TPS

Jets still have a very good run D, so it will depend on the O-line giving TT enough protection. Being at home, I think the Bills can score 20. I'll guess the Jets will score 16. The McDermott era begins with a W.

That is the Austrian perspective which is similar to saying "of course government can print money." Government can't create wealth, but it can stimulate wealth creation. The radical implication of MMT goes against their belief. Yes, if government spending = its taxes, there's no net wealth creation, it's simply a transfer of resources (as I said). HOwever, as long as there are unemployed resources, spending in excess of taxes (deficits) generate surpluses (wealth) for the private sector (ignoring the foreign sector for simplicity). The traditional belief is that government has to borrow first, then spend, which supports the belief that it's taking resources from the private sector. MMT shows that government spending first creates the income (and bank reserves) necessary to then "fund" the bonds it is required to sell to "finance" its deficit. It's a radical notion that irks those who hate government intervention, unless you're a defense contractor....

With so few WRs, the TEs will have to if the Bills are going to have any success. I think they are also key to Dennison's O. Thomas could be interesting as he gets more experience over the season. He's kind of a hybrid TE/WR. Almost any D against the Jets O is a good choice. Enjoy the opener!

yes, they will be a tough test for the Bills' O, since it's our strength (running game) against their strength (run D). The teams that will beat the Jets handily, are the ones with good passing attacks. I think Clay will be key in this game.

always got a kick out of the laughing Spaniard (Dias?) at the end of Fool. There are a lot of underrated songs on Thrill. Brooklyn felt like a hauntingly lovely ballad. Always wanted to ride along with the midnight cruiser, and kings had some good guitar work. That said, it's hard to put another one of their albums below it...

i addressed some of the problems with those critiques, and I suggested that you read some of the comments to two of those articles in order to read others' critiques. If you think there is a valid criticism in those, point them out and I'd be happy to address it. That said, I think there are valid criticisms of some positions taken by some MMTers, but the overall explanation for government financing is correct. Personally, I see it as just a resurrection of Abba Lerner's theory of "functional finance."

the first year is about culture change, which will be really important with all the rookies coming in next year.

Krugman is a trade theorist who doesn't understand the basics of money and banking. See the comments to krugman's article by Scott Fulwiler (an mmter) and jkh.

It certainly represents the pinnacle of their sound, but for lