What's under your ctrl+v?

The entertainment industry is lame, bad, evil. So say two of the nation's most respected pop-culters. First up, TV wunderkind Joss Whedon, 46, says he's appalled that his show Buffy the Vampire Slayer - which was loosely based on the '92 vampire-killer-with-a-killer-Valley-accent flick - is being made into a film without him.

"This is a sad, sad reflection on our times," Joss tells E! News, "when people must feed off the carcasses of beloved stories from their youths - just because they can't think of an original idea of their own."


Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

The Language of Laughter: A Quantitative/Qualitative Fusion Examining Television Narrative and Humor

This doesn't work in OT. So I'll import it here and give it a try.

Warning, this thread is going to require a lot of reading!


There can be no disputing that wealth and income have become vastly more concentrated in the US over the past 30 years or so. What is open to dispute is why this is happening, what the results of it are, and is it good, bad, or indifferent?

My belief is that, first, it is happening substantially through government policy.
[URL="http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=399425"]
Formy did the thread here.[/URL] And it went down the predictable road.

Here is my own little personal confirmation bias: [URL="http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/"]This article in Slate[/URL], it is 10 pages plus links and graphic presentations, is what seems to be a well researched presentation of an exploration of the events which happened that explain why the "Great Divergence" in wealth came about.

I'd really like you all to take 1/2 an hour or so and read through it.

In short, no one policy, but rather a collection of policies, has stagnated the real incomes of most of the population. And so the people at the top are freed up to capture it for themselves.

What are the results? As I see it, nothing good. The theory behind supply side economics, which is largely the driving intellectual force underpinning and justifying this, is that if the wealthier have more money, they will invest more, and everyone will be made better off through higher growth.

Only growth hasn't been higher than the trend which existed before the Great Divergence began. And since business investment is a driver of growth, the suggestion is that net business investment isn't higher either. Or, if it is, why has it not improved overall growth in the economy or the growth in wages?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The long term growth trends, including the past 30 years, looks pretty steady to me. Certainly no real notable uptick during the 30 years of the Great Divergence.

Winter Coat




Hmm, no prizes for guessing what I have been doing today.

OFkeKKszXTw

Tale of the Bodythief

et rid of actual problem posters

Hanukkah

IALS_#1_BC-3200_to_Arwon

Your writing is visual, clear with a good use of dialogue.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

....

schizophrenia

she said what?