NPC Dave's page

IMO, considering all of the effort your players put into making sure Vanthus never comes back, I recommend you not bring him back. Since you aren't planning to have Lavinia kidnapped to Scuttlecove, there is even less need of Vanthus later in the campaign. When Dungeon #146 was published and people pointed out Vanthus had been brought back despite the hallow spell on the graveyard, James Jacobs admitted that was an oversight. You can just have Ghorvash in the final adventure comment as he is torturing Vanthus that he tried to bring him back one more time but couldn't... and your players will take pride in that.

You can continue with Dungeon #146 by having the Crimson Fleet strike again at Farshore or Sasserine once again. I ran Strike on the Rabid Dawn from Dungeon #111 before Serpents of Scuttlecove, with the Rabid Dawn being a Crimson Fleet flagship attacking Sasserine using the hurricane and the BBEG being an ally of the Crimson Fleet. Instead of the lighthouse it was the Witchwarden Tower that had been captured. After stopping this latest attack, the PCs head for Scuttlecove to put down the Crimson Fleet one and for all.

From there you can plant some evidence to lure the PCs to Divided Ire, either to rescue some good outsiders or hostages taken by the Crimson Fleet or they might come across evidence there are potential allies to be found in the prison where they can also find some leverage against Demogorgon.

Not sure about the aboleth/kopru situation, the kopru could start raiding the villages and Farshore and the PCs might decide they only way to stop them are to unleash the aboleth.

As I did with the four prior adventures, I will be adding some corrections and possibly a trap or two to Wells of Darkness.

First up is the guecubu Sidith-Yeus. The sleep touch supernatural ability was accidentally left out. So here is the missing text.

Sleep Touch (Su): A creature touched by a guecubu in its natural form must make a successful DC 25 Will save or immediately fall into a deep sleep for 1 hour. A sleeping creature is helpless. Slapping or wounding the sleeping creature awakens it, but normal noise does not. Waking a creature is a standard action. This is a mind-affecting sleep effect. The save DC is Charisma-based and includes the +2 bonus granted by the guecubu's Ability Focus feat.

I made the Will Save DC 25 instead of DC 27 like the other abilities, because the guecubu baseline before any ability focus feats is Haunting DC 15, Possession DC 17 and Sleep Touch DC 13. If we assume this baseline, then accounting for his eight point increase in Charisma and the addition of Ability Focus(possession), the Will Saves for him would be Haunting DC 19, Possession DC 23, and Sleep Touch 19.

However, Haunting is listed as a DC 27 Will save, and Possession is listed as a DC 27 Will save. I assume that the Haunting listing is incorrect and that the extra +4 increase to Possession is the correct extra bonus to make the guecubu competitive against 18th level characters. That would make Haunting and Sleep Touch a DC 23 Will save and Possession remains a DC 27 Will save. If that isn't high enough you can leave Haunting and Possession as listed and the Sleep touch is a DC 25 Will save.

As far as tactics, if Sidith-yeus only waits five minutes to attack, I don't see him successfully possessing anyone because he has to put a PC to sleep before he can hope to possess, and the rest of the party will likely have someone seeing invisibility. You could either wait for him to attack when the PCs are camping and resting, or have a second guecubu distract the party with telekinesis attacks while Sidith-yeus tries to ambush a PC.

Lastly, while the DC Will save for telekinesis is not listed, it should be:
10 (baseline) + 5 (spell level) + 7 (Charisma bonus) + 2 (Ability focus feat) = DC 24 Will save.

Toys R Us isn't going away, at least not anytime soon. Yes, they declared bankruptcy, and that is because of the ridiculous amount of debt they have incurred, $5.2 billion.

But they are doing chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to load up on $2 billion more debt to keep going. Will they get it? Of course they will, big corporation debt is where big money is made. Deficits don't matter as long as you can keep borrowing more money.

Will this catch up and destroy the company eventually? Of course it will. But it won't be this year, and it won't be next year. You will still be able to buy Christmas presents at Toys R Us in 2018.

