Be Right Back, Uninstalling

The ultimate thread of Why does this exist/How is this popular/ETC ETC ETC



The big problem I have with this is not that it's on Youtube, I kinda expect to see these kind of things. My problem is that it's a featured video, and I always thought there was at least some quality control. I didn't watch the video, but to me it just seems like it's advocating bullying and racism.

It's a featured video because the internet mouthbreathers were watching it to see if Charlie Chan was going to go Hong Kong Fooey on the white kid.

Why do things like this exist?





it is a mystery ʘ‿ʘ



EDIT: The vid sogo was watching, for context and more giggles.
ʘ‿ʘ

(08-16-2011, 05:11 PM)Dr. Zaius link Wrote: [ -> ]Why do things like this exist?





it is a mystery ʘ‿ʘ

good work zaius i giggled.



but i thought this thread was created for hating on humanity, i wake up some mornings and think "i hate almost everyone.  what am i doing here."  i try and shut that thought out of my mind but it always returns.


people, man.  they get to me.

The US government spends more money on welfare than education.  I think we spend near 1 trillion on Military as well. And people complain about money being put into NASA.

I don't want to live on this planet continent anymore.

Stop the world I wanna get off

(08-17-2011, 12:01 AM)EarthlingJohn link Wrote: [ -> ]The US government spends more money on welfare than education.  I think we spend near 1 trillion on Military as well. And people complain about money being put into NASA.

I don't want to live on this planet continent anymore.

The worst part is the right-wingers screaming bloody murder over anything that would actually help the budget. Like....cutting military spending for example. And promoting tax cuts for so-called "job creators" who do fuck all to help the economy.

(08-17-2011, 11:48 AM)TVs Luca link Wrote: [ -> ][quote author=EarthlingJohn link=topic=5864.msg219242#msg219242 date=1313557313]
The US government spends more money on welfare than education.  I think we spend near 1 trillion on Military as well. And people complain about money being put into NASA.

I don't want to live on this planet continent anymore.

The worst part is the right-wingers screaming bloody murder over anything that would actually help the budget. Like....cutting military spending for example. And promoting tax cuts for so-called "job creators" who do fuck all to help the economy.
[/quote]

Job creation is spurred by creating demand, lets say you as a government entity want to get the economy moving, your economy consists of a company that makes wigits and citizens that buy wigits.

You want the wigit maker to make more and hire more citizens to build wigits. You have two choices:

1 - Give the company money
2 - Give the citizens money

You can call "give money" whatever you want, be it a tax break or a welfare check, either way the government spends money (or takes in less revenue) the result is the same.

If the company makes and sells 1000 wigits, and you give them money, they're going to sit on it, given the economy is slow they don't need to hire anyone. If they make 1200 wigits and hire a new person they've got a surplus of 200 wigits sitting around doing nothing. Hypothetically here you would say that the new hire(s) would buy those extra 200 wigits and you'd be square, let's assume that. So you at least achieve part of your desire, production goes up, some people get hired.

Now lets say you give money to the citizens, they in turn can now buy more wigits. The resulting increase in demand prompts the company to hire a new person to fill orders, that person now with a job can also buy more wigits. Hopefully this would begin a cycle where the company hires new people to fill new orders to meet a growing demand, the result has also been achieved.

But there's a few variables here that are missed, to whom in the populous do you give money, rich citizens to invest in more wigits, the poor?

How many wigits was one consuming before they got the subsidy? What is the limit of consumption, where do you stop gaining any additional utility?

What if the company gets the extra money and decides just to sit on it, why boost production when you are unsure of demand?


The general argument from supply side IMO breaks down when you get companies that sit on the money. Which is happening right now, unsure of future demand they sit on piles of cash unwilling to spend it since they don't know if they'll get anything out of it, even if they all started spending their money in a hiring spree it would bring unemployment down and spur growth.

If you work the demand side, especially on the poorer end, you're more likely to see returns on that investment. If a poor family couldn't buy any wigits before and they wanted to, now they can. The higher the income bracket the less the return, the most rich citizens likely can already afford to have all the wigits they want, giving them an extra dollar won't increase their consumption at all.


This is a really simplistic model but it should put things into perspective, supply side you could argue it could work with an export driven demand...but that begs the question, if the demand was there, they'd already be hiring and not need the assistance anyway unless the credit markets froze for whatever reason.

