts in 2007 was a socialist reaction,and one the majority of the american people disagreed with,but so was the interstate highways...which we DID agree upon.

so to title this "socialism explained" is pretty fucking stupid.

i already linked you an actual breakdown of american socialism,which appears you failed to read.so allow me to try again and i implore you.give it a read:
https://mises.org/blog/bernie-sanders-right-us-already-socialist-country

haha..whats up drunky!
you nailed exactly why i post some of the more controversial videos in my que.

i have found that those of identify strongly with one politcial and/or cultural philosophy tend to stick in the same groups,the same spaces and receive their information from the same sources.

this applies to both the right AND the left.
we can use bobknight as an example when he regurgitates almost verbatim the current republican talking points.

but bob is an easy target.

the only thing i have truly been invested in of late is the greg elliot case.who was recently found not guilty and people have been saying its a victory for free speech.

but is it?
the man lost his job and is 100k in the hole for legal fees.

so while people can say this is a victory for free speech.i am less optimistic.some people could look at greg elliots case and decide to shut up if confronted.not make any waves and submit to the threat of legal prosecution.

of course there was a sifter who felt that because the video was from a right wing show,the content was worthless.which is a binary way of thinking that is very limiting,because it judges the speaker before the content and the discussion is ended before it has begun.

so my posting the rape game video was to bring awareness,not make a social commentary,and is also why i provided links to both a left and right take on the situation.

i would rather post a documentary or lecture on the subject,but most people nowadays want their information spoon fed to them in tiny,easy to consume,media bites no more than 5 minutes.

which is damn near impossible.
human interactions,cultures,religions and societies are complex and nuanced.it takes time to unpack all that information and digest the context.

ah well..what can you do...

anyways,
thanks for your comment and stay awesome brother!

@Babymech

are we playing the numbers/statistic game?
oh goodie../claps hands
i love these games.
can i play?

since i actually agree that mens issues are different than womens in certain cases,and that you recognize that the "patriarchy" affects men as well as women.i see no reason to address something we both agree on.

so we can agree the base premise is "power vs powerlessness",and that women have a right to address this power structure,just like men do,because BOTH suffer under its influence.

but then you posted some tasty links for our enjoyment,and then made the specious claim that this somehow made your argument MORE valid.

ok..lets play by YOUR standards shall we?

1.the gender pay gap,which before 1962 may have been a valid argument,but since it is ILLEGAL to discriminate in that way in regards to pay,and if true would translate to waaay more women in the workplace (because corporations love them some dirt cheap labor).so why is this trope still trotted out?why is it given so much validity as being born as fact?when no serious economist ever sites this disparity,yet so many keep regurgitating this gap is being a real thing?

well,i will just let a feminist economist break it down for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

see? just got me one of them fancy links you like so much.

2.political power in regards to gender.well,i cant argue the statistics.there ARE more men in politics,but what your link fails to do is ask a very basic question:why?why are there more men than women?

pew research addresses that question,and is fairly in line with your link:http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/

3.as for who suffers from the most sexual violence.well,according to your link which uses cdc numbers,women suffer far more,BUT (and is the statistic that the women in my video pointed out) when you include prison (which the cdc did not) that number flips on its head:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message.

just like this woman in my video is not dismissing feminism,she is disagreeing with feminisms more extreme authoritarian bullies,who because they scream louder and are more controversial..get more attention,but that does not make their position MORE important just because they are louder and more obnoxious.

in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey.

we can all agree that we all want equality,fairness and justice and the current,and historical power structures,have always sought to retain and even further their own power.which has been traditionally held by men,but this does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride,quite the opposite.

so women absolutely have a right to challenge this power structure,just as men do.what they do NOT have a right to is imposing their ideologies upon me,or this woman in my video.

this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists! just because she had the audacity to disagree with their position.

at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another.

feel free to disagree.

Yes, and I still can't understand how someone can possibly be a doctor and still hold the naïve beliefs he holds.

