Well, the Great Depression hadn't happened yet, and none of that commie 'New Deal' nonsense, so if you would really prefer to keep partying like the Gilded Age hasn't quite ended, you might see a trip back to the '20s as progress...

To the degree that it doesn't merely shove people from Company A's product to Company B's product(which would probably be roughly a wash hedonically, though possibly slightly negative if a company were to discover that the marginal value of a dollar spent on advertising is higher than a dollar spent on improving products...), I'd have to assume that the news is more or less 100% bad.

When the punchline is that possessing Product and/or Service X will make you better off; and the target demographic is 'people who currently don't have one; but might be willing to believe that', it's pretty much best-case that the ad will fail, and increasing levels of added dissatisfaction with lack of Product X for the other cases.

You'd pay him that much?

Even after his tragicomic “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief"; but, not to worry, “Whatever regulatory changes are made, they will pale in comparison to the change already evident in today’s markets...Those markets for an indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime.” performance?

(I guess, horribly enough, the fact that the events of the day did move him to concede that the 'free markets just full of rational actors!' model...might have a few weak spots... actually makes him a better empiricist than more than a few other economists in that camp.)

Well, that is not quite true and quite frankly points out what kind of a bullshit artist Greenspan is. Basically the 1% of the 1920 owned a lot of capital assets like properties, farms, business, shares, jewellry, even what are today vintage auto mobiles and these would all have adjusted to inflation accordingly and they would be exceedingly wealthy based upon today's standards and today's property and business values. So Greenspans statement is 100% total crap.

When you own the means of production, the means of generating wealth you are never poor, until it is stripped away from just after a bloody and ruthless revolution.

What these asshats are alluding to is the truly disposable workforce. When you are no longer of use to psychopathic capitalism you are disposed of, parked in concentration camps for the unemployable, only let out for chain gang style mass labour projects. These are very evil people as they make no mention of reduced working hours with increased pay against productivity gains, more time for leisure and free education, with the contributions to society spread out to take into account automation.

All these fuck heads see, is automation, ahh no expensive work force more profits for me. With no concept of who they are going to sell the shit to, other than that workers must accept significantly reduced status unless their existence is sponsored by an employer. These people are a real and present danger, a threat to humanity.

You ignore reality. Humans are a social species not an individual species, we by genetics share and exchange in order to survive as a social species. You then logically measure value by the ability to contribute to that. The obvious negatives being selfishness, greed and a psychopathically parasitical nature that seeks to prey off society rather than contribute to it. Logically anything other than that is sophistic bullshit, no matter how much space you take up with your comment.

Now for some reality. High capital cost, high maintenance. Problems, urine, diarrhoea, dust storms, clouds, high humidity etc. Number of users versus numbers of toilets. Sewerage also includes washing water, showers, bath, hand basin and, kitchen sink.

Question would it be simpler to bring in normal toilet blocks and a mobile sewerage treatment plant, something along the lines of a methane powered digester that could actually deal with all sewerage requirements not just dried out poop. Answer, well duh. Fucking stupid is thinking sewerage is just faeces and not all of the rest. The biggest problem with sewerage is not smell, it is human disease, especially water borne diseases and those can come not only from faeces but urine and wash water as well as nasal mucus discharges, open sores and not to forget medical wastes.

Designing a better toilet to be blunt is really, really stupid. Designing better sewerage treatment systems incorporating portability, rapidity of set-up, ease of maintenance and energy requirements is the only sensible way to go because their is a lot more to human waste than just faeces.

What will go wrong, the worst imaginable consequences. Basically the only science research to be conducted will be that which produces a profit. Why is this such a great failure? Basically because all science which saves costs will not only not be carried out but it will actually blocked. The best science is always that which saves, everyone has access to it and everyone gains benefit. That which produces is pretty much uniformly only accessible to those that can afford it. As for junk science, well, just like the snake oil of yore, it eventually proves to be a failure and those behind it end up getting strung up for the pain and suffering they have caused.