While US Exports have been growing, its still very heavy on consumption and consumer demand to drive growth. With a large portion of the middle and lower class either unemployed, under employed, and unsure of the future, demand has dried up. Demand dries up, companies cut workers and reduce production, further aggravating the problem of high unemployment and the lack of disposable income in the remaining employed bits of the workforce.


Wow, didn't even realize how much I typed there, enjoy the econ lesson.

After college, Canadia or Australia for meeeeeee then!

You put it to words well Caff. That's what I was getting at. Demand side economics is awesome, supply side...leads to the rich getting richer.

Also.



this is a picture that was created in 2011. Michael Ramirez has two Pulitzers. Please die in several fires Mr. Ramirez.

snip

(08-17-2011, 02:21 PM)TVs Luca link Wrote: [ -> ]You put it to words well Caff. That's what I was getting at. Demand side economics is awesome, supply side...leads to the rich getting richer.

Also.

(CARTOON DERP)

this is a picture that was created in 2011. Michael Ramirez has two Pulitzers. Please die in several fires Mr. Ramirez.

You think that's bad? Google Glenn McCoy.

EDIT: I hate political cartoons, I really do. People need to realize that shit is complicated. Simple, snappy answers may seem cool and sound persuasive, but shit is never that simple. We as a society shouldn't immediately tl:dr and dismiss nuance. Shades of gray exist, and black and white oversimplifications and false dichotomies can go fuck themselves.  Political cartoons are really good at simplifying and raising awareness  on certain issues, great at overdramatizing, but not so great for contributing to solutions to the problems they point out.

/End whiny rant (am I doing it right?)

Glenn "Just making sure there are no survivors" and "AYRABS FLYING LIEBERAL JUDGES INTO THE WTC" McCoy? I know his vile views, both the McCoy brothers are vile. So's Chuck Asay.

There are few good political cartoonists. Tim Krieder was one, shame he hasn't done much since Bush left office.

Most stuff on TV and the realisation that it actually gets watched is one of the many reasons that I'd consider taking a hypothetical rocket off this planet.

(08-26-2011, 04:31 PM)ainmosni link Wrote: [ -> ]Most stuff on TV and the realisation that it actually gets watched is one of the many reasons that I'd consider taking a hypothetical rocket off this planet.

I hate Snookie too man.

(08-26-2011, 04:33 PM)Kirby the Dick link Wrote: [ -> ][quote author=ainmosni link=topic=5864.msg220422#msg220422 date=1314394318]
Most stuff on TV and the realisation that it actually gets watched is one of the many reasons that I'd consider taking a hypothetical rocket off this planet.

I hate Snookie too man.
[/quote]


Man, if tv's were equipped with death rays that fried the 8pm audience, we'd live in a better world.

<-- 15 months of TV-less viewing.

While wonderful and all, still doesn't protect me from encountering this type of bullshit: Religious persecution, a 42+ million industry.



(to be clear, people should be free to believe in whatever sort of flying carbohydrate deity they wish, whether composed of spaghetti, falafel, matzoh, etz.).

(08-26-2011, 09:34 PM)rumsfald link Wrote: [ -> ]<-- 15 months of TV-less viewing.

While wonderful and all, still doesn't protect me from encountering this type of bullshit: Religious persecution, a 42+ million industry.



(to be clear, people should be free to believe in whatever sort of flying carbohydrate deity they wish, whether composed of spaghetti, falafel, matzoh, etz.).

I know this is off-topic, but I've got to know where your avatar came from Rummy.

(08-26-2011, 10:47 PM)Karth link Wrote: [ -> ]I know this is off-topic, but I've got to know where your avatar came from Rummy.

SUPPLIES

(08-26-2011, 09:34 PM)rumsfald link Wrote: [ -> ]<-- 15 months of TV-less viewing.

I'm on 5 years of no tv. Come at me, bro.

Er, no wait, I mean welcome to the club.

(08-26-2011, 10:47 PM)Karth link Wrote: [ -> ][quote author=rumsfald link=topic=5864.msg220485#msg220485 date=1314412485]
<-- 15 months of TV-less viewing.

While wonderful and all, still doesn't protect me from encountering this type of bullshit: Religious persecution, a 42+ million industry.



(to be clear, people should be free to believe in whatever sort of flying carbohydrate deity they wish, whether composed of spaghetti, falafel, matzoh, etz.).

I know this is off-topic, but I've got to know where your avatar came from Rummy.
[/quote]

"Weird Al" Yankovic - UHF

I actually adore this movie.