Firing Comey is a smart move. Trump's enemies are on record as wanting Comey fired or disapproving of Comey's actions. Firing Comey accomplishes three things. First it is a necessary precursor if Trump wants to drain the swamp. Second, it rallies his base, who are no fans of Comey. And third, it gives Trump ammunition to portray his political opponents as flip-floppers. This lets him win a combat round while minimizing his losses and risks.

Of course, the harder part is finding the right person to replace Comey. Trump can still lose that combat round.

Well I think it may be financially motivated

Maybe, let's fact check it.

According to Snopes, Donald Trump has around $15K invested in Raytheon.

Checking the stock trade over the last few days, that missile strike caused the stock to jump from just over $150 a share to just over $154 a share. That works out to about a 2.5% increase in value.

So assuming Trump had about 100 shares of Raytheon stock, he raked in a whopping 250-300 smackaroos profit on April 7th...provided he sold his stock immediately after the price spike. If he didn't, then he will have to console himself with about 150 smackaroos of extra profit.

Of course, maybe Trump was hoping for a much bigger payday and the market refused to delver. Perhaps Democratic party short-sellers stepped in to thwart him, and forced him to go back to planning his next big pay day.

Or maybe Raw Story is just fake news.

Which is ironic since she supported the 'No-Burka's on the Beach' law. Thus showing she's a bit of a hypocrite, that other countries/cultures have to respect France - but she doesn't have to reciprocate.

She categorically rejects Islamic dress codes that require women cover up. That is perfectly consistent.

The party learns the danger of the savage pearls in the full campaign during the second adventure when they visit Kraken's Cove and find it devastated.

I would suggest the campaign starts with the PCs seeking revenge for the destruction of the city of Sasserine or colony of Farshore(or any port city in your home campaign). In Sasserine, they had tracked down their enemy, Vanthus Vanderboren and his crew, within the city limits when Vanthus unleashed the pearl in desperation. Or the Battle of Farshore(in adventure #5) saw Vanthus unleash the pearl as the PCs had stopped the Crimson Fleet from conquering their colony.

So the PCs have arrived at Scuttlecove believing Vanthus is dead and blaming the pirates for the loss of life caused by the unleashing of the pearl.

The Nimbus Bow isn't necessary for the campaign, just the tooth of Ahazu. Picking it up in the Crimson Fleet lair should suffice.

I know this was a while ago, but I just have to point out: many of the Founding Fathers were major landowners in their states and wanted to make sure that they would have a significant say in how they ran their lives/land/businesses.

Really, why SHOULD it matter what the majority of the (empty of human inhabitants) landmass of the United States decides rather than what the majority of living human beings who have hopes, fears, and dreams decides?

Because the hopes, fears and dreams of the masses living in cities in California, Illinois and New York are not the hopes, fears and dreams of people living in rural Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa.

Those people living in those empty landmasses will never have any effect on who will be President without the electoral college. But this time, in this situation, their voice was heard.

Again, small states get representation (and as we've seen, overrepresentation by population) in the Congress. In a winner-take-all situation like the presidency, I'd prefer we bow to the will of the PEOPLE, not the will of the LAND.

Yes, they do get representation in Congress, but with the electoral college, they also get some opportunities for a President who reflects and represents their views as well.

That is how it should be.

When one candidate complains that the system is rigged...

Both candidates claimed the election was rigged.

They just couldn't agree on who was rigging it and in whose favor.

The Electoral College is a very effective and productive institution for keeping large majorities in a few states from gaining excessive influence in the outcome of Presidential elections.

The poor rural whites that Democrats and the journalist class abandoned in Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Ohio had their voices heard this election rather than seeing their voices drowned out by California's swelling immigrant population.

It also prevents the temptation of states gaming the system by lowering the voting age in a close election to try and stack the deck. Lowering the voting age in a red or blue state doesn't help a candidate since it doesn't affect the number of electoral votes that candidate receives.

