Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/3/12 11:23 PM, PrespectBlock wrote:

I made a mistake in the original post. It is Sweden, Norway and Iceland, not Swiss.

Does legalizing prostitution increase or decrease sex trafficking and why?

I initially thought it would decrease sex trafficking, however, apparently the Netherlands has a serious problem with trafficking and is one of the top destinations for victims of sex trafficking. Does anybody have an explanation as to why this is so? It seems counter intuitive.

Also, any thoughts on the Swiss stance of prostitution (prosecuting "johns" rather than prostitutes)? Has it lower the incomes of prostitutes?

Discuss.

Just had few questions:

How much does domestic production of oil affect gas prices in the US? How costly is arbitrage and does the US have the infrastructure in place to sell to the "world market"? Apparently, the oil sands in Canada don't get above $70/b and that why they need a pipeline.

How much of the movement in prices during 2008/2009 from 150 to 35 was due to an actual decline in oil consumption due to the recession (how much did oil consumption actually slip)?

Are speculators a stabilizing force in the market or do they increase volatility? Why is the oil markets so volatile? Are the demand and supply of oil inelastic?

How much excess capacity do oil producers have to compensate for the decline in Iranian oil available in the short run? Are new discoveries of reserves sufficient to cover the increasing demand from emerging markets and how much more costly are they to develop?

Are renewables scalable/cost effective? Can they be in the future? Apparently fracking/shale/natural gas provides generations worth of new energy, but how quickly can the economy adopt these sources (get them into cars)?

How effective are oil price shocks at inducing permanent reductions in the consumption of gas?

At 10/31/11 10:57 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Extremely clear: Capital gains.

Why?

Also any thoughts on the Bradford X tax (or other progressive consumption taxes?

Forgot to add: Which is better for capital formation, employment and growth, cutting capital gains tax or corporate taxes?

Is corporate and investment tax integration a good idea and what would be the best way doing it?

Would eliminating corporate taxes and taxing capital gains and dividends are regular income be a good thing?

Also, is replacing current taxes with consumption tax a good idea? Would lead to 'excessive investment' and too little consumption/ adversely affect how people make economic decisions (e.g. encourage renting over buying a house)? Would the transition costs be significant (inflation)? What is the best proposal for a consumption tax (VAT, sales tax like the Fair tax, expanding existing tax free retirement accounts)?

The universe being improbable doesn't mean it is impossible by random chance, but it demands a better explanation than random chance. I agree that god is vastly more improbable than random chance, but I think an alternative still needs to be proposed and the multiverse is a good one. My question was about resolving the problem raised by the theist's about the improbability of the multiverse (though it is far better an explanation than random chance or god). I was just wondering if anybody more acquainted with the MV hypothesis could tell me if there was a counter argument to this thing or whether the the craig was bullshitting. Also any alternative theories to MV.

I don't no whether questions similar to this are already in this enormous thread, but I wanted to know how atheist's resolve this issue:

The universe is 'fine tuned' for matter and organic life to form (constants and initial conditions). The atheist or agnostic argument against this is the 'multiverse' coupled with anthropic. The theist or deist response (from a random ID website):

"The multiverse explanation is highly problematic. Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that the existence of such parallel universes can be neither verified nor falsified. The model is thus ad hoc and contrived. Second, given that the biofriendliness of the universe is in no way conducive to cosmic sustainability, no form of selection process or "cosmic evolution" can be invoked. Third, if the multiverse thesis is to commend itself as a plausible hypothesis, then a mechanism for generating such universes needs to be advanced. The concept of a 'bubble' of universes, each with their own fundamental constants and values, only throws the paradox back one step -- as one could easily ask who built the generator to give rise to this cosmic lottery.

Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10^123, an inconceivable number. If our cosmos were indeed but one member of a much vaster multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. The probability of our solar system forming randomly is about 1:10^60, a vast number but inconceivably smaller than 10^123."

Also craig talking about the multiverse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFNztON7d cA&feature=related

I don't think the multiverse needs to be proved, just raised as an alternative (both ID and MV are speculative) to hold up the agnostic viewpoint. The occum's razor argument is pointless as an 'intelligent' designer to me is far more complex than the multiverse. The interesting point raised is that in a multiverse it is more probable that we would find ourselves in a universe with different properties (but I am assuming still permitting life). How do atheist's resolve this issue?

Also, if the 10^60 figure can permit life, then isn't the probability of a life permitting universe (meaning life doesn't need the constants in our universe. Their point still holds, but I am confused at where they get their figures and what actually the figures represent).

So I was watching CNN and they were describing how recessions occur: consumers stop spending, businesses suffer, lay off workers, which in turn creates less spending, and the 'vicious cycle' continues.

My question is how exactly would reduced spending cause a recession? Wouldn't it just cause deflation?And deflation to my understanding isn't that bad unless the economy is burdened with a lot of debt or the deflation gets really bad. I get how it may reduce output, but when people decide to spend again it would pick up. when people get laid off doesn't mean less money the economy to spend.Secondly how can you 'spend your way out of a recession'?

I know very little about economics so help me out.

OK. The majority of the of the responses point to either high demand (due to insurance covering everything), or a problem with insurance (either gov regulation or them charging to much) or to little competition.

I really wanted a break down of costs (actual statistics like drugs = 5% etc. and profit margins, links if you can find), so we could really see whether it was the costs of providing healthcare or just the market (and the industry making big margins due to high demand).

