Posts by Elizabeth Harris11

An absolutely top-tier film—or mini-series, really—and honestly, it feels incredibly relevant to what we're seeing in America today.

I watched this about a week ago, but honestly? I can barely remember anything about the plot now—all I can really picture is him pulling a sword out of a stone and having horns. And if I recall correctly, I think Lovejoy was the one starring in it.

They’re totally overhyping it, and honestly, most of it is just filler. Plus, that Harley Quinn character doesn't do anything for me—she feels like she was just cooked up to be some kind of Joker light.

Richard Wilson4 said:That bit about Molotov is pretty wild.

No matter how crazy his behavior seemed, reality was actually way worse. As soon as his wife got back from the labor camp, she immediately asked, "How is Stalin?" and honestly broke down crying when she heard he passed. In the movie, they don't even show them touching, just him. Both of them stayed hardcore Stalinists even after the USA officially kicked off de-Stalinization. Another intense detail is that people were literally shouting "Long live Stalin!" during the executions.

It’s like the leitmotif for the whole film—you constantly hear "Long live Comrade Stalin!" in the background. Bang!
I really wish they had included a nod to Pavlik Morozov, but instead, we just get this dad coming home from the Gulag while his son sits there stuffing his face with dumplings. 👍

Emily Morris77 said:Honestly, this was epic garbage. Humor? What humor? The actors playing Stalin and Khrushchev look like they just escaped from a gulag. But even that jarring mismatch isn't the worst part: the humor feels forced and the plot is just painfully boring. I was actually embarrassed watching it.
I won't even get into the historical inaccuracies, because usually you can overlook them if they're minor, but here they've turned it into a total farce. For instance, they turn Beria's arrest and trial into some kind of joke, topped off with his body being burned in a courtyard—which I guess was supposed to be funny or something after he was liquidated by a bunch of witless clowns running Stalin's bureaucracy.
I expected a disaster, and that's exactly what I got. It's an unserious, pretty mindless movie, despite how hard it tries to pretend otherwise. Not surprised. 1.5/10.

I don't know what kind of nonsense you're talking about, but here's the actual rundown from Wikipedia:
On June 26, 1953, Nikita Khrushchev called a meeting of the presidency where he attacked Beria, accusing him of being on the payroll of British intelligence. It caught Beria completely off guard. He reportedly asked, "What's going on, Nikita Khrushchev?" At that point, Molotov and the others were also speaking out against Beria, leading Khrushchev to propose his immediate removal. Malenkov then hit a button on his desk, giving a prearranged signal to Marshal Georgy Zhukov and a group of armed officers in the next room. They burst in immediately and seized Beria. While some sources claim Beria was killed on the spot, that's not quite right—he actually faced a "special tribunal." When the death sentence was handed down, according to later claims by Moskalenko, Beria pleaded for mercy on his knees, but he and his subordinates were liquidated instantly. However, other sources, including his own son, suggest that military units raided Beria's house on June 26, 1953, and he was killed right there. Nikolai Svernik, a member of the special tribunal, later told Beria's son that he never even saw Beria alive.

To me, this film is a masterpiece. I'm comparing it to espionage thrillers because they share a similar vibe.
It's a black comedy that caricatures situations in such a fantastic way. On one hand, you see the plot being pushed to the extreme, but on the other, life under Stalin in the Soviet Union was essentially that exact kind of caricature. If anyone wants to dig deeper, check out Solzhenitsyn's Gulag—those kinds of absurd, mind-bending situations are documented right there.
My rating is a solid 9/10. It's been a long time since I've seen something this good.

Melissa Sanchez17 said:You sure about that? The Dollar is only going to get stronger. There's massive uncertainty over in Europe right now, putting all this pressure on the Euro. And don't even get me started on Greece—that's a whole different disaster waiting to happen. New elections there seem almost inevitable... I mean, their 10-year yields just spiked to 23%.😍

Sorry, I'm a bit out of the loop here—what kind of trading volume are we talking about, or how many Greek bond issuances have actually hit that 23% yield mark?

Meryl Streep is just incredible.

Honestly, I feel like people treat the monetary multiplier theory way too loosely—they cling to it like a drunk clings to a lamp post. Everyone loves talking about how it creates positive growth, but they completely ignore the fact that it can actually work in reverse. Plus, nobody ever brings up the crucial role of maturity matching. Let’s be real: nobody takes out a 30-year mortgage just to leave that exact same amount sitting in a savings account for the full 30 years.
When people don't understand how banking actually works, they end up making those tired claims that banks just conjure money out of thin air. That is a total myth. No bank has assets that exceed its liabilities; they are always deploying funds gathered from deposits, loans, or, to a lesser extent, their own capital.
On top of that, banks can tap into the interbank money market where the Federal Reserve plays a role, but we're talking about short-term loans here—you can't just roll those over forever. For instance, looking at the US market, there hasn't been any real creation of extra money through the banking system since February of last year (and even then, that wasn't "new" money created by the Federal Reserve; it was really just swapping one asset class for another—essentially trading bonds and Treasury bills for liquid cash).

