Magox

Here is what I said: Here is what you said: And yes, the goal is to prevent unemployment from worsening. So there is little room for interpretation, I didn't say or imply "spending" was bad, what I spoke to was the effectiveness of the spending. It is a demonstrable case in study that the more debt you pile on, the more it stunts future growth. Pretty soon we will hit a tipping point with the interest that we have to pay on our debt. That is why it is important to spend wisely and not have this destructive attitude towards our debt that Krugman and his faith based followers of the church of spending have. While I agree that in most down turns, Spending has a place in an economic recovery, it is not the only solution that we have to get us out of downturns. Not all downturns are created equally, in some cases there are no structural issues and a little jump start spending could be all that is needed. In other downturns such as this one, spending isn't all that is needed. I've gone over more than a few times what other things we could be doing, and they include structural reforms. My thoughts are based on hard data and I have no ideology that imprisons or limits what I see. I sometimes support added regulations, I sometimes may support additional taxation, just depends on the conditions on the ground. You on the other hand are a prisoner of your ideology, you are incapable of seeing anything outside your bubble that doesn't fit your ideology. You admittedly believe in virtually just about any kind of spending in a down economy, and you also believe in higher taxation and regulations in just about any condition. It's the same old same old with you. Whatever is part of anything that can be construed as social liberal economic orthodoxy, you endorse it.

I know that you endorse all spending, doesn't matter the effectiveness, just as long as you spend it. As I said before, you are a one trick pony, who knows no other policy prescriptions for growth other than spending.

Fo sho

Just remember everyone, in a down economy, virtually just about all spending is good, doesn't matter how effective or where we spend it, the important thing to remember is that we spend.

Of course it makes a lot of sense to build it, it's a no-brainer. Especially now that the elections are over and the big O already got his money from the ultra 1%er enviro's

I know what you're getting at, neither Dareus or Kyle are your pro typical nose tackles, so that is a concern, however there are teams that have excelled with smaller NT's and it will be incumbent of Pettite to put these guys in a position to consistently play to their strengths.

Just admit it already, you're anti Semitic

It's a private entity. Why nationalize or have a stake in it? The difference between AIG and the banks is huge. For starters those entities were about to go bankrupt without the assistance of the US, and two those private corporations were viewed by the government as essential to allowing the economy to expand. Right or wrong, those were the views by the government and some private analysts. Neither of those two apply to Lockheed. You're making a specious argument, which is " well, without the government they wouldn't exist, therefore the government should have a stake in it" Just because we have a huge appetite for their goods does not give our government the right to demand a stake in it. We don't owe them anything, who cares that most of their sales are to our government? That's real demand, they aren't producing it just to get a handout. If you think there is a lot of wasteful spending there then point your finger to the politicians that allow themselves to get bought off by lobbyists and influenced by their local constituencies that are looking more so at their local economies than the overall waste and debt to the country. Again, all your solutions come from the left-wing. More regulations, higher taxes, spend spend spend and now nationalization. Geez

Virtually impossible to quantify, if i had to give my best rough guesstimate, I'd say through the combination of the lowering of US interest rate cycle beginning shortly after 9/11 and QE, at a very minimum 35% of the price is attributed to loose monetary policy.

Seems like a solid investment to me. Am I missing something? Are they doing something unethical?

No, but lybob did, and did I say that you claimed that I did? Ok now this is getting silly.

Tell me where I have predicted the demise of the US dollar to occur in the near to mid-term. Or show me where I said we will be seeing hyper inflation any time soon . The problem is that you see things through a certain lens, you see me make my argument and somehow you believe I'm sounding the alarms to hyper inflation, where in fact what I'm saying is that loose monetary policy has had an appreciable effect on prices. Without QE we'd see a much lower price for oil and for that matter equities as well. The impact is felt on two fronts, as I alluded to earlier, one is the immediate re pricing in the markets, adjusting to the currency, and two is the peripheral tangible effects of the increased demand of the monetary policy. Also another point I'd like to make is that I find it ironic that you keep referencing CPI or at least making indirect references to it as a true gauge of inflation. Reason being is that CPI is a tool that is perpetuated by Wall Street to justify their investing habits. You of all people I would think wouldn't reference this metric to gauge real inflation felt on Main Street. You ask the average middle to lower income class person what their main economic concerns and fears are and they will overwhelmingly say job security and rising gas/food prices. So I just find it odd that you continue to bring this up. If you would just take the time to see the words for what they are and not view it through your preconceived lenses, I think you'd see that what I'm saying makes a lot of sense.

again, your reading comprehension skills fail you. Lybob made mention of a comment that I made and suggested that I claimed it would lead to hyperinflation and i responded. You and I years ago spoke about this, in which I said that it would lead to commodity inflation, but most likely not see prices go through the roof because there was a lot of slack in the economy, and that we wouldn't see heightened inflation until the global economy began to grow at a faster clip, at least avg global growth trend rate. I've spoken about this ad nauseam. It's not a singular issue, commodity prices are largely driven by growth, supply and monetary policy. If global monetary policy tightened, lets just say the unwinding of the bond purchases (QE) the effect would be twofold. One, there would be an immediate global repricing of virtually all commodities, currencies, bonds and equities, through the markets of course. Then there would be the tangible impact it would have on global growth, obviously world growth would slow, demand for just about everything would drop and that depressed demand would filter into the equity and commodity markets. Now of course this is under the assumption that monetary policy makers abruptly change course, in which of course they won't. Whenever they do unwind these positions I imagine they will do it in the most gradual way possible. But that isn't what this discussion is about, we are talking about the raw impact of monetary policy and commodities. Also your analysis on the relationship vs the dollar and oil is flawed. Your model is based on the traditional relationship it had, dynamics change professor, so when they change in order to keep up, analysis must change along with it. The correlation no longer exists in the way it use to because of a couple fundamental factors. One, just about the entire developed world is devaluing their currency, so the price of oil has risen more so over the past couple years in their currency because of their loose monetary polices, and two, even though we are still the top dog with reserve currency status, oil and other commodities are being purchased with other currencies. Currency swaps mainly between china and its trading partners have steadily been increasing over the past five years or so, lessening the reliance on the US dollar

So basically you just made **** up to back up your ideology? How convenient.

Hyperinflation? Link? We get it, you are also a denier that the devaluation of currencies have contributed to higher prices. Any "economist" worth their salt would agree with that. You and professor dingbat on the other hand believe that currency devaluation hasn't had an appreciable affect on prices. You guys are wrong and its as simple as that. There is no middle ground with you ideologues, it's either all or nothing. Also, the spare capacity reference is to excess OIL spare capacity. But thanks for playin

Umm, you make it appear as if its 7.5 million paid over four years. That's not how it works. It's just guaranteed for 7.5 million. Big difference

I'm not gonna give Nix that much credit. I think I will stick with the idea that he stuck his foot in his mouth

bull **** on all accounts. You weren't aware of excess spare capacity and its affects on pricing, you don't understand the relationship of currencies and commodities and you subscribe to a failed rigid economic orthodoxy Also what I "pooh poo'hd" on wasn't your projection, I never made mention of it, what I criticized was your statement that the economy a few months ago was "gaining strength". There is a difference. Which was why I referenced 4th quarter GDP. Not only do you not understand the basic principles of excess spare capacity, the relationships of currencies with commodities and basic math, but now we can add basic reading and comprehension to the list.

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