So I will fight just as hard to keep the Electoral College preserved as I fought to see Donald Trump elected.

But I completely agree that this winner take all nonsense has to stop. Anyone who pushes to have their state assign electoral vote by district rather than by state has my support. Places like Pennsylvania and Florida are divided in half, so let each district decide for itself and the two parties can split a state's electoral votes rather than one party come so close and get nothing.

Congratulations!

Especially to the dread necromancer who now has a new job.

The original overview is in Dungeon Magazine #138.

I think his dry humor probably is responsible for my dry humor; saw Stripes at an early age.......

That guy was so funny.

"Are either of you homosexual?"

"No, but we're willing to learn."

Maybe we can save a few dollars by not buying the next state-of-the-art teleprompter.

Paul Krugman's opinion on the matter.

From Paul's conclusion...

"There are influential people out there who would like you to believe that Detroit’s demise is fundamentally a tale of fiscal irresponsibility and/or greedy public employees. It isn’t. "
-------------------

Wrong again Paul. That is exactly what it is.

Fiscal conservatives warned for decades what would happen to Detroit if the city did not change its ways. It was the epitome of bad government. But no, the city government didn't want to listen. The red ink could just flow forever. The city Democrats practically dared any naysayer to try and stop them.

Well, they just got stopped.

NPC Dave wrote:

If you want to know my backup plan, that would be my plan to work until I am 80.

A lot of people, much against their will, are getting laid off at 55 and then find out they're "too old" to be hired by anyone else after that.

For myself I know I can't expect to work my current job too long after age 55-60. Many companies do what you mention because they can easily replace the old guy's work with a new guy at half the price.

I do intend to offer to work for less compensation in my latter years but even backup plans don't come guaranteed. In any case I would rather run a small business out of my home at age 65-80 rather than depend on an employer.

I want to emphasize to everyone who has a pension...

Contrary to what politicians claim...your pension is not inviolable, your pension promise is not sacred, and your pension money is not guaranteed.

Whether a corporation or a government body, your pension is dependent on the financial acumen of the people managing the pension, and even if that pension was promised by a city or state government, that promise is no longer binding in a bankruptcy.

And while the federal government can't ever be bankrupt as long as it can have the Federal Reserve create money in digital bank accounts, it can and will sell you out if the votes are against you.

So have a backup plan.

If you want to know my backup plan, that would be my plan to work until I am 80.

At least retirees over 65 can fall back on Medicare.

Bankruptcy should be viewed as a way to start fresh. This way the city can ditch the financial obligations which are crippling it. That is going to screw quite a few people, including those with pensions, but the only alternative is to dig an even deeper hole.

Of course, Bank of America is going to get 75 cents on the dollar, while pension holders will get about 10 cents on the dollar. No surprise there.

I hope California and Illinois employees take a good look at what is happening in Detroit and start financial planning in case the same thing happens in their respective states.

Lord Khayven is statted out fully in Dungeon Magazine #120, where he appears in the Lost Temple of Demogorgon. This adventure is unrelated to STAP, but can easily be integrated in.

And this scandal just keeps getting better...

IRS commissioner had more public White House visits than any Cabinet member.

----------
Publicly released records show that embattled former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House at least 157 times during the Obama administration, more recorded visits than even the most trusted members of the president’s Cabinet.

....

By contrast, Shulman’s predecessor Mark Everson only visited the White House once during four years of service in the George W. Bush administration and compared the IRS’s remoteness from the president to “Siberia.”
-----------

Well we can see where the Obama administration's priorities were. I am sure there are completely reasonable explanations for all of those visits.

Is anyone else amused that they are sticking to the story Obama didn't know about the IRS scandal until it broke the news, but they have admitted that White House officials did know about it as much as a month beforehand.

Which essentially means that no one tells the President bad news, he has to read about it in the papers. I hear the last Czar of Russia had the exact same problem.

In your case, is it worth just going with it? :)

Of course it is, depending on how this goes I may even play the Giligan's Island theme song as they approach the Isle of Dread.

