Shop Happy Girl

What fashion trends make up the 90s and 00s???? early years 90- 93 ? Middle years 94- 96? Latter years 97-99 ? 00-02 ? 02-05 ?

fashion of the decades? i want to learn more about the fashion trends of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. what were popular for both men and women? how did the styles change from the previous decade? also, how was the u.s. impacted by fashion and how did the people out of the states view the u.s. and its fashion? please include websites where you found your information and include detailed summaries. thanks:)

1990s fashion? i need some information about fashion styles and trends in the 90's. a nice summary/overview would be great.

why dont american women wear pantyhose like they do in europe? I noticed when I was in paris and prague almost 90% women wore pantyhose. Why dont they wear them as much. Is it a fashion trend

Are bell bottoms going out of style again? I know that during the 60's and 70's bell bottoms were a huge fashion trend for both men and women and then they went out of fashion for a while. Then, in the late 90's they came back into style for women only. I've heard that straight leg jeans are coming back again, although so many women are still wearing bell bottoms.

What type of bikini line topiary do you favour / have and why? I appologise this question is not ment to cause offence. I esspecially want to no why bald has become so popular! Why do you think fashions in this area happen and who talks about those fashion to follow trend e.g 70' au natural 80's / 90's Landing strip / brazillian and 00's bald

My 2007 fashion prediction - could i right? I think acid and citrus colours are on the way in, with many over brights and retro style prints. This springs to summer must have accessory will be badges, brooches and pins, bright jewels along with strappy slingback sandals, more in your face stripes and the odd ball trend of old skool meets 90's. What do you think?

Formal wear between genders, mens fashion especially.? I was just thinking that somebody ought to take a look at mens formal fashion. The other day I was at a wedding, outdoor, and like 90 some degrees with a lot of humidity. So looking around all the guys had the usual "suits" with jackets and tie on, and yea I guess they look good, but mostly they just looked really uncomfortable and like miserable. Some even looked like they might faint in the heat. The women of course all had nice light dresses on, and not a one was wearing a jacket. Sure we were hot, but not as bad as the men in their pants suite with jacket. Why is their not a formal option for men that isn't so hot? I mean men sweat more than women anyway, and they smell worse, but in a formal sting they wear way more clothes than the women, whats up with that? IDK about you but I don't want to be around a smelly sweaty guy, maybe someone should start a new trend for mens wear. I agree with the whole white jacket instead of black, but I am sure that is still way hotter than anything any of the women are wearing. Even all the male guest were wearing some sort of sport coat or jacket, and with that heat, trust me nobody would have had a jacket on unless they thought it was required to be formal. Again even with lighter fabrics and lighter colors, I am sure that having a along sleeve shirt and a jacket over that shirt is going to be hotter than the girls wearing a strapless or otherwise sleeveless dress. Anyway this doesn't make much sense to me, because men sweat like crazy, and we expect them to dress in long sleeves for formal occasions, would we really rather be around hot sweaty, smelly guys, than one in short sleeves with no jacket?

girl next door look...bad/old thing? im a down to earth, low maintenace girl...who basically has got the "girl next door look"...and feels like myself and feels most comfortable in this look...but compared to "most" other girls who is into the latest fashion/trends ,wears high feels, with hair and make up and the whole nine yards...i feel like im still in my 90's.... and im guessing guys dig sexy/hot girls right?..

Are leggings here to stay? Like most people, I think leggings are one of the worst fashion trends. Spandex, which started in the 80's, went out of style in the early 90's for a reason. And I know it came back I just came back from NYC, and was shocked by how many people were wearing spandex leggings! Even saw a couple guys wearing them. I was in the East Village eating and watched several people walk by in black leggings. Leggings started coming back in, in 2005. I thought it'd be a passing trend. And everyone was saying leggings would go out in 2008. But it seems to be stronger than ever. Will the leggings go out of style again, or are they here to stay (like jeans, shorts, skirts, etc) for good? I hope not.

