I'd be a horrible interviewer. "What's your favorite cartoon? Oh mhmm, good choice. Do you like mustard or mayo potato salad? Very interesting. Would you like to go get ice cream? WHY NOT LET ME LOVE YOU WE COULD BE HAPPY TOGETHER"

Part of being a celebrity is being asked the same dumb questions again and again.

Pants. Pants is the word that you really need to get right when in England.

As a Brit living here I can attest to the bizarre interest American's have in the British Royal family. Neither myself or any of my British friends and family have a single piece of interest in the Royal family. You'd be surprised how easy it is to live in the UK and and never hear anything about them, news coverage…

"Undemocratic?" I mean yes, in 1650, maybe...but you do know the British royal family (and nearly every other monarchy in the world) has no actual political power, right?

I'm English so I wouldn't like to comment on behalf of other nations. However, I will say this. My friend is the most anti-royalist person EVER. We both mocked all the excitement in the run-up to Kate and Wills' wedding and were really REALLY scathing of anyone who was looking forward to it.

On the upside, you now know how to make ice.

She did, however, date the brother of the worst cast member of Made in Chelsea, however. Which I'm sure was punishing.

This is just my opinion so take it for what you will. I have no degress in history or anything like that. As an American, my take on it is that we are such a young country we are fascinated by other countries history. Remember the USA celebrated it's bicentenial in 1976. That's only a generation ago. Compared to…

She's not hot enough to justify the amount of interest in her despite the fact that she has nothing else going for her.

To be fair, I'd totally rather live under a totalitarian king than live in a country where people vote for the modern iteration of the Republican party.

It hurts that they're not interviewing you, doesn't it, dear?

Give a $25K per year person an extra grand and he/she likely spends it for goods/services produced by another worker who earns a paycheck. The same $1K to a CEO who made $6.9 Million last year? Just throw it on his mountain of money. The only addition that $1K will ever make back to the economy is the pitiful…

That's exactly the fucking point. Getting more money to the middle and lower classes is what the economy needs right now. It's not a question of absolutes: Sometimes too much money is getting to the top and sometimes it wouldn't hurt to let more get there. But it's not some law of nature that dictates the…

No. This rope-a-dope nonsense is not going to get you off the hook. You said price-controls don't "work." Now you are being asked to explain that statement. Saying that nobody knows why they don't work is not going to do it.

the 70s oil crisis resulted in an actual shortage of gasoline, in which case price controls and rationing are a perfectly reasonable measure to prevent price gouging and hoarding (just like the current laws banning large price increases on essential goods during a declared state of emergency)

People are not comodities; its wage control, which we already do at the lower end of the labor spectrum. A price is a value on something you buy, which can be applied to labor from a management standpoint, but no one is buying their expertise; its a reward they give themselves.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."