The players will spend time trying to determine who is Giligan in a futile attempt to prevent disaster, but they won't realize until it is too late...I have already decided one of them will be Giligan.

Whichever one of them fails the most skill checks.

Season Four of Fx's Justified started up yesterday (Jan 8, 2013).

I recommend starting with season one. But you really should give this series a look. For consistent quality episodes, it has been Grade A+

+1

I especially find it refreshing that the writers assume they have an intelligent audience. There is no hand-holding to explain what is going on.

It took awhile to get used to the idea I would see something happen on Justified that would catch me by surprise without any warning or explanation..."wait, these two guys seem to know each other so why did one just pull out a gun and shoot the other?...did I miss something?" But now I trust that when that happens, it will become clear later on as the story is told.

It is also the only show I know which gives entertaining dialogue to bit characters who you will never see again.

They also occasionally introduce and build up characters for an expected confrontation with the protagonist only to catch you off-guard with a twist to the plot.

They don't really give a damm about what we do to ourselves. Did you give a damm about how the Taliban treated their countrymen after they slammed three airplanes into our country and almost succeeded with a fourth?

???

Al Qaeda done not equal Taliban.

The Taliban flew zero planes into zero buildings.

The people who actually did fly planes into buildings were from...
Egypt,
Saudi Arabia,
and
United Arab Emirates.

If you throw in flight 93 you also get one guy from Lebanon.

Nobody from Afghanistan.

Interesting article from CNN on the Gay/Bible issue. The author debunks various commonly cited sources from the Bible in the argument against homosexuality.

link.

That's extremely generous calling it a debunking. It looks more like the author reading his own opinions into an ancient text that was written by someone without modern day views or reference frame.

While the Gentile cultures of the ancient world tolerated homosexuality to a greater or lesser extent, Jews considered homosexual acts as a sin, regardless of why. Paul draws on this very conventional(at the time) Jewish polemic.

And while the author attempts to address Romans 1, he does not even attempt to address Paul's other condemnations of homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. That is because he can't, as the moral condemnation is so explicit and clear he can't try and play word games to pretend it is only social(and not moral) condemnation.

The proper response to someone citing the Bible as a reason the government should prevent homosexual marriage is to point out that the Bible makes no attempt to suggest marriage is a government institution in the first place. Not re-write the Bible with rationalizations.

I'm told that I need to have grossly overdeveloped pectoral muscles and no overt musculature anywhere else (slender, dainty, girlish arms and legs), and no body hair, and longer head hair and eyelashes, and poutier lips and a weaker chin, so that I'll be "hot" (read: look exactly like a girl). That's not male...

Kirth, you being married I am not responding to you specifically, but you bring up a point that is one of my pet peeves...

One ironcast rule all men should understand if they want to attract women...NEVER listen to women tell you what they like or look for in a man.

This is because...
1) She doesn't know what she likes or,
2) She is leaving a lot of details unspoken that change the whole picture if they are brought in.

What you are describing Kirth is the "bullet point checklist". The rational mind uses logic and reason to come up with a huge checklist of everything a woman wants in a man.

But emotions don't always spring from the rational mind.

Do women worry that men aren't buying enough romance novels or there aren't enough men watching Glee?

Would any man actually try to lecture women on how the romance novel industry should adjust so as to make it more appealing to men?

Women like what women like, and men like what men like, we can't get hung up about these things.

Chris Dodd whines like a little baby.

Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging.

Only damaging to your bottom line Chris, and I don't care about your bottom line.

It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today.

You never had a problem with it when you had the greater power and exercised it to enforce your will Chris.

A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals.

Copyright law is out of date Chris, technology is changing the world and you can't stop it.

But you are correct, boy did Congress get punished.

It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.”

You hope in vain. Obama is in office because of social networking. He saw what was coming, which is why he got out of the way. The Internet is too powerful Chris, more people use it then watch movies. All that money you spent paying off Congress was wasted.

I like the list of crap we've pulled.

How do we stop it? Do we become isolationist? Pull out of the UN?