Vanity Fair Magazine`s Top 100 people who run America...notice anything odd? NOW would you be outraged if they 80% of the above were muslim names?

Clothing = Optional? I think clothing should be optional, and of course it is. But why do these so called stylists think wearing a trend that millions of other people are wearing is cool? Originality is by far more interesting, right? ie leggings, 90% of people wouldnt be wearing them if they wasnt in fashion.. Why do people think being sheep is a good thing? Rock on originality and forget all these pathetic shows like what not to wear and how to look good naked.. They would do anything for money these days. Whats your opinion on fashion these days? Oh an guys Cardigans are in fashion for use!! I saw this program a few weeks ago where his man went into the public and picked on people for there hair.. Random people an showed them up on TV, this world is so fricking nasty.

A few chemistry questions? 1. Which of the following solids consists of atoms or molecules held together only by Van Der Waals forces? 1 a. carbon dioxide b. water c. silicon dioxide d. copper 2. What is the approximate value of the O-C=O bond angle in ethanoic acid? 1 a. 45 degrees b. 90 degrees c. 120 degrees d. 180 degrees 3. Which of the following does NOT contain hydrogen bonds? 1 a. Ammonium chloride b. Ammonia c. Nitric acid d. Water 4. In microwave ovens, the wave energy produced is absorbed by certain polar molecules. Which of the following would absorb microwave energy? 1 a. Aluminium trichloride b. Carbon dioxide c. Ethanol d. Sodium chloride 5. The grid represents two periods of the Periodic Table, for the elements with proton number from 3 to 18: P Q R S An element from 1 group, P, Q, R or S, reacts with an element from another of these groups to produce a compound with a giant covalent structure. Which are these 2 groups? 1 a. P and R b. Q and R c. Q and S d. R and S 6. Graphite can be used as a lubricant; diamond cannot. This is because graphite has 1 a. Mobile ions b. A hexagonal arrangement of atoms in the layers c. Van Der Waals forces between the layers of atoms d. Covalent bonds between atoms in the layers 7. 109.5° 107° 105° 0.096 nm 0.101 nm 0.109 nm The bond lengths and bond angles in the molecules of methane, ammonia and water may be represented as follows: What causes this trend in bond angles shown? 1 a. Increasing repulsion between hydrogen atoms as the bond length decreases b. The number of bonding electron pairs in the molecule c. A non-bonding electron pair having a lower repulsive force than a bonding electron pair d. The number of non-bonding electron pairs in the molecule 8. Which type of bond is responsible for intermolecular forces in liquid tetrachloromethane? 1 a. Covalent bonding b. Hydrogen bonding c. Temporary dipole-induced dipole attractions d. Permanent dipole-permanent dipole attractions 9. A solution of ammonia in water contains 1 a. Simple molecules only b. Simple molecules and hydrogen bonded molecules only c. Simple molecules, hydrogen bonded molecules and ions d. Ions only 10. The diagram below shows a liquid flowing from a burette and a charged rod being brought near the flow. Which liquid would be deflected as shown? 1 a. Bromine b. Hexachloroethane c. Cyclohexane d. Trichloromethane 11. In which one of the following does ionic bonding occur between the named atoms? 1 a. Aluminium and chlorine in tetrachloroaluminate ion b. Boron and fluorine in boron trifluoride c. Hydrogen and chlorine in hydrogen chloride d. Hydrogen and sodium in sodium hydride 12. The radius and charge of each of 6 ions are shown in the table below: Ion J+ L+ M2+ X- Y- Z2- Radius/nm 0.14 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.15 The ionic solids JX, LY and MZ are of the same lattice type. What is the correct order of their lattice energies placing the one with the highest numerical value first? 1 a. JX > LY > MZ b. JX > MZ > LY c. LY > MZ >JX d. MZ > JX > LY 13. Silicon carbide is a shiny, hard, chemically inert material with a very high melting point. It can be used to sharpen knives and make crucibles. Which type of structure explains these properties? 1 a. A giant structure with covalent bonds between silicon and carbon atoms b. A giant structure containing metallic bonding c. A giant layer structure with covalent bonds between atoms and Van Der Waals forces between the layers d. A simple molecular structure with covalent bonds between atoms of silicon and carbon 14. A stable molecule containing atoms of the elements X, Y and Z has the following structure: Which elements could X, Y and Z be? 1 a. X=N, Y=P, Z=Cl b. X=O, Y=S, Z=Cl c. X=B, Y=C, Z=H d. X=P, Y=Si, Z=H 15. Which one of the following sets of solid elements A, B, C or D includes a giant metallic structure, a macromolecular structure and a simple molecular structure? 1 a. Na Mg Al b. Mg Al Si c. C Si Sn d. Al Si S 16. Which of the following is an example of a substance with a macromolecular structure? 1 a. Aluminium chloride b. Ice c. Magnesium oxide d. Silicon dioxide 17. The molecules listed below are of the general formula XYn, with n more than or equal to 2. In which is the Y-X-Y angle greatest? 1 a. BF3 b. CH4 c. NH3 d. PCl3 18. The sulphite ion may be represented as: What is the O-S-O bond angle? 1 a. About 90 degrees b. About 107 degrees c. About 109.5 degrees d. About 117.5 degrees 19. Which of the following statements about the properties associated with ionic and covalent bonds is correct? 1 a. A covalent bond cannot be an electrolyte. b. The only covalent compounds with high melting points are those in which hydrogen bonds occur. c. Ionic bonds and covalent bonds cannot both occur in the same compound. d. Ionic compounds differ from metals in that ionic compounds do not conduct electricity in the solid state 20. Cleavage readily occurs along planes of crystals of ionic solids because the ions in the crystal are 1 a. Arranged in a regular fashion b. Strongly bonded together c. Weakly bonded together d. Charged lol I got the answers now a c a c b c d c c d d d a a d a b d a TheOnlyBeldin you caused me to answer some questions wrongly, I was wrong to believe you!

