Magox

Well, for starters I thought Nix's comment regarding Mckelvin before contract negotiations was semi retarded. Why position him as a starter, when he hadn't lived up to his first contract right before you negotiate his next contract? In regards to Marrone deciding who starts, I'm pretty sure that he and Pettite looked at this past seasons game films and gave their input. Don't you? Even if he doesn't become one of the two traditional starting cb's, he will still be playing in the slot. Which means that he will still be on the field on well over half the defensive plays. And lets not forget that he did do well in the slot last year. Combine that with his return abilities, I'd say that at the very least that its pretty close to market value. Having said that, I'd personally still would of rather had Levitre signed. Who knows? Maybe it will still happen

seems to me its in between starting cb and nickel back money.

Nickel backers in today's passing league play well over half of all the defensive plays.

Tells me that the Bill won't be drafting a cb with either of their first two picks and that we won't be picking up a starting caliber cb in FA

So, because the government has an extreme appetite for a private entities product, they should nationalize or own a majority stake of the company? Really? Really???

This is a perfect example that you belong to a failed economic orthodoxy. Whether its on a government or personal household level your only one trick pony solution is to spend more. Doesn't matter the external circumstances, if we are facing structural issues, your prescription is to spend more. If families are facing declining wages relative to inflation, your solution is to spend more. That's all you have to offer, spend spend spend. I just hope that you aren't in a position to where you are teaching young, impressionable minds, because if you are, you are dangerous and destructive. We've already proven that Krugman was wrong on his policy prescription of Keynesian spending to get us out of this downturn, which you fully supported. We have stagnant growth and the lowest labor participation rate in over three decades. So you were wrong on that. Now on a personal household level, we are seeing wages decline relative to inflation, increased personal spending and the loss of savings and you say this is what is needed? In a healthy economy you will see steadily increasing wages, savings and spending. Right now only one of three is what we are seeing. It's unsustainable, if savings continue to decrease, which they will IF spending continues on pace while seeing the same trend in wages, then at some point spending will slow down because of the exhaustion of personal savings. At this current trajectory, all we are doing is borrowing future spending, with risks attached to it. Of course the other nasty side effect of the depletion of savings is increased personal household debt. There are many risks associated with this. One of the flaws of your failed economic orthodoxy was fully exposed during the banking melt down, which was personal household debt imploded. People racked up so much debt and personal savings was so low that when the **** hit the fan, people were !@#$ed. Personal savings rates have been declining since the late 80s and really began to plummet in the 90s, which left households more vulnerable to shocks in the economy than what would have been the case if we didn't have such an insatiable appetite to consume. I'm not saying spending is a bad thing, what I'm saying is that if we have an economy that has declining wages relative to inflation, that it is a risky and ultimately harmful development to see increased spending at the expense of savings rate. It doesn't surprise me one bit that you are incapable of seeing the risks that I'm attempting to explain to you. I mean lets not forget that you were trying to explain to me about the oil markets and you didn't even know the impacts of spare oil capacity has on prices. Or that you don't even know the basic concepts of the relationship between currencies and commodities. Your problem is that you are a rigid economic ideologue, and when I use the term orthodoxy, it applies in every sense of the word when it comes to you, because its basically become a religion to you, founded on faith. The faith that spending cures all ills. You don't have a pragmatic bone in your body, professor. I on the other hand am not opposed to spending or austerity on either a government or personal household level. I'm not opposed to higher or lower taxes depending on the situation. I'm not for or opposed to devaluing currencies or tight or loose monetary policy. I dont believe all regulations are bad and do believe they have a place in our economy. However you are virtually always for more spending, higher taxes and increased regulation. This makes you a prisoner of your ideology.

Wow! So you think increased household spending, with stagnant incomes, which comes at the expense of personal savings is a positive? It's not

So here is a stat provided by ECLAC United Nations Economic Commission and Latin America and the Caribbean ... Credible enough edit: I tried to drag the chart here but was unable to Here is the link below to see the chart, it's at the bottom http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21573095-after-14-years-oil-fuelled-autocracy-hugo-ch%C3%A1vezs-successors-will-struggle-keep So the big stat that some of the sympathizers were bringing up was the Poverty rate. On the surface it looked pretty good, but when you decide to delve into the numbers there are some obvious reasons to why this happened. The chart in the link shows the poverty rate of Peru, Brazil and all of Latin America. The Poverty rate declined even more so Peru and Brazil and virtually just about the same through out all of America. Relatively speaking, the decline in the poverty rate in Venezuela was nothing out of the norm. It's quite natural to see a country who benefited off the explosion of Oil revenues to see the poverty rate decline. Another interesting stat that I read was that the public sector force more than doubled during his tenure. Considering that he ran large deficits and was completely at the mercy of elevated oil prices, what would happen to that public sector force once prices decide to drop? I think the answer is obvious.

Why try to reason with someone who is unreasonable?

There does seem to be some sort of underlying strength in the economy, today's job reports was pretty positive. Without a doubt rising stocks and home prices are helping out as Gross suggests. We'll see how these additional taxes and cuts will play out... Also, there are questions to the sustainability of the rise in equities.....People see their 401k's and home prices rise, they feel richer and therefore spend more. However, there is evidence that the additional spending coming from the economy comes at the expense of savings. That is not a good sign. So we'll see how things play out.

