It would, but only if they put that money into circulation. Inflation is really a measure of the amount of a currency in circulation, not the amount of a currency that exists. If the US government printed a trillion dollars then buried it in a hole in Texas inflation wouldn't tick up one bit. That's the reason why we've seen "big spending" over the last few years but no real increase in inflation.

Inflation would definitely do that, but I'd say the real reason large companies are trying to build markets in EU, India, Russia, Brazil, etc is because they want bigger markets and more profit, not necessarily because they expect Americans to not be able to afford anything. And in actuality that may be good for us; our exports would be dirt cheap relative to the rest of the world so we'd start actually exporting something for a change.

Why, of course they do! They create such high paying careers as: gardener, pool boy, cleaning lady, house cook, babysitter, nanny, and personal shopper, among others! And as we all know, these skilled positions come with great benefits and perks that provide more than enough to raise a family on! And when they're done hiring workers, they can invest the excess in assets that yield high returns and further create jobs like extra homes, the market, and companies that deal in derivatives!

But in all seriousness, the real reason is because business owners and executives don't want to compete for the money. If you gave it to the people on the bottom, they could choose which company to do business with and their choice would generate market competition. It's pure corporate laziness; they accuse the poor of just wanting a handout, when they want the same thing.

Restless leg syndrome is definitely a real thing. My dad has had it for close to a decade due to complications from chemotherapy (nerve damage), and although he's able to control it somewhat, he unfortunately has to turn to medication more often than not. I'm not sure how common it is for people who didn't undergo chemo, though.

Do you not understand the idea that normally diverse interests can align on a particular issue? We get the idea that some corporations support net neutrality and some oppose it, but to imply that supporters are being led around all glassy-eyed and used purely for the ends of these corporations is a little simplistic. On this particular issue, supporters agree with some powerful corporations. On others, not so much.

Is everyone who doesn't agree with you a useful idiot?

True, but it's a little like cycling the profit that a new business division produces back into that division so it can continue to grow and outcompete the market. Any company would love to have an asset like that.

So essentially, essentially is an essential word... =D

Obviously, they've never visited slashdot.

In terms of "good" being suitable for human life and "bad" being unsuitable? Yes. In much the same way that calm weather is "good", but a hurricane is "bad".

Of course not, but that isn't the issue here.

Changes in climate are "bad" when they cause suffering to human life. If you're trying to raise a discussion on the question of evil, then this isn't the place to do it. You know full well the issue isn't the inherent qualities that make something "good" and "bad".

In much the same way as someone would determine if my case of botulism poisoning was caused by someone putting it in my food or by infection of a puncture wound. You know, like research.

Do you believe that a man drinking himself to death is worse than a man dying of natural causes? Most of us would say yes, it is worse. Not all of us can have a Meursault-like level of detachment.

Again, is this really the conversation we are having? Is a debate about the question of evil going to refute empirical evidence?

"Quick! Stand on your head and breathe out!!! HURRY!!"

This would absolutely be true if the increased wealth was directly invested in productive capital or R&D. In places like China, this may be the case, but in Western countries I think we see this increase in wealth flowing to investments that aren't exactly the most productively efficient like the housing market and other bubbles, where the investments that create the best returns (at the time) don't enhance productivity much at all. So it really depends on where those extra savings are invested.

In absolute terms I agree, but people tend to look more to their relative economic success than their absolute economic success. The lower classes in Western countries may be better off than the royalty of the past, but I guarantee the royalty of the past were much happier with their circumstances than the lower classes of today, simply due to the fact that they were better off relative to their contemporaries. I'm not trying to cast off the gains we've made in quality of life, but equating absolute economic circumstances to well being is tricky.

I disagree completely with this sentence, but I absolutely love the visual it produces. This is getting used at my next dinner party.

This is what I was speaking to specifically. My point was that, at least at my school, faculty attempted to deal with issues that were off school grounds, after school let out. In the case of my high school, they did have a zero tolerance policy to violence both on school property and off. Your point was that both fight participants were punished for making the faculty deal with the fighting on school property, implying that if the faculty didn't have to deal with the fighting, then the participants would not be punished.

The research questions were sound, but the way it was reported was not exactly representative of the study. It's not that over 70% of Americans surveyed think that nanotech is "morally reprehensible", it's that:

"Over 70% of respondents who disagreed with the statement that nanotechnology is morally acceptable also did not approve of nanotechnology ‘under any circumstances’ or only approved of it ‘under very special circumstances.’ Among respondents who felt that nanotechnology was morally acceptable, the pattern was reversed, with almost 90% of respondents approving of nanotechnology ‘as long as the usual levels of government regulation are in place’ or ‘if it is more tightly regulated."

The study was showing that, the more religious a society is, the more likely they are to believe that nanotech is morally objectionable. The US, even thought it is somewhat of an anomaly in that it is both a richer and more religious country, holds with the pattern of other religious western countries that have objections to nanotech.

Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States

MozeeToby was right in that most of the American public has no idea what nanotech really is, but this causes an interesting effect depending on where you are in relation to support for new technologies: if you are pro-business, pro-new technologies, and you have no idea what nanotech entails, you are less likely to support regulation than if you are pro-business, pro-new technologies, and have a good idea of what nanotech entails.

On the opposite end, if you are more religious and don't know what nanotech is, you are more likely to support its morality than if you are religious and have a better idea of what it is. Either way, a better understanding of what nanotech is typically causes a shift to supporting increased regulations right now. The finding that religious, lesser informed folks are more likely to support nanotech matches well with what we saw with stem cells; before religious leaders had a chance to communicate ideas about the new technology to their lesser-informed constituents, these constituents didn't find it as morally objectionable.

Overall, arguing that a society's opinion of nanotech right now will be a good indicator of its opinion of nanotech later on is akin to arguing that a society's opinion of personal computers in the 1970's is indicative of its opinion of Internet porn right now. These things are bound to change as society has more interaction with the new technology.