Do u care that sheep r killed to make UGGS? Sheep have feelings 2 will u stop wearing them? will u stop buying them? When the roles are reversed, suddenly the idea's not so appealing. Eager students didn’t need to wait long for the mercury to fall and (some) leaves to turn before witnessing UT’s most loved and most reviled autumnal tradition: the return of the uggs. But as these wooly friends make their pitter-patter migrations across campus cobblestones, activists say wearers are tiptoeing around an ugg-ly truth: they aren’t the only ones dying for these snuggly shoes. Though to some these odd-looking sheepskin boots represent comfort and fashion, animal-rights activists say slaughtering sheep isn’t chic. Apparently, some wearers—including ugg nut fan Pamela Anderson, until last year—were under the impression that the wool lining is merely shaven from the animals, but in fact, the process is less warm and fuzzy than they think. The sheep are killed! The sheepskin hides (with fleece intact) are then preserved with salt before tanneries process them. Though credited for popularizing Uggs while on “Baywatch,” Anderson spoke out against the shoes last year. “I’m getting rid of our Uggs,” she wrote in her online diary. The longtime PETA supporter sheepishly donated her old shoes to its “Give Uggs the Boot” campaign. “I feel so guilty for that craze being started around the Baywatch days. I used to wear them with my red swimsuit to keep warm – never realizing that they were skin!” But now, Anderson recommends other sole providers, makers like Stella McCartney or Juicy, which are more animal friendly. Anderson said she had previously thought the boots were made from wool attached to synthetic material. “I thought they [the sheep] were shaved kindly,” she wrote. “People like to tell me all the time that I started that trend – yikes!” UT student Celeste Judge agrees. “I just think it’s wrong,” the junior said. “Yes, they’re comfortable, but come on. Are you really going to walk around wearing dead animals on your feet just because they’re comfy or because they’re in style? Give me a break. That’s gross.” Sherry Dibble says she sticking with her Uggs. “They’re amazing,” the junior said. “Even when it’s warm outside, I wear them. But when it’s cold out, oh my goodness, they’re the best! They feel like slippers, just better.” Jennifer Cintron agrees. “I’m from up north, where it’s totally normal and acceptable to rock Uggs,” she said. “And when it’s 45 degrees here, yeah I wear them. They’re comfortable, warm and cozy. How could you not love them?” Zealand for almost 200 years. Many companies—and countries—are copying the look, and doing it for less money. Countless brands range from $19.99 to $100, but genuine Australian Uggs range from $90 to $200, depending on the size and style. But Monaco said it’s not about the cost: “They’re unbelievably comfortable.” Proponents say if people want a boot that’s warm in the winter but cool enough to wear in the summer, these boots are perfect. Uggs are manufactured with genuine Australian double-faced sheepskin, preferably Australian Merino sheepskin. After slaughter, it typically takes about 10 days for the skins to be tanned and ready to be cut into panels for Ugg boots 2 days ago - 1 day left to answer.