Who said otherwise? Remember, you responded to this:

Fine, you aren't embarrassed for fabricating stuff and I'm not embarrassed of calling people for what they are. You said "So what?" when confronted with his motives for amending the constitution. Now you are back pedaling. Also no mention of his amending of the constitution to throw out Supreme court justices that he disagrees with and the choosing of his own electoral board. That's not an abuse of power? Sorry, but if you don't think that is, then we really have nothing more to say on this topic. In regards to corruption, please, it's well known that his family is living high on the hog, driving exotic vehicles, wearing so much bling that it would make Jay Z blush.... How did they get that money? They worked for the government, before Chavez came into power he was in the military. It's just common sense, anyone who lived in South America who keeps up with politics knows this to be the case, unless of course you are a sympathizer of Chavez and choose to turn a willful eye.

The professor is one of the few "economists" on this planet, that believes that currency devaluation doesn't lead to higher commodity inflation. It is basic economics 101, you devalue a currency, the price of commodities tend to go up. Facts be damned! Who cares that growth rates are slowing and supply is increasing, yet prices are steadily rising. It's almost unfathomable how someone who purports to understand the economy, doesn't understand this basic principle. Prices are rising for a number of reasons, but the long-term trend is for two main reasons, global growth and monetary policy. Global Growth along with dollar devaluation led us to an explosive rise pre 2008. Ever since then Growth has lagged, yet the price of commodities have either risen or remained elevated. Coincidentally, we've seen the augmentation of currency devaluation policies through out the developed world. If growth was still relatively strong, we would see an explosive rise in commodities, but we don't. So the main engine of commodity price growth is coming from monetary policy. If Growth remained where we are today, and monetary policy were to tighten considerably, then I guarantee you that the price of commodities would drop off sharply.

The people that were in charge of Bolivia and Venezuela were a bunch of corrupt mother!@#$ers. They sucked their countries dry of whatever resources they had, and spread it amongst themselves, which is why people were clamoring for change. But that isn't what this argument is about, what we're talking about is that Chavez himself is a corrupt son of a B word, and has done more harm for his country than good and apparently there are people on this board who believe that his policy prescriptions were both effective and appropriate.

Wow, you are one warped individual... No sane rational person believes that Chavez has been good for the country of Venezuela. At least we all now know that you have extreme views of your economic policies. Good to know you support Chavez

Hold on a second, so a few months ago you saw the economy was gaining strength despite the flat GDP growth? Dude, you're not making any sense. You are going up against a brick wall here, this is the point that I made to both of them, and they were both incapable of comprehending this point. Global growth is much weaker today than it was then, yet commodity prices are considerably higher. But yeah, easy money policies has nothing to do with it. Morons

Oh, so the payroll tax increase affected fourth quarter GDP. Okey dokey

Re negotiating contracts is a good thing, in the terms that they did it under, wasn't. So I guess you are ok with their treatment of Owens-Illinois, Conoco , Exxon etc.? Also, why no mention of personal seizures of farmland and possessions of private owners? Just shows what you are all about And that is a bunch of bull ****. Chile weathered the storm better not because of a decision to set up a sovereign wealth fund, which was originally created well before she got there you twit, it was able to weather the storm because of the diverse investments it has made for decades. And it doesn't surprise me one bit that you prefer the incorrect spelling of Chile.

Hold on, are you comparing "Chili" (Chile) to Venezuela? Sure, their main commodity will have an impact on growth, but the main distinction between the two, and there are many aside from fiscal policies is that they have invested in many other areas to help sustain growth when their main export drops off, whereas Venezuela hasn't. The entire world plummeted in 2008/2009, the fact that they had only had one year that they were barely negative says a lot. http://www.gfmag.com...l#axzz2Msqd5p9y Where as Venezuela endured two years of negative GDP growth http://www.gfmag.com...l#axzz2Msqd5p9y Yep, just like Chile

I wonder how much the increase of oil prices contributed to these numbers? It's a small country, if the price of oil increases close to 500%, it is only natural to see GDP per Capita rise along with a decline in the unemployment rate, and they should be doing much better than what it is that they are doing. According to "official government figures" I can tell you this, the standard of living for the poor in Venezuela or Bolivia is no better today than it was 15 years ago. Can anyone imagine what would happen to Venezuela if the price of oil would drop down to $60 a barrel, under Chavez's policies? It would be armageddon over there

Oh, so "travelling" is where you picked this bit of information from? Got it So you agree with what I said then? That it's primarily because of a transfer of wealth

The hawks are becoming a dying breed.

Oh looky, A youtube video to form Lybob's thoughts. Right on cue

Imagine that, a transfer of wealth from one class of people to another. I've seen it first hand, how did you come to this conclusion? Reading about it?

Wow, your stupidity has no limits. I said that we have higher inflation because of current monetary policy and never made any mention of Obama's policies contributing to it, moron. And uh, the price of precious metals don't support whatever it is you are trying to say. Not to mention that currency exchange rates is a horrible point of reference considering everyone is involved in the same monetary policy. Oh, you think that interest rates tell the whole story? Sorry to burst your bubble youtube boy, but interest rates move up and down for many different complex reasons. So I guess when bond yields were soaring in Spain, Ireland, Portugal it was because of inflation? There is this little dynamic that you were unaware of and that you are incapable of understanding which is this reserve currency status we have. When the rest of the world believes that there aren't too many places to invest, they flock to safety, which drives demand for our debt up and pushes yields lower, despite all our domestic issues. As El Erian and Bill Gross would like to say, We are the cleanest dirty shirt. Now I understand that your little pea brain doesn't quite understand all the complexities that come with the bond markets and currency exchanges, but I mean before you cast a stone, don't you think that you should have at least a little knowledge on the subject before you opine? Wouldn't that make at least a little sense? Why don't you run along and form your next thought from a youtube video. And yet GDP growth is flat. Good call.