Haha, sorry I knew this list would cause this sort of trouble. I'm a big believer in pilot wave theory myself, it's just very much not the 'mainstream' view. And I didn't mean to imply that the last two were close together, either. I do think monetary policy probably has some effect (whether we understand or can model that effect is another matter), but I didn't mean at all to imply that it was anywhere near the certainty of the sun rising, it just happened to be the closest :).

I think perhaps we disagree more about the probability of these two:

- The Clinton Foundation has been or is involved in some shady dealings

- Muslims want to implement Sharia law in Europe

Than the other two. I think both of those are, in some sense, almost certainly true. There are Muslims who want to implement Sharia law in Europe. The Clinton Foundation has been involved in transactions that at least have the appearance of moral uncertainty. The headlines that I listed are just overly strong statements/generalizations of those (IMO undeniable) facts.

I keep getting sidetracked by other issues, but you're statements are about certainty and uncertainty and where do you draw the line for heavy-handed intervention, so I might as well get into them:

"undeniable" does not mean what you think it means. Example: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/hillary-clinton-defends-founda...

There, Clinton denies the foundation has been engaged in anything shady. Boom, definitely not undeniable #hackernewsdrama, hahaha.

If you want a disagreement, though, I prefer many-worlds over pilot wave theories, largely because I'm not entirely sure _what_ the propagation speed of the pilot waves would be. 'Greater than the speed of light' either (1) doesn't really narrow it down at all or (2) narrows it down to having no options at all. But they should have _a_ speed, because I'm not sure you can even have standing waves if the disturbances propagate instantly.

Rates near zero is part of the reason the stock market has been on a tear the last few years. It also was a driver of the housing bubble.

It didn't cause the hyperinflation that a lot of people thought would come, but the Great Depression is Bernanke's area of expertise, and he had sound theoretical reasons to believe QE wouldn't spark serious inflation.

The near zero rates occurred in response to the economic crisis after the housing bubble burst, not a driver of the bubble.

Rates were also comparatively low during the 2000s to juice the economy after the tech bust and 9/11. They got even lower after the crash and QE, but they were the lowest they had been in the 00s since the early 60s.