TPS

McD pull d a Belichick. Nice.

Good stuff. Watched that first clay play a few times. I think Taylor slid left too many times. If he stays put after the first slide, then he most likely has a better view and unloads it quicker.

I got a kick out of it too. I don't think the reporters understood his point about the WRs not catching many passes, "they will get the ball when they are open." He was saying that Tyrod goes through his progressions and throws the ball to the open man. If the D is trying to take away the WRs, then that leaves the TE and RB with good match-ups. Someone was looking for a reason to criticize Taylor...

After years of futility, the Bills have a lot to prove, so it doesn't bother me. "Show me the baby!" as Buddy said. On the other side of the coin, if the Bills lose Sunday, I won't be surprised if people say, "well, it was an away game against a good opponent." We'll have a much better idea about this team at the quarter pole...

that is a good piece. Surprising he and McD had so little interaction prior to becoming OC. Really like what I've seen so far.

The panther game will certainly give a better indication of the team's potential, away game against a team that is solid in all three phases of the game. I'm looking forward to seeing if the Dennison-Tyrod O can put together 3-4 long drives like the jets game. If so, and they win the TO battle, they could come away with another W.

That Denison is quite the droll character. Enjoyed both interviews of the coordinators.

I feel pretty confident that this coaching staff won't make stupid mistakes like the previous one, and this team will be prepared to play every week--they won't beat themselves. It remains to be seen how far the talent can take them.

the other side of the coin, Carolina knows the best way to attack McD's D.

Happy birthday Scott!

Currently only one team has gained more yards than the Bills in week one, KC. And the Jets' D is above average.

The yardage indicated a more lopsided game. Without the int and missed fg, it would've shown up on the scoreboard. Good start. Better test for the D next week to see what we have.

they should've put a higher tender on hogan, but if backup RBs are a dime a dozen, why put the higher price tag that no one would've taken? As Whaley said, they got R5 pick for a guy they took off the street...

i wonder how the genius is feeling now about trading chandler jones for a guard?

i don't now, he looked (footwork) pretty awkward on the right side, so it may take awhile before it becomes a little more natural for him. He'd certainly improve the run game, but then they'd have to give him help in pass pro, which limits your options a bit. Hope he's working on it in his sleep...

that was a case of not wanting to pay big bucks for a cover corner that's not a necessity in McD's system. Gilmore has a reputation as a hard worker who studies a lot of film.

Yes, thanks for informing us that Dareus is a problem...never would've guessed...

Kind of funny, Sal C just tweeted a link to his latest article, saying "here's another free article on WGR..."

It looks like their #1 weakness is lack of an effective pass rush. The Run D was average too. As for KC, I think the Bills will look like that in another year or two.

It all comes down to my last point, politics. If one acknowledges that we are constrained by resources, not money, then we have to answer questions about where to direct those resources by government spending more money: bombs or healthcare? We could print the money to fund future obligations of SS and Medicare, but we wouldn't have enough resources to create the output to satisfy the financial claims (money) created (inflation would be the result). For me, the real problem with MMT is the political hurdle to accept that government does not need to borrow to spend. Once you get to that point, then the issues of how to put those resources to work, to what extent should government be involved, etc. come into play. And, absolutely, what you spend on has different impacts on long run growth. And remember, government isn't printing paper when it spends; the Fed is electronically crediting the demand deposit of those who receive the spending. The spending is inflationary only if we can't produce more goods (real resources) to meet the increased spending.

Magox, If you left "MMT" out of your post, the argument doesn't change at all. In other words, the end of the $ as reserve currency will happen regardless of whether we accept MMT or not. When will china, Japan, et al decide to no longer hold US treasuries? A few other things. As I've said, taxes are also necessary to transfer purchasing power from the private sector to government. While MMT focuses on money, any good MMTer will emphasize real resources as the ultimate constraint on production and growth. We are getting closer to the point where additional claims by the government will be inflationary if not accompanied by a reduction of private sector claims (taxes). Our current system of government finance operates as MMT claims, however we don't actively use it as Abba Lerner suggested through his theory of functional finance published in 1943, before any current MMTers were born. He stated we could use fiscal policy to achieve full employment (or reduce inflation) by increased deficit spending. The treasury should sell bonds to the extent they satisfy investor appetites, then print money to "fund" the difference. If inflation is the worry, then reduce deficits through higher taxes and lower spending. Note, the important idea is that deficits should be counter-cyclical, declining (and even in surplus) when at full employment, and rising when the economy slows. With the right set of policies, the deficit and debt would remain at sustainable levels over time. There are of course problems. How do you actively manage the federal budget? You certainly don't want to be constantly toying with tax rates. It can manage demand-side inflation only. Relatedly, if we pursued a policy of full employment, then it would strengthen labor's bargaining position over time, and we certainly can't have workers getting uppity and demanding higher pay... At the heart of MMT, and questions of fiscal policy in general, is political control of the economy To the benefit of a particular class.

as I said, the ability of government to impact an economy via deficits depends on the availability of real resources, labor and physical capital. The US operates at around 80% of its physical capacity, so its resource constraint is usually availability of labor. Zimbabwe may have excess labor, but no excess physical capital. It would be silly to compare similar policy impacts on those two countries.No one said the CB creates wealth; deficits inject additional demand into the economy. Anything that raises current demand and output stimulates current economic growth. The deficit also provides the "money" to the private sector necessary to purchase the bonds that "finance" the deficits.

it might be wise to wait and see how this season unfolds before you start worrying about those things...

Since it will be tough to run against the Jets front, if Tyrod shows the Bills can win through the air when they need to, I will be encouraged.

I think we've been through all economic topics before and before that.... The accounting identity from national income accounts: (S-I)=(G-T) + NX Each ( ) measures the sector's annual surplus or deficit: any sector that spends more than its income is borrowing from the other sectors. Simplify and assume NX=0. A government deficit of $100 (G>T) means S>I by $100, a private sector (business + households) surplus. Government's deficit creates $100 in financial wealth (government bonds) for the private sector. This annual flow has nothing to do with productivity, but it does increase the demand for goods and services, increasing sales. The identity doesn't claim causality. Government actions can influence private sector balances, and private sector actions can influence the government's budget. Two examples: the housing bubble increased borrowing for mortgages and HELOCs, putting the private sector into deficit, but that stimulated a lot of economic activity, driving down the unemployment rate and generating a lot of tax revenue, reducing government's deficit; after the crisis, the tax revenue effect went in reverse, and along with the Obama stimulus, trillion dollar deficits helped turn private sector deficits into huge surpluses.