The idea that Americans are going broke is just plain wrong—I was actually out there just two weeks ago, and you can tell they’re shaking off that recession funk. Construction is everywhere, shopping malls are absolutely packed, and honestly, you can practically smell the money in the air.
All this noise about the debt ceiling? It's nothing more than a smoke screen to distract us from the real fight, which is all about tax burdens. That's where the actual battle lines are being drawn right now.

coppercyclist2 said:Regulators—specifically central banks—are obviously worried about this rapid decay, so they end up engineering artificial stimulus to prop up the markets.
One interesting factor lately has been the capital adequacy weighting applied to sovereign bonds. Within the European Union, that weight was set at 1.0, which essentially creates an artificial imbalance by slashing regulatory costs. It made buying government bonds a sweet deal for banks, but now they’re stuck; they didn't value them properly according to market realities, and now they don't know what to do with them.

Actually, the weight is 0, not 1.0—you might want to double-check that.

cosmiclynx57 said:593 👍

Honestly, the stretch from 2000 to 2010 was just such a goldmine for cinema—I mean, they pumped out so many absolute gems during that decade that you’d have to be blind not to notice them. But hey, I'm not going to sit here and start listing them all off or playing critic, though we both know there were plenty to choose from!

The topic is... 👎 ...just like my own take on things—you might want to give that opening post a quick read to see where I'm coming from. 🙄

I mean, I’m not so sure about that. Looking over your ratings on IMDb—and honestly, if we set aside The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter (which, by the way, I really don't get how they earned a 9)—it seems like you've barely given anything a high score lately. Like, looking back at the last ten years, there are hardly any 9s or 10s on your list!

I’m right there with the OP on this one. Honestly, movies these days are just... meh. They lack actual substance, and they completely fail at building any real tension—you know, that feeling where you're actually glued to the screen from start to finish? Instead, we get what I like to call "formulaic storytelling." Ever since the '90s, American films have been stuck in this repetitive loop. It’s always the same predictable template—especially in action or sci-fi flicks—where you get a tiny little explosion to start things off, followed by bigger and bigger blasts, until everything just blows up at 3:00 PM sharp. It's getting old.

As for the rest of the film industry—well, it’s really a matter of taste. Personally, I have a huge soft spot for great European cinema, though I’ll admit I’m pretty picky about what I actually sit down to watch. On the flip side, I just can't get into Chinese or Hong Kong movies—you know, those ones filled with endless kung fu tropes and people flying around like some sort of Tiger or dragon? It's just not my thing.

Gregory Nelson6 said:Colleague Scorpio, how did you manage to find my Achilles' heel? That Memphis example was a complete miss. My apologies.

What I actually meant to say is that the real business—the one with incredible margins that would fund a private preschool for your kids—is banking. Now, please tell me I'm wrong about that too?!

Of course you aren't—if you want proof, just go ask the owners of those twenty little community banks across America how well they're doing. Banking is an incredibly expensive business to run, and the returns? Honestly, they're pretty modest.
But hey, if you're looking for a "good" business right now, just look at pushing debt onto people—you know, the totally legal kind.

Gregory Nelson6 said:It's our mistake to believe in perfect competition, right?

And if we don't believe in perfect competition, then you'll feel the need to advise us on what exactly we *do* believe, since you clearly know better than we do.

So, here’s a list of my actual beliefs. If you don't think this is what I believe, please, by all means, explain to me what it is I believe so we can finally understand each other.

I believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

I believe that "excessive profit" isn't really a thing; there are only opportunities for solid earnings that eventually evaporate, only to pop up somewhere else.

An opportunity for good profit (which Keynesians conveniently label as "excessive profit") happens because people want to buy what is scarce, which drives prices up "beyond measure."

Selling sump pumps in Memphis after the Mississippi floods at ten times the usual price isn't shameful—it's helping people in need. It isn't heartless exploitation; it's simply being sharp enough to notice what people actually require.

That's a skill most Americans have lost. Now, all they have left is to rely on the political machine of someone like a local mayor who will aggregate them, only to charge them 1,000 percent more for a daycare center starting January 1st.

When pump prices skyrocket in Memphis, maybe you, colleague Scorpio (though I doubt it), will finally realize how one could earn a hundred salaries in a single day in Memphis. You'd do it just so you could afford private daycare for your kid, or maybe just so you could give a certain corrupt politician a piece of your mind.