For example fracking, they know it is very bad, there is factual proof, they sought and gained an exemption from pollution requirements from Darth Cheney and it was provided, if it was not bad, they wouldn't have bothered. Proof of how bad fracking is, is quite simply being proven by the results currently being generated and it will only get worse. They simply want to generate as much profit as possible, for as long as possible, until it all collapses under massive failure then they declare bankrupt and the bulk profits will have long since disappeared.

Failure to prosecute junk scientists and their backers for the harm they have caused is a real problem, especially when the harm is human suffering and death. Seriously confiscation of assets and life imprisonment should be the norm for both the scientists and their backers.

Reality;
Is a college degree of value?
Is society willing to pay for it?
NO
Then that society does not value a college degree.

Now that pretty much sums it up. Of course that society also deserves to die off mass infection and thus help to rid the world of stupidity. Greed is not a measure of intelligence, it is a measure of greed nothing more and nothing less. Thank the makers that so many people preferred to come up with life saving cures, inventions and ideas and were not pursued by the demons of greed and selfishness. How much money an individual has in not the proof of the measure of their human value, it is simply the proof of the measure of their selfishness and greed, parasitical values in human societies of negative rather than positive value.

The slope of course they are heading for, user pays. Want to put up a web site, why should the public have to pay to ensure it is 'safe' and acceptable. A simple preview fee to ensure that it meets government requirements, say around $10,000 (fully tax deductible of course) should be enough to push most people off the internet and if fees are to difficult due to continual changes perhaps $1,000,000 permanent licence fee to guarantee all troublesome sites are blocked (not porn sites of course they can afford it). The goal to force the internet back to the preferred main stream media model where only the few can afford to publish content and the majority are silenced. The majority need to be told what to think and they are the only ones with those evil anti-government thoughts, not to tell each other what they are actually thinking. Poms actually voted for this government, what the fuck were they thinking.

Unfortunately, what you avoid in union management you gain in contracting company executives and shareholders...

Even if you derive so much pleasure from stepping on workers that it's illegal in 14 southern states, that's an expensive way to get rid of some unions...(and that's the best-case scenario, the cost-benefit looks worse if you don't.)

Book burning, hmm, it actually comes in two categories. The first one is evil when you burn other peoples books or publicly owned books. The second one is humorous, when you burn books you have bought. When you burn books you have bought, obviously the purchase of that book drives sales and hence more will be printed, also the book you have bought by burning is removed from the second hand market. So burning a religious book you have purchased makes absolutely no difference other than making a categorical statement that it is truly evil to try to kill someone for burning a book that they owned.

As for an extremely right wing UK government wanting to erase unsavory web sites, we all know what that means, first on the list wikileaks, next peace sites, unions sites, any anti-government sites and the list goes on and on and on.

Alibaba is mostly (possibly entirely, I don't know how much if anything they sell on their own account) the middleman. I'd be fairly surprised if they don't make it past 'consumer protection' (such as it is) pretty much entirely unscathed. Maybe they'll even add an abusive mandatory binding arbitration clause!

So Ebay, but with lower transaction fees?

5) British cuisine.

Sure, the Feds also put a good bit of money into medicine and basic research and even social sciences, but the largest driver of US scientific research and development over the last five or more decades has been the military, either directly or indirectly (e.g. research into computers not only drives military use of computers, aircraft builders (for the military) and NASA (for the missile programs) funded a lot of computer and mathematical research.) We've gotten some useful spinoffs from it (like the internet and GPS and Tang freezedried orange juice), but it's taken a lot of scientists away from doing medical research, energy efficiency, or other things that should have been higher social priorities. Some of that airplane development has been dual-use, since a 747 to haul passengers is a lot like a military cargo plane or an older slower bomber, but a lot of it has diverted people and money that could have been making the world a better place into the military.