State : Neither Samaritan Nor Solomon ?? Mises? If you say that government is too big and truly overweening, you elicit a surprising degree of agreement among people, even mainstream columnists, economists, and nearly everyone. Even government employees, who famously resent their bosses, might be quick to agree. If you hang outside the offices of the IRS in Washington, D.C., in the park at noontime where its employees take their lunch, you will get an earful of vitriol against the bureaucracy such as you wouldn't hear outside 1990s militia circles. Incidentally, the government is having a terrible time recruiting employees. Only 16% of college-educated workers say that they are interested in a government job. Among those without a college degree, there is twice the level of interest. Among people currently employed, those with managerial or professional occupations show a low interest level of 17%. Among those who want work to be challenging and enjoyable, only 9% thought a government job qualified. And, interestingly, among those who say they want to make a contribution to society, 90% said that non-government work in the private sector, whether for profit or non-profit, is the way to go. Now, what this means is that the smart set avoids government. Government work might still be attractive to people with fewer economic opportunities, but they are entering it for reasons that are not ideological. And for that reason too, they are less loyal to the public sector and glad to bail out if something else comes available. Most people view this as a very bad trend. I would only say that it is a significant trend, especially considering that in the heyday of government central planning, government sought to attract the best and the brightest. Often it did. Now, one might argue that if government were doing what it should be doing, this would be a good thing. But if government is doing many bad things, it is certainly not a bad trend for it to experience a brain drain. It is always a tragedy to see smart and entrepreneurial men and women be attracted away from productive employment in the private sector toward a position of power in the public sector. It makes us poorer to have the talents drained away from wealth creation toward wealth destruction. As for the very few good people in politics — Ron Paul is the great exception that proves the rule — they are true public servants only insofar as they work to diminish government power rather than increase it. So long as government is large and overweening, we are better off with a public sector that cannot attract the best and brightest. They should stay put where they can continue to expand the range of goods and services offered within the market framework. It is the market that provides us the means necessary to improve our standard of living, and the tools we need to maintain some degree of independence from the state. We often rail against incompetence in government. But before we go too far with this language, we need to consider that competence in government may be a far worse fate. We don't need genuinely competent antitrust enforcers, drug and food regulators, tax collectors, money manipulators, labor-law interventionists, gun grabbers, and environmental police. As H.L. Mencken said, we should be thankful that we don't get all the government we pay for. To be sure, we are paying far more today for government than ever before. Consider the real annual growth rate of total government outlays by presidents. Under Nixon, it was 3%. Under Carter, it was 4.1%. Under Reagan, 2.6%. Under Bush's dad, 1.9%, a figuring owing to the cuts in military spending. Domestic spending soared. Under Clinton, whom we all denounced as a socialist, it was 1.5%, the lowest rate in the postwar period. And under the present Bush, who promised less government? The real annual growth rate of total government outlays has been 5%, which compares to Johnson-era spending. The old rationales for government growth may have been discredited in the public mind. But they are alive in Washington, among the special interest groups, and among the media. I would like to identify the main ones. Rationale Number One: The Good Samaritan State. In this view of government, the state should act like the third person to come upon the poor man who had been beaten and robbed. They imagine a population that is divided among three types of people: victims, victimizers, and those who refuse to help. The victim classes we know all too well, because the litany is said again and again within the structure of labor law: the elderly, the very young, ethnic and racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, workers, the underpaid, people in rural areas, those who deal with urban overcrowding, people who breathe dirty air or eat chemically produced products, artists, the manufacturing industry, people with peanut allergies, the dyslexic, short people, fat people, the leisure deprived, and I've probably left out a hundred or so other groups. Among the victimizers, we similarly have a list: capitalists, racial and ethnic majorities, sexual majorities, the overpaid, managers and CEOs, people who live in gated communities, the well armed, consumers of cell phones, owners of mines, anyone living off a trust fund, fully abled men, and anyone who resents social managers telling them