Perhaps it is mean to judge her, but I think she wasn't actually asking a question, but she was regurgitating a specific phrasing of a statement as a question, right?
"Why should we base the validity of all of our life's beliefs on a theory?" by which she really means 'We should not base our beliefs on an unproven theory, we should defer to the 'proof' of the bible'...at least that's how I hear it, because I've heard it before and that's what was meant.
First, it more than implies that we all hold immutable 'beliefs', rather than fluid ideas, and second it conflates "scientific theory" with the English word "theory", showing a complete lack of understanding (or more often the case, an intentional misstatement and/or intentional conflagration of disparate terms) of science and it's processes and terminology.
If I thought she was actually ASKING, rather than just slightly rudely interjecting her incredulity in the form of a 'question', I would agree with you. I wish more people would actually ask this kind of question. Sadly, I've seen this all too often, and invariably those asking this 'question' aren't listening to the answer, because this 'question' is their answer.

Unfortunately, I'm not rich enough, or able enough (twice broken back) to qualify to immigrate to NZ (although I am trained in the correct field, welding, to qualify the last time I looked). If I was qualified and could convince the wife, I can see no reason not to move there tomorrow, even if all Americans got their act together tonight. Have you seen NZ?!?

First i think your regurgitating your talking points incorrectly. Bad little stoolie!... Its that they won't, WILL NOT, call them Islamic Extremists. I know its an itty bitty difference but trust me at your next clan rally you'll get a really hard time if you say it the way you did.

Second if the big tough GOP is so afraid of the press and orphans they really shouldn't even bother running for president. It just seems like they are going to be faced with a LOT scarier things than that should the cowards in this country actually elect them.

On the other hand... its probably what jesus would do right?

Oh my god shut your yapping fucking faces no one cares what you have to say you regurgitating marketing automaton.

Game looks cool.

I barely see any original content here. I can see now why some people in the past have vocalized this. I check this place out and it is just people regurgitating POP videos. What ever happened to this sift being the best of the best, cream rises to the top type thing. That is all Mintbbb ever did and she got lathered in sift goodies for her copy past technique.

It is enough to piss a guy off enough to write a paragraph about it.

* thinking about it in the shower just now. I have come to the conclusion that this sort of posting has it's place here and everywhere on the net, Without it less people would know of it, which is spreading information and I like the spread of information.

@shinyblurry, respectfully,
The bible lies. It's stories were probably not meant to be an 'explanation' of reality in the first place, but more likely were created as fables to explain morality...thanks Constantine. (So you know, he's the emperor that ACTUALLY compiled the bible together from various oral traditions, as a political ploy to consolidate religions to make them easier to control.)

You and I have been over this claim repeatedly...Not a whit of EVIDENCE has ever been provided to me, only idiots regurgitating nonsense from 2000+ years ago-
(nonsense made up mostly by Arab/Semitic nomads thousands of years before they were written, likely made up as morality tales, also to 'explain' how they thought certain things worked before the scientific method came around to actually explain reality...examples, the sun and universe spin around the flat earth, the sun rides on a chariot, witches and demons are responsible for any bad thing that happens, etc.)
-idiots who change their interpretations when their current interpretation is shown clearly and undeniably to be completely wrong and indicative of a lack of basic understanding. As evidence goes, that's evidence that religion is wrong and harmful, not that it's correct and helpful.

If god is going to provide evidence of his existence to me, he's taking his sweet time and allowing the issue to be confused with 'facts' and 'reality'. (I'm assuming that's what you meant, and not that there would be proof of polytheism, as you wrote).

The sooner you come to grips with all that, the sooner you can stop saying ridiculous things as 'fact' and ignoring fact as either 'willful suppression of god's grace' or 'Satan tricking you'. It's odd to me that no religious people ever think the bible itself might be a creation of Satan, tricking you into terrible behavior and hatred of 'infidels', encouraging and causing behavior it specifically forbids (Eg-stoning to death/thou shalt not kill...worshiping crosses and or statues of Jesus/thou shalt not create any graven (carved) images).

I hope reality will provide everyone with evidence of it's existence, and people will stop suppressing the truth because they love their religion.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.