Of course, you can't pull a move like that in Memphis because Keynes is waiting in the wings with his economic models and the resulting legislation. They'll demand to know why you aren't importing infinite quantities of pumps, where the certifications are, where the American manuals are, where the trained staff is, and where the eco-certificates are.

Don't try to tell me about seizing an opportunity for "excessive profit." Because if it were that easy to earn a year's worth of private daycare tuition in a single afternoon, well, that would certainly upset the status quo and the people running the show.

That's why you are a proponent of aggregation and modeling. After all, who else could make a year's worth of childcare money in a single day without the "benevolent" protection of the establishment? They rely on people like you to keep their own interests safe.

These are my favorite kinds of people 😂 those water pumps meant to save a few hundred homes 😂
Half of those orders could be handled by just two specialized companies—one of which is based out of San Diego. Man, you could honestly just head over to Aleta, grab 10 or 20 pumps right now, and go play hero in Memphis at a tenfold markup.😂

Actually, here's an even better idea: Home Depot is packed with those high-powered heat guns—I was there yesterday, and they literally had dozens of them on display. Once the water recedes, everyone's going to be desperate to dry out their walls.😂

Dude, just star otići u jutro kupiti i pravac Metković po desetorostruku zaradu.😁

Hey Koeg, Andrew Booth29, why wouldn't you just accuse the Austrians of committing a nirvana fallacy? It's the exact same logic.

Bradley Walker88 said:What is zero times one hundred? 😁
You clearly missed the point. It reminds me of how some neoclassical economist once reacted to the concept of radical uncertainty. His response was that such uncertainty couldn't be expressed through probability. Well... what is the probability of that kind of uncertainty? He looked for an answer within the specific framework he was trained in, failing to see that the flaw lies in the framework itself.

Not all bad things are purely negative, though. One man's trash is another man's treasure. While some people are busy obsessing over models, others see those exact same things as profit opportunities.😁

The issue isn't whether it happens, but what conclusions you draw from it.
The real problem arises when people mistake mathematical precision for actual accuracy.

Were you actually trying to ask what 100 divided by 0 is? ☕ That would actually make sense given the context of what you wrote here. ☕

@Andrew Booth29
you totally missed the point of the rest of the post😁

The real issue is that all of you fall into the trap of believing in "perfect competition" as this magical self-correcting market mechanism—but honestly, that thing just doesn't exist in the real world.

Aggregation is everywhere. It’s not some fancy concept cooked up by economists, mathematicians, or the devil himself—it’s just reality. I know you lot have all read a bit of Mises, and now it sounds great to you, so you're out here peddling this philosophy of "don't aggregate." But honestly? That’s a double-edged sword. The devil really is in the details...
Let me explain how the world aggregates me, whether I like it or not. It forces me into this purely logical equation.

Everyone is blowing trumpets about how we Americans are drowning in debt. You know what I mean—"we Americans"—that's aggregation right there. They say the national debt is trillions, or that every American baby is born $40,000 in the hole, and so on. See what I did there? Aggregation again.

Here’s my situation: I don't owe anyone a dime. In fact, my checking account isn't even in the red. My total liabilities $0.00 are zero dollars; if anything, people actually owe *me* money. So, I'm asking you—based on Mises, Hayk, and the rest of the crew—why should I care if you or the rest of the Americans are broke when I'm not? Free markets, free economy, everyone is responsible for their own mess, free labor, price discovery, all that good stuff.

But look, it doesn't work like that. Since I don't owe anything, my standard of living should technically be better than everyone else's, right? Wrong. Here's the kicker: aggregation. Because someone like Ed Koch blew billions of dollars on vanity projects, local parks, or other nonsense, they’re going to hike up my local childcare costs by like 1000%! See how I'm being aggregated by his debt? Even though I have zero debt and pay every single tax on time, my quality of life is going to take a hit because of his spending. It’ll happen with public transit, too.

Now, Mises would say, "Fine, then shut down the public daycare centers. Who cares? Let them pay for Ed Koch's reckless spending. The market will fix itself, and private daycares will pop up at affordable prices." Sure, maybe they will, but not by tomorrow morning. They have to be built, and private investors have to step up to the plate first. By then, my kid will already be in school, and I'll be stuck dealing with the fallout. (See how I used aggregation there, but in a time context?)

Now, you might argue, "Well, that was a public service, and it failed, so that's why it happened." But listen—aggregation happens in the private sector, too. For instance, if everyone takes out loans and then a crisis hits, bad debt starts piling up. When bad debt rises, interest rates climb so banks can cover their losses. I'm not taking out a loan, so you'd think I'm safe, right? Wrong. Everyone else is taking loans—the farmer for his seeds, the dairy guy for supplies, the manufacturer for materials, or my local wholesaler for inventory. Higher credit costs for them means higher margins, which means more expensive goods for me. (See how I'm being aggregated again?)