what to do. In the view of those who advocate the Samaritan State, these two classes of victims and victimizers are constantly at war. There is nothing but conflict between them. The loss of one is the gain of the other. These categories are fixed and unchanging. The lack of harmony of interests is built into the structure of the social and economic world. The remedy requires an institution that is relentlessly engaged in reweighing the power relationships between the two groups. The conflict cannot be finally ended, but justice requires that the victims are given an unending stream of compensation and that the victimizers are treated with disdain and punished for their very existence. Social justice thus requires that victimizers are reduced, disabled, denounced, and spat upon, while the victims must be exalted, fed, clothed, funded, and made whole. This is how the Left, broadly speaking, thinks the world works, and should work. It doesn't matter whether one considers oneself a hard Marxist or a soft social democrat, the intellectual tie that binds them together is the view that conflict and not cooperation characterizes the work of society in the absence of an institution dedicated to bringing about social justice. The institutional answer is, of course, the state. The state is the Samaritan who lifts up and exalts the meek, and smites the proud and powerful who would otherwise walk right past the poor person on the street, who is the very archetype of the victim in the leftist view of how the world works. But there are many things wrong with this view of society. In the parable, the victim was beaten and robbed. He was exploited only in a very narrow and old-fashioned sense: his person and property were violated. These are crimes against libertarian ethics, a system of thought that mirrors what every religious and ethical system has taught: do not kill and do not steal. In other words, he was not a victim of some hazy notion of Social Injustice. He was not discriminated against, exploited by an employer, made to work long hours, or denied a comfy living in his old age. There is a huge difference between being beaten and robbed, and having to pay high prices for prescription drugs. The great error of the Left is its inability to distinguish the injustice of violence from the supposed injustice of inequality of material condition. As for the Samaritan, he was not acting as an agent of the regime. He used his own money to help the victim. He got him back on his feet and paid his bills at the private clinic where he was deposited for care. The Samaritan did not rob someone else to give money to the man on the street. He presumably got his money justly by hard work and investment. He had no desire to keep the man dependent, nor to exercise power over him, tax him, regulate him, nor send him to war. The state is something very different. It has no income but that which it robs from someone else. It seeks its own gain at others' expense. It protects itself and promotes itself before the interests of everyone else. It is beholden to special interests who create and control its regulatory apparatus. It is not impartial. It sides with its friends over its enemies. Moreover, the state is an exploiter, a murderer, a violator of human rights. The typical response of the Left is to say that they want a state that does only good things such as share and care, and not bad things such as steal and kill. But this cannot be. We might as well wish for a lion that only purrs and cuddles, or a rattlesnake that only provides percussion accompaniment to mariachi music. The very nature of the state is that it exists only through and for compulsion. To imagine otherwise is not to face reality. Rationale Number Two: The Solomonic State. In the Bible we are told that King Solomon had "understanding exceeding much and largeness of heart, even as the sand that [is] on the sea shore." And his "wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt." He was "wiser than all men" and "his fame was in all nations round about." He spoke "three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five." He "spake of trees, from the cedar tree that [is] in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." Now, I'm not here to dispute the Bible's account of Solomon's wisdom. But let us also recall that Solomon's rule later became close to tyrannical. His son Rehoboam inherited his power, and when the people begged for relief from Solomon's "heavy yoke," and instigated a full-scale crackdown: "My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions." To be wise and prudent is not characteristics of rulers. In fact, it is very dangerous to hope that they may be. If we set out to find such a person, and have fantastic power available to him when we believe he has arrived, we have set up the framework for tyranny. The founders knew that no man can be trusted with power. They attempted to construct a system that presumed that men were corruptible, and that there would be some means to dislodge them when their corruption showed. Still, today many people long for the Solomonic State as a means of dispensing justice. Unlike the Samaritan model, the goal here is not charity but the just wielding of the sword on behalf of the right and true. Thus should we seek out righteous men of learning and moral character who