SuperFreakonomics-Steve Levitt & Stephen Dubner (11/4/09)

[mrbarneystinson100]

the mediator is soooooo annoying.

[Visfen]

I don't feel offended, I feel enlightened.

[majik2hanz]

Question he should ask is what type of financial system makes most sense in an age where technology and automation have negated the need for much labor in a global corporate oligarchic dominated market. Keynesian or something such as Clifford Douglas' concept of Social Credit.

[daobagua]

@majik2hanz How about Friedmans Libertarianism.

[majik2hanz]

@daobagua

Yes libertarian economics would be a basis for a longer lasting model. I would combine Douglas' national dividend concept to help account for technology making full labor employment unattainable. Abolishing the Fed would be another.

[lhvjac]

THE MOVIE HE'S ACTUALLY REFERING TO IT THE PROGRAM, FOOTBALL MOVIE WHERE TEAMATES DARE TO LAY ON THE YELLOW LINE. SCENE WAS LATER REMOVED AFTER COPY CAT DEATHS STARTED TO OCCURE.

[leoZovic]

12:53 - "Why are prostitutes like departments store Santas?"

17:06 - "Why don't doctors wash their hands?"

20:59 - "Which is more dangerous; walking drunk or driving drunk?"

25:22 - "Are car seats safer than seatbelts for children?"

34:00 - "Do realtors add more value than pimps?"

38:10 - "Is sequestering carbon the only solution to global warming?"

49:37 - Questions from the audience

[camilletraill]

THE MOVIE HE REFERS TO IS THE NOTEBOOK!!!!!!!!!

[tngart]

They lost me when they started saying carbon reduction isn't the solution to global warming... I wonder who might have funded that research. But his pollutant-enabling made sense when he said he went to a Chicago economics school where Milton Friedman was highly influential.

The video "2010 Class Day: The Moral Limits of Markets " is a better perspective and adds a rebuttal to the prostitution makes good money point.

[LSDetroit]

tard

[Trisket]

@tngart He goes on to explain that carbon dioxide has a half live of a century and if we were to completely cut carbon emissions right now the earth would continue to heat up and we wouldn't see any improvement for 100 years, also the fact that as it currently stands so much of our way of life is dependent on fossil fuels significant cuts (20-30%) are impractical and is an impossible idea to sell to people. There was no bias in that statement merely cold hard facts.