Now kidray76 I get how major surgery could cost several thousand ( but 30000 tops), but there are minor thing that have enormous costs (re-attaching a finger for 50000 or the a bunch of tests for 15 000). Major surgery or other more exp. stuff may go into hundreds of thousands (I hear) and I don't see how with everything you described could be that costly.

Why are (are they?) cost rising at rate higher than inflation? Need stats!

First off this not a thread on what type of healthcare system is better (nothing to do with insurance (unless relevant) or universal healthcare v.s privatized systems).

I hear that healthcare costs are high and rising a rate quite a bit more inflation (first question: is this true or not). The second question is, why if this is true, is it so?

Is it actually due to the underlying costs of providing healthcare

Is mal-practice insurance to blame (alot of people on the internet seem to think so)

Is there a shortage of medical professionals, or have they started to work less (there was a cbc doc pointing to younger doctors less willing to work has much as predecessors)

Is insurance to blame (reducing competition in the market, or being evil greedy corperation or any other way

Are labour cost too high (they have started to outsource healthcare, because it is alot cheaper, main component being lower labour cost in other countries)

Is gov regulation to blame

Or is the inflation of other things (drugs, gas)

I also want to know what hopital margins are and the actual (break down) costs of providing care. How exactly does a surgery or a couple weeks stay in the hospital cost tens of thousands of dollars.

First off, what exactly is causing all this fear of reccession. Is it the subprime crisis and the housing bubble pop alone, because I thought that only effected fianacial institutions.

Secondly, I thought a reccession was a good thing. A kind of self-correcting mechanism to correct market inbalances and was part of the whole natural business cycle. Isn't that supposed to be the great thing about a free market economy. And yes I have a very limited knwledge of economics, so explain this to me slowly.

And I'm pretty sure a reccession in the US will have adverse effects on the world economy slowing it down by a bit, but have especially bad effects for countries like Canada who really need to deversify their export base and minimize the importance of the US in their economy.

Ok. Thanks for giving me an elementary school education on energy as if it were taught to a preschooler. I think alot of the people on this forum already know this stuff. It was informative though, but you really are bored aren't ya.

Oh. but I do have a question about nuclear energy. Have they found a way to dispose of the waste products from nuclear reations. I don't want to look it up.

I was actually waiting for confirmation on whether I was right or not, but I guess I'll post a picture.

Is that Chen Shui-bian president of Taiwan. I'm assuming that is what you mean by not 'People's' Republic of China.

At 12/3/07 09:13 AM, Drakim wrote: Note: This topic bases itself on the idea that consciousness exists and is real. It doesn't necessary mean that I think so, but I can't talk about too many topics at the same time.

First off its a good thing you put that up there and it is a point that must be noted when discussing something like this.

This argument goes back to the determinism vs. free will argument. If you believe in determinism, being concious is only the result of a number of complex chemical reactions occuring in the brain in a fixed process (based on genetics, memories, conditioning etc.) basically like a really complex computer, you would probably believe that what you have discribed is conciousness.

If you believe in free will or that thought is supernatural, or nonlocal, or created by god and the rest of it. You would probably believe that it is not truely "real".

Would you want to give rights to such a being? Would deleting a conscious computer human be murder? Would a metal human go to the afterlife if there is one?

Here's the thing about that. We slaughter thousands of animals everyday, that we consider to be concious beings. It doesn't really seem to matter whether they are concious or not. Humans as a society seem to only take offence to atrocities commited on human beings, and sometimes not even that. So I kind of doubt that deleting a "conscious computer" or killing a machine would be any different.

Well, one thing you can expect is an increase in the price of oil, regardless of whether Iran or Russia try to take control of the Iraqi oil reserves. Also the alliance (or what ever you want to call it) and the growing hostility towards US by these two big producers might also make oil prices soar.

The best thing to do, pick up some oil stock and hope the gains can keep up with the price of oil.

First off, this topic has been way over done.

But, forgetting other types of weed, I heard you can't even get high on hemp (and it can be used for all kinds of things). So, whats the argument against hemp alone.

Property damage and vandalism is the least of worries. Although it wasn't Homecoming, at similar event at one school, i heard that a few girls got raped by a bunch of druck students (+ everything else that you said).

Sure, we have are own stereotypes about americans, but from what I know, the vast majority of Canadians don't hate Americans, like several in this thread have pointed out.

At 10/4/07 05:59 PM, JoS wrote:

I don't hate Americans, but I do hate being lumped in together with them, or mistaken for one.

Well there is something to be said here about how Canadians don't want to be lumped in together with Americans, in the sense that we want to be seen as a having our own distinct culture and heritage separate from Americans. Keeping our identity as distinctly Canadian.

The big controversy over the Jena 6 incident was the fact that the white kids who hung the nooses only got suspended for a few day, while the 5 of 6 black students had been charged with attempted second-degree murder, although later dropped to assult.

At 9/29/07 11:51 PM, Kiersten wrote: Here in Canada (unless things have changed) immigrants have to know both English and French. I don't know very many people who are fluent in both. Strangeness

You don't have to know both English and French to come into Canada. You just need a certain amount of points (based on stuff like your education, experience, age etc.) depending on what class of immigrant you apply as and you speaking one of those languages (depending on your proficiency) gets you a certain amount of points. I thinks its like 12 for English and 12 for French if your fluent.