know what evil is and have the courage to stand up to it and destroy it. This model is what inspires this mentality. There are many problems with this model. One man might be very wise, even the wisest of all men. But as F.A. Hayek might remind us, all the accumulated knowledge in the head of one person is still infinitesimal as compared with the wisdom that emerges through social cooperation on the marketplace. We can consider the price of any good on the market as it stands right now, and know that this one price results from the accumulated decisions of millions of people across thousands and thousands of sectors of economic activity spread throughout the world. The knowledge is dispersed in a million directions and results from small decisions and actions by economic actors. But the result is a single indicator that assists in allocating resources better than any single mind could ever do. The model of the Solomonic State also imagines that somehow the social order we see around us cannot possibly have come about without a single will operating in society, some firm hand that has designed the order and keeps it running smoothly. People who think this way imagine that in the absence of this firm hand, there would be nothing but a Hobbesian state of nature, where society is a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Our age is notably lacking in the likes of Solomon, and so those who fear the Hobbesian state of nature turn to the managerial state to act wisely in the interest of justice and order, at home and abroad. They might not always like what the rulers do, but they consider the alternative to despotism more fearsome. They warn about the dread results of anarchism and liberty, where people senselessly kill and rob without consequence. They fear this liberty more than they fear the abuses of power. This, I submit, is the mentality of many conservatives and many on the Right. We see it in the affections they have for Bush, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, and how quickly people fall for any leader who uses Manichean rhetoric in defense of the latest nationalistic crusade. What these people need more than anything else is a familiarity with the insights of the old liberal tradition as represented by Jefferson, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. They need to come to see how order is not the mother of liberty but its daughter. They need to see how society is harmonious not because of the state but because of the prevalence of human cooperation in the marketplace, where people work to trade to their own mutual betterment. People who fail to understand this become the unwitting servants of tyranny, particularly in the modern age when it is so obviously not wise but stupid and violent and presumptuous. They imagine that the state can posses godlike powers and bring justice and order, but they end up only empowering the worst elements in society, bringing injustice, and chaos. Now, you might say that the old liberal view of society is naïve. It might be in people's interest to learn to trade rather than steal but we live in a fallen world. If not for some overarching controlling force, people would loot each other unrelentingly and kill for fun. Now, to this I can say that it is true that some societies have not learned to make trading and peace significantly more prevalent than violence and killing. History is strewn with examples. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether a society that fails to learn the art of civilization will erect and sustain a state that will impose civilization on the people. I submit that history also teaches that when a people are brutal and uncivilized, the state is even more so. The state is rarely and maybe never better than the people it rules; in fact, it is almost always worse. Rationale Number Three: Log-Rolling. Given these two very different conceptions of the state, one favoring the welfare state and the other favoring a warfare state, why don't the visions cancel each other out? So intense is the desire of one group to have the state that it wants that it is willing to put up with another group's desire for its conception of the state. The two conceptions decide to cooperate and erect a state that purports to behave both like Solomon and like the Samaritan. That is the origin of the guns-and-butter state, or the welfare-warfare state, or the modern state as we know it, one that purports to meet every need. We see how this log-rolling works every day on Capitol Hill. One group wants more money for tanks and weaponry, and the other wants more for Medicaid and education. If both agree that politics is the art of compromise, they will put up with the other group's priorities in order that their own vision can be fulfilled. On the Right, we find that the love for the police power is more intense than the hatred of redistribution. On the Left, we find that the love of redistribution is more intense than the hatred of war and leviathan. They therefore work together to erect a massive and ever-growing executive. They are similarly unwilling to oppose the state in total. They fear that in doing so, the state as an institution will be discredited, and their conception of what the state should do along with it. Neither side particularly loves big government but both sides agree that