Wouldn't have taken ol' Kelhus for a Black Panther.

Yes.

Is this supposed to be a gotcha?

Hey man, Jim Crow was wildly popular in the South, just like slavery before it. Ergo, not racist.

This is an aside, but I did appreciate the irony that in the movie titled Black Panther, the protagonist named Black Panther was actually extremely conservative, and the real revolutionary was the villain he had to defeat.

To be fair, the villain, once he defeated T'Challa, was arguably the rightful Black Panther for much, if not most of the movie.

i don't watch comic book movies and this whole time i thought that movie was about the black voltron

Area man confirms: AOC is, in fact, racist

Area brain worm confirms: brain worms have conquered another brain.

Again, the unredacted FISA warrant showed that the FBI did reveal that steele was doing oppostion research, presumably with the intent to harm the trump presidential campaign

Inequality is just poor economic policy. 20 people with 50 grand spend more on average than one person with a million. A solid economy relies on flow of means and credit, not accumulation.

Inequality can also reach the levels where huge parts of the population are indebted, economically this invariably leads to boom and bust cycles which are disastrous. But it also raises issues regarding freedom if large parts of the populace are de facto serfs. If we include socio-economic results of inequality, we also see that it is a waste of talent. Many risk losing out on opportunities afforded to others, while ideally you want opportunity to be based on skill and effort. This also can become a very negative reenforcing loop.

If inequality gets exposed you'll also lose the perception of fairness, which will lead to less trust in institutions and higher instability. But perhaps more importantly for me, a society that doesn't give people a fair shake is just worthless. Apart from issues of safety for me and those I care about, I wouldn't overly care if it was burned to the ground around me.

Too low

Taking food out of kid's mouths

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whi...nches-n1035281

Please continue this thought. So the woman with a million doesn’t spend it all. What does she do with the extra money and how does that NOT help the economy?

If she spends nothing at all, then it is obviously a disaster. Our economic system is based on consumption.

It was widely reported that a State Department sent the FBI an email prior to the FISA warrant being sought indicating his reports were not credible and that he was contacting the press in an attempt to get his reports published. So yeah it does look like they knew.

Additionally, they renewed the warrant on numerous occasions so they would have had a duty to update the information. All of the renewals were after Steele lied to them.

But I am happy to wait and see what the IG and Durham have to say about everything.

Velocity of money. The money from the $50k people gets spent and spent and spent again much faster than $1M money gets invested and spent or reinvested and facilitates much more economic activity per dollar.

2:45

Your undertitle should be “racist in some way”

Well, today $1M is probably a low enough number there might not be too big a difference. The real problem (if you even believe it is a problem) is probably all the people moving billions out of the economy to shelter them from taxes.

A person with $1M puts it in the bank at least for a while. It will free up lending for the bank, but this is a slow process. Someone who has $50k and spends it right away creates economic activity right away and then a fair amount of that will go to other people who will spend their money right away.

And after passing hands a few times it invariably ends up in the bank account of some millionaire/billionaire anyways.

Ironically, if we magically took some billions from the top 1% and spread it around; most of it would probably all end up back in the same place more or less anyways.

Without getting into the morality of it all, in principle I don't even have a problem with reparations, as most of it would probably go back into the economy. In practice though, I assume the money used to pay for it would invariably be disproportionately taken from the lower/middle classes, which would cause it to be a bad thing.

The actual percentage of money that billionaires hold is not huge (and wealth and money are not the same thing), so "invariably" is not right. But even if it invariably did after the nth exchange, it could still very well be that money in the hands of a poor person generates several times as much economic activity as money in the hands of a rich person.

I would love to hear what this guy is saying now (looks like this video was 2016) considering how low unemployment is now. I assume he is a huge fan of trumps tax cut, deregulation and trump putting his foot down on the craziness of raising minimum wage until everyone is rich (only half joking that is what dems are trying to accomplish).

You are right that spending is the backbone of the economy but without investment and loans the economy slows drastically.

This is true, but are we in danger of running out of money for investment any time soon? Interest rates are near zero. Rate of return on capital is lower and lower. People can't find enough places to stash their money right now, (those that have it). But we do have issues with people who can't spend enough money aka those in poverty and low incomes.

Business investment is a component of GDP. GDP and money velocity are on opposite sides of the equal sign. The Fed anticipates economic growth and money velocity to target the money supply to hit its inflation targets. Hope this helps.

Extremely inaccurate. Check the yield curve. Google is your friend.

Edit: 2+ percent is low but not near 0

As far as running out of money for investment citation needed