Would requiring a minimum of one preview be useful? That is, if you hit "publish" before previewing, the effect is the same as "preview".

Not doing it might bring everything down, too.

I am not talking about the normal amount of inflation that occurs regularly, but an unusually large amount that would certainly cause serious problems if it happened often. When things are as screwed up as they are now, it may be best to do things you should not normally do.

Nobody here needs you to tell them what inflation does. If you think so, it is because you yet again think you have superior understanding. Sorry, you do not.

wrote again:

Once more, why not just cut a check for a billion to each American so we can become the world's super consumer?

What, you did not like my first answer? Then let me translate: There are times when doing something that would be harmful if done regularly is the right thing to do.

However, I am not convinced Krugman is right. Recovery from the great depression was one thing. The world economic situation, especially the US place in it, is very different now. But you cannot dismiss his solution based on some simple-minded idea of how things work.

wrote:

Why not just cut a check for a billion to each American so we can become the world's super consumer?

Why not give everyone anti-biotics all the time instead of just when they are sick? Ah, yes, cows. What is happening?

wrote about Krugman:

The guy really believes that debasing the currency is a good thing. That must be the upshot of an MIT education these days.

And you really believe that the ice mass on earth is increasing and we are headed for another ice age. I am sure you have studied economics with the same rigor.

from the Thomas article:

...but it is also true that in areas outside his expertise he sometimes gets his facts wrong (his record has improved lately).

An honest mistake from Krugman is better than slanted truth from Newsweek.

A matter of style: Enclosing a sentence in quotes just before the period of another sentence is something I would do in blog comment (I am no writer). But in the cover story of Newsweek? Apparently the author has no more respect for his work than this commenter does.

wrote:

No, I don't believe in creationism. .... We lose species, not gain them. Culling does not produce novel forms.

Now this is a novel idea. Species are lost not gained; so new ones do not evolve. On the other hand, they were not all created. You could be on your way to creating a new religion.

If you have two points of a function you can estimate how much it is changing (first derivative). But your measurements have errors, and you must take a difference, and so the relative size of the error is magnified. You might think you can measure rate of change (second derivative) from three points, but the error amplification is huge. If you want to measure rate of change, you better have many points, and use some rugged fitting process. Of course, by the time you have enough points, the answer will be obvious.

Yes, that is an interesting article (from the Atlantic) that you referred to. I suspect that he is underestimating the criminality in the Wall St-Government relationship that he describes. That is, he says the US is different from the 3rd world cases he has dealt with. Maybe so, maybe not. Outright bribery and corruption are easier to hide when you work for the world's richest country.

wrote: You always leave out the point that some planned terrorist acts have been prevented.

Glenn will do as he sees fit, of course, but I would not be in favor of stating the "point" that terrorists acts have been prevented without some actual evidence. Unsupported statements issued from government spokesman are not good enough.

"Fox News and other credible media"

Surely you are joking Ms. C?

what is the value of a document signed under the threat of torture? (And that is what it is if you already have been tortured by the same folks offering you the agreement.) What is wrong with sign and tell?

Where are all those pesky libertarians who hang around Grennwald's comments? Yes, the ones who want to reduce the government's power to 1% of what it is? Why are they not here, where their ideas might make some sense? Maybe some of them would have the nerve to say "sexters are not sex offenders", without first saying, "Oh my! Oh my! Those girls are so irresponsible."

Their inability to control members of their own government could do serious damage to our war on terror. A number of serious, patriotic members of the former administration are still unable to find work worthy of their expertise. Obama should send them to Britain to help out in correcting this deficiency that so threatens our security and way of life.

...might think that G. is working for the Chinese. Probably not, but her misplaced paranoia (be it real or simulated, and who can tell?) might just have a small basis in a different reality. Are the American people really his primary client?