it is better than the alternative of letting people alone. So they log-roll to support the public sector above all else, even when it means that they must sleep with their ostensible political enemies. Rationale Number Four: The Inflationary State. Now we come to the reason this system is able to perpetuate itself. And there is something of a mystery to explain here. No people anywhere will put up with a leviathan that grows and grows forever. At some point, the problem of funding state expansion will result in too much violence against property, and the people will revolt. Indeed, if the federal government had to collect all its revenue through a tax of any kind, leveled right now against the public, I submit to you that it would spark a tax revolt on a scale never before seen in modern history. Thus do we have the central bank to create money for the state. Thus do we have paper money that can be created in unlimited quantities. Thus do we have deposit insurance to make banks failure proof, so that the masses will never doubt that the credit pyramid is immortal. Thus do we have the Fed's power to manipulate interest rates and control the flow of credit to the system. An economist at Lehman Brothers sent us an interesting chart the other day. It compares the level of price increases across many Fed regimes. Under the first Fed governor Charles Hamlin, the dollar declined 8% in value. Under Thomas B. McCabe from the late forties, it declined 7.2%. Under Arthur Burns, wholly owned by Nixon, the dollar declined 42% in value. Under Volcker, Mr. Tight Money, it fell 40%. And under Greenspan, who has a reputation as a great inflation fighter, the value of the dollar in terms of goods and services fell fully 44%! Inflation serves the cause of the state by giving it room to run up debts without limit and fund its activities without making the people cough up more revenue. Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the inflationary state. People often say to me that a gold standard is impractical. In fact, that is not the case. It is very practical. It is the free-market answer. The state doesn't need to produce money any more than it needs to produce shoes or shirts or clocks. The problem is that we lack the political will to stop the inflation monster. Rationale Number Five: The Propaganda State. In every society control of educational institutions increases in tandem with the rise of the state. This is because the state needs these institutions to inculcate the civic religion of loving the public enterprise, and also because the less people know about the idea of liberty the more the state is provided the room to grow. Consider the Department of Education. Ever since its creation, every Republican administration has come to power with an intention to abolish it. But once they get in power, they find that bureaucracy has its uses. Instead of cutting or abolishing it, they increase the agency and give it more to do. The more the state does, the more the state sees the need to control public opinion by controlling the schools. Now, there is a point of optimism here. If any state could rule without propaganda, it would surely do so. Why then do states find educational control and the propagation of the civic religion in their interest? Because at some level, every state, in all times and places, is required to seek the tacit consent of those it governs. No state can control a society by use of the sword only and alone. It must also seek some degree of ideological conformity with its own goals. Otherwise its rule becomes threatened and destabilized. The other side of the coin is that states can indeed be destabilized by the ultimate counterrevolutionary tactic of providing alternative sources of education. As Mises said, all of history is a battle of ideas. Where the ideas of freedom are triumphant, liberty prevails. Where the ideas of freedom are buried and suppressed, despotism prevails. Our pathway is clear. It is a choice of the Mises Institute not to mix in the mire of a political system that is wholly owned or attempt to seek favor from influential opinion makers. Our path is one of education, pursued with high-minded ideals, advanced using the most modern methods, and animated by the spirit of guerilla warfare. There are Misesians and Rothbardians strewn throughout the academic world, financial and banking houses, law firms, and in every walk of life, not only in this country but all over the world. We have worked for nearly a quarter of a century on a very radical project of advancing economic science and logic. We have pushed to keep the fire of freedom burning brightly. We have sought to teach anyone and everyone about the workings and benefits of liberty. We have come under pressure from left, right, and center. Yet the attention given to this body of ideas grows by the day. We can prevail against the Propaganda State. So long as we are free to do so and have the means available, we will continue to do so. This is our weapon against power. It is the most effective weapon anyone could ever possess. If we win this victory, we win all others. We thank you for supporting education for liberty, and for being part of the revolutionary vanguard that sees through the errors of our day and imagines a brighter future of freedom, private property, and peace. : Mises Institute

Why dont american women wear pantyhose like they do in europe? I noticed when I was in paris and prague almost 90% women wore pantyhose. Why dont they wear them as much. Is it a fashion trend

Do u care that sheep r killed to make UGGS? Sheep have feelings 2 will u stop wearing them? will u stop buying them? When the roles are reversed, suddenly the idea's not so appealing. Eager students didn’t need to wait long for the mercury to fall and (some) leaves to turn before witnessing UT’s most loved and most reviled autumnal tradition: the return of the uggs. But as these wooly friends make their pitter-patter migrations across campus cobblestones, activists say wearers are tiptoeing around an ugg-ly truth: they aren’t the only ones dying for these snuggly shoes. Though to some these odd-looking sheepskin boots represent comfort and fashion, animal-rights activists say slaughtering sheep isn’t chic. Apparently, some wearers—including ugg nut fan Pamela Anderson, until last year—were under the impression that the wool lining is merely shaven from the animals, but in fact, the process is less warm and fuzzy than they think. The sheep are killed! The sheepskin hides (with fleece intact) are then preserved with salt before tanneries process them. Though credited for popularizing Uggs while on “Baywatch,” Anderson spoke out against the shoes last year. “I’m getting rid of our Uggs,” she wrote in her online diary. The longtime PETA supporter sheepishly donated her old shoes to its “Give Uggs the Boot” campaign. “I feel so guilty for that craze being started around the Baywatch days. I used to wear them with my red swimsuit to keep warm – never realizing that they were skin!” But now, Anderson recommends other sole providers, makers like Stella McCartney or Juicy, which are more animal friendly. Anderson said she had previously thought the boots were made from wool attached to synthetic material. “I thought they [the sheep] were shaved kindly,” she wrote. “People like to tell me all the time that I started that trend – yikes!” UT student Celeste Judge agrees. “I just think it’s wrong,” the junior said. “Yes, they’re comfortable, but come on. Are you really going to walk around wearing dead animals on your feet just because they’re comfy or because they’re in style? Give me a break. That’s gross.” Sherry Dibble says she sticking with her Uggs. “They’re amazing,” the junior said. “Even when it’s warm outside, I wear them. But when it’s cold out, oh my goodness, they’re the best! They feel like slippers, just better.” Jennifer Cintron agrees. “I’m from up north, where it’s totally normal and acceptable to rock Uggs,” she said. “And when it’s 45 degrees here, yeah I wear them. They’re comfortable, warm and cozy. How could you not love them?” Zealand for almost 200 years. Many companies—and countries—are copying the look, and doing it for less money. Countless brands range from $19.99 to $100, but genuine Australian Uggs range from $90 to $200, depending on the size and style. But Monaco said it’s not about the cost: “They’re unbelievably comfortable.” Proponents say if people want a boot that’s warm in the winter but cool enough to wear in the summer, these boots are perfect. Uggs are manufactured with genuine Australian double-faced sheepskin, preferably Australian Merino sheepskin. After slaughter, it typically takes about 10 days for the skins to be tanned and ready to be cut into panels for Ugg boots