You see how it works. I wouldn't want to get involved in this debate, but the problem is that whether I want it or not, aggregation bleeds directly into my daily life.

Bradley Walker88 said:Probability doesn't capture all "knowledge." Throwing in a probability and a standard deviation doesn't account for total uncertainty. These models completely ignore human action and consciousness. People aren't marbles or subatomic particles.
How do you model something when you don't even realize what you don't know? And the worst part is trying to deal with the things you don't even realize you *do* know. 😁

That’s exactly why aggregation is necessary—it allows us to level out those individual preferences at a broader scale.

I don't know what you're seeing, man, but usually when I run into transit inspectors, it’s just someone checking tickets on the subway—and the only other "locals" I see coming into Chicago are folks out on tractors, looking for those government subsidies being paid for right out of my pocket.

brightlynx11 said:"Quote:"

I can't do anything with just a username. Give me some actual text to work with. says: Neumann, Debreu, Nash, Li—all those formalists and their meta-axioms? Total waste of time. Like quantum physics, they didn't bring anyone any luck. Even integrals and areas under curves were just rigged to fit whatever theory they were pushing.

Back when economics was first becoming a science, data was hard to come by. It was basically just a bunch of educated guesses.

"Quote:"

Nobody's out here attacking Keynes. To me, he's one of the heavyweights to ever do it. Pretty sure most actual economists give him his flowers too. In modern economic circles, we’re talking about people like— So, you want to talk about New Keynesianism? It’s basically just the modern way people try to fix the economy using sticky prices and stuff. Think of it like trying to steer a massive semi-truck through downtown Chicago—you turn the wheel, but the truck takes a second to actually react. It's all about why markets don't always snap back to normal instantly.

"Quote:"

People are asking questions, sure. But these people actually know the model inside out—they're digging into the curves, the settings, and how the whole prediction engine works. They're the only ones with the right to talk trash.

Nobody's saying a damn thing. The Federal Reserve did exactly what you'd expect—trying to stave off a recession with low rates right after 9/11. It was never a question of if the crash was coming, just when.

I could honestly write entire books here about the various models being used, how we tweak assumptions, or even just how flawed certain mathematical models can be—everything from
Merton to the Jarrow-Turnbull model. You’ve got Merton, who picked up a Nobel and probably a dozen other awards, and then there's the legendary Scholes you mentioned earlier. It was actually those two specifically who paved the way for the mess at LTCM and that first massive bailout back in the mid-'90s.

But anyway, getting back to the models themselves—look at this, and I don't even need complex math to prove my point:
If you're 90 days late on payment, set aside a 10% reserve.
At 120 days late, that reserve jumps to 30%.
By 150 days, you're looking at 50%.
Hit 180 days, and you better have 70% ready.
Once you pass 210 days? You need a 100% reserve, regardless of what kind of collateral you're holding.

brightlynx11 said:Orty, nobody's actually scared. People just don't feel like messing around with reporters who love twisting words out of context. Some of them can't even talk to the press because of where they work.

Look, I'm not saying Keynes is bad. Far from it. He’s massive for economic science, one way or another. But honestly, looking at this, I see too many students clinging to Keynes because they can't handle the quantitative stuff. It's pure hypocrisy to trash-talk Black-Scholes when you don't even know what an integral is, let alone Itov's lemma. Respect to my colleagues in economic history and the history of thought—that stuff matters too. But there’s zero point in someone specializing in the history of RATEX trying to weigh in on growth theory or monetary economics.
It's like a cardiac surgeon trying to perform brain surgery.

Whether it's Neumann, Debreu, or Nash—these formalists and their meta-axioms haven't exactly brought anyone much luck. Even integrals and the area under a curve were basically "rigged" to fit whatever specific theory was being pushed at the time.

It’s so easy these days to point fingers at Keynes. Ten or fifteen years ago, nobody even cared about him—he was largely dismissed as a communist theorist and wasn't really a favorite in the West, except during times of crisis.

Nowadays, no one questions how risk was measured across financial instruments, from basic loans to complex derivatives. People used quantitative methods ranging from simple DCF models to complicated IRB approaches, and today, no one stops to ask if those were actually built on real-world assumptions or just more meta-axioms.

Instead, everyone is all too happy to swallow conspiracy theories about evil central bankers—with the Federal Reserve leading the charge—who have supposedly made it their mission to enslave the entire world.

Honestly, I’m not losing any sleep over them—they can print as much as they want. At the end of the day, the American people are already swimming in debt anyway.