The bad news is we can't stop it. We couldn't stop TARP, we can't stop any of these wars(are we at 7 or 8 now?), and we can't stop the bailouts and government protection of the fraud these banks have pulled and continue to pull.

The good news though is it will stop, eventually. It will stop when Washington's checks stop buying anything. When the US government runs out of money to borrow, and can't squeeze the taxpayers for anything more, and the interest payments become too burdensome, the whole system will grind to a halt.

The bureaucrats, the cops, the soldiers, they won't work if they don't get paid.

If you really want to have an effect, start getting involved with your local government now. Almost everyone focuses on national politics, which is useless, the system won't be changed by you.

But if you become influential in local politics, then, when those Washington checks start bouncing, you will have a say in what your community will decide to do. I don't know when this will happen, but my guess is probably in the next 20 years the USA will be very different politically. The balance of power will be at the county, city and state level, and Washington DC will be ignored.

I am completely behind in this thread, still have a lot of posts to read through, but the situation is playing out very fast in real time so I wanted to comment.

Despite what the media and White House are claiming, this is not and was not a political crisis. It is actually a debt crisis. The whole argument over raising the debt ceiling was a show, both sides were grand standing for political gain with their constituencies. The fundamental problem is the money the US government has already borrowed will not be paid back.

This is why S&P lowered the credit rating of the US government. They know the spending will not be cut. The politicians will just keep borrowing money and spending it until that gets too expensive. Cutting programs is just too politically costly for now. The voting public want more government services, more government handouts and low taxes. They think they can get that. They will this year, they won't in the future.

I called Obama a dumbass earlier in this thread, but he has been far outdone by others.

Dumbass award for 2011 goes to Timmy Geithner - Twice this year, once in February and once in April, he insisted the US government losing its triple AAA credit rating by any of the three agencies would "never happen." He also gave his assurance that raising the debt ceiling would ensure no drop in rating. Well, here we are Timmy, you got what you wanted. Congratulations dumbass!!

Timmy was right about one thing, he whined that S&P's decision is based on faulty analysis of the economics of the US Treasury. This is true. If S&P truly understood the economics of the US Treasury, the US government would be downgraded even more, and it would have been done years ago.

Still, thumbs up to S&P for acknowledging reality, even if they are late to the party. This is going to pay off for them in the future against rivals Moody and Fitch, who have wimped out once again.

Honorary mention for Dumbass of 2011 - There are some runner ups.

Michael Moore has announced that the CEO of the S&P rating agency should be arrested. Yes, of course, calling into question a government's reckless borrowing is a crime...and rather than reconsider driving off the cliff we should just use violence and prison to shut those voices who are calling for sanity. Because it worked so well for the Soviet Politburo and their 5 year economic plans. Congratulations Michael Moore, you are runner up to Dumbass of 2011.

Alan Greenspan gets the next honorable mention. His fascinating insight was to tell us that the US government could never default, because in the worst case scenario, the US can always print as much money as it needs to pay its bills!?! Thank you Alan Greenspan for suggesting that the US can follow the methods of Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic to peace and prosperity. Congratulations dumbass!

And the last honorary mention goes to the Senate Banking Committee. They are now "looking into" S&P's decision. Thanks for making it clear guys that the US credit rating being triple AAA all these years was done under implicit threat of legal trouble for anyone in the rating agencies to call into question the whole charade. You can't trust the word of someone who has a gun to their head. And FYI, it was not S&P's downgrade that was "irresponsible". What was irresponsible was borrowing trillions of dollars you can never hope to pay back.

Folks, you have two choices. You can go back to sleep and listen to the assurances of the clueless people who are in charge of the government...or you can start preparing for some hard days ahead by building up some reserves and weaning yourself off government dependence if you currently are dependent. Take a look at the unrest in Europe...that will happen here. But you have time, I suggest you use it wisely.

By the way, as long as we are talking about ending Bush's wars to save money, an idea which I greatly favor...

...can we talk about saving even more money by ending Obama's wars too?

NPC Dave wrote:

Keynesian myth

Past 20 years have done nothing but prov Keynesian economics right after the incredible failures of Austrian and Chicago.

Keynesian economics was demonstrated false during the 70s, and we are repeating the process now. Endless Keynesian spending, and all we get in return is more recession, more debt and few jobs.

Austrian under Reagan has brought us the entire culture of debt and laid the foundations for the obscene wage disparities we see today.

Reagan didn't follow Austrian economics, he was a supply-sider, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Reagan certainly did continue the debt problem though...and raised Social Security taxes. His tax cuts were exceeded by tax hikes during his administration.

Chicago has brought us a whole lot of bubble that hurt us when they popped (but didn't seem to sting the ones who made it, funny, that).

Both Keynesians and Chicago school try to keep bubbles going while trying to avoid the pain when it bursts. Both have failed.

But you are right about one thing, those Keynesian bailouts for the bankers helped a few rich avoid the pain.

Keynesian economics has been the birthplace of every modern economy, got us out of the Great Depression, and has turned many a SE Asian country into an economic juggernaut literally years after they were reduced to rubble.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

The Industrial Revolution is what began the modern day economy...2% interest per annum compounded, since about 1800. That is what has made our lives richer, that is why we enjoy the lifestyles we have today.

As economic historian Gregory Clark pointed out, "there was no gain between 1800 BC and 1800 AD".

Keynesian economics and FDR prolonged the Great Depression.

What got the USA out of the Great Depression was destroying almost everyone else's industrial capacity during World War 2 and then selling them product to rebuild. If getting rich means killing foreigners and soaking my hands in blood I will choose to be poor.

Seems clear to my which schools have the "myths."

Yes very clear, Keynesian economics are myths. And the West is going to learn this painful lesson once again, as the economy continues to contract and the Keynesian debt keeps piling up.

Can Obama balance a checkbook?

"We have run out of time, and they are going to have to explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default."

No problem dumbass.

Step 1 - Collect and add up all your tax revenues. If you give your IRS Commissioner a call, you will confirm this was completed at the end of April/beginning of May. In 2010, tax revenues were $2.162 trillion. For the mentally impaired, which apparently includes Obama, his staff and most journalists, that is $2,162,000,000,000.

Step 2 - Pay the interest on all outstanding debts. Interest in 2010 was around $197 billion. For the mentally impaired, which apparently includes Obama, his staff and most journalists, that is $197,000,000,000.

Step 3 - Solve the following equation for 2011. Subtract interest payments from total tax revenues. I have included the 2010 numbers in a sample equation to help you.

$2,162,000,000,000
- $197,000,000,000
---------------------
$1,965,000,000,000

If this were happening in 2010, you would have $1.965 trillion to spend on your various programs and wars. Yes, you will have to cut some things...maybe even end one or two or three or four or five or six of the six wars we have been losing. But ending a war is not a default. Canceling PBS is not a default.

In 2011, it will probably be a little less.

In the future Obama, try to hire someone on to your over paid staff who each collect hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in salary who knows how to do math.

If we don't raise the debt ceiling we default, less than 2 weeks from now. Or possibly, we keep paying our creditors and slash spending drastically. Cutting services, state funding, selling off land and assets, driving ourselves deeper into recession. Which happens anyway if we default, mind you.
If we do raise the debt ceiling, we may, possibly default at some point in the future.

It is another Keynesian myth that if government spending decreases, this automatically deepens the current recession.

Currently the government borrows money. If that money is not borrowed by the government, where does it go? The answer is it still goes somewhere, even if it goes into a bank. And if it does go to a bank, it will be lent. Highly unlikely the money would get stuffed into a mattress.

Now I agree with you, the government defaulting is going to be very painful, very ugly. It will cause people to get wiped out, riots, etc.

But the default is going to happen. The longer it takes to happen, the greater the pain.

But I completely understand why you would not want it to default now, provided you are taking precautions now to make yourself less dependent on the government so you can manage when the pain does come. Because it will.

If people started building nest eggs and reserves so that they can better survive when the default does come, then postponing the default is the right thing to do. But it is naive to do nothing and expect that there will be no default in the future, if there is no default now.

Quick reminder - the government is not a household.

Government spending is not the same as household spending.

Government debt is inherently different from "credit card debt."

Please stop confusing the two.

This is a Keynesian myth.

It is a falsehood perpetuated by those who want to pretend the government can keep spending to infinity.

But government cannot do this, not forever. If it tries, eventually it collapses under the interest payments, just like a household would. Inflating the currency stops working eventually also, it has to stop before hyperinflation, which makes everyone's savings worthless. In the end, it then defaults, just like a household would.

Government can keep the game going much longer because it has more resources and more credibility than a household, but fundamentally its spending and debt is governed by the same market rules.

Also literally the debt as it stands now could be solved by axing Bush tax cuts, Medicare could be solved by axing the ceiling, etc, etc. It's amazing how many problems are solved with a solution of "The rich pay their g~!~#%n dues."

As I already pointed out taxing the rich further won't close the gap to 24% of the GDP which is what the US government is currently spending(I assume you meant deficit not the total debt). The government trying to collect 24% of the GDP would send the rich fleeing to the Bahamas or just bribing more politicians to leave them alone.

Another question which I find utterly misleading and self-serving, is this one.

11. Economists often disagree in their suggested solutions to social problems. The disagreements arise largely because:

A. Economics is not a science
B. Economic "laws" -- such as the law of supply and demand -- change over time
C. Economic theories and models are rarely tested with "real-world" data.
D. Economists often disagree about what current problems are most important.

My comments-

A) Economics is not an empirical science. That means economic theories are not determined to be true by experimental verification. Economics is a science in the sense that mathematics is a science, logical deductions based on indisputable axioms. Economics can use history to demonstrate how the theory works, but doesn't use experiments to falsify. Keynesians in particular like to pretend it is empirical science but ironically never allow any possible result to demonstrate their theory is false.

C) Probably should define "rarely". Often times data which fits the theory is highlighted while data that contradicts the theory is ignored...of course a lot of empirical science has this problem too so I shouldn't overly pick on economists for this fault.

As an example for A) and C), Keynesians claim that stimulus packages will end recessions...and every case where it doesn't end the recession...they claim not enough money was used in the stimulus. Is there any amount of money that could be spent that would verify the theory is false if it doesn't work? How much money is that? $10 trillion? $100 trillion? $100 quintillion?

D) Completely self-serving tripe.

If the answer isn't A)do they mean empirical or not? or C)define "rarely", then the answer is E).

E) Economics as taught in government accredited college textbooks is a confusing mess of half-truths and falsehoods which doesn't make sense as a whole.

NPC Dave wrote:

I also dispute some questions, ...

Which ones?

Lastknight already pointed out number 7.

The basis for their answer to this question is the Phillips curve.

The problem is that the assumption that there is an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation is false. This should have been acknowledged back in the 70's during stagflation, but that is ignored because politicians love to spend money and so economists who ignore reality in favor of justifying what politicians will do anyway get rewarded with cushy academic positions.

Prices rising could be caused by a significant change in the supply/demand ratio for a given product or service. I suspect that some of the rise in food prices are caused by increase demand from people in countries like India and China who are now wealthy enough to buy more and better quality food. When you go from poor to middle class or rich one of the first things you do is tend to get more food of the kind you like.

On the supply side, food supply is affected by food production as well as how much goes into biofuels instead.

But most economists won't admit that prices rising can also be caused by deliberate monetary inflation...that is the central bank in most countries creates new money out of thin air...in order to benefit the ruling class and wealthy elite who get access to the new money first...and enrich themselves while people in the middle class and poor see prices already rising by the time the money trickles down to them...if at all.

Until people realize that the Federal Reserve in the USA and central banks in other countries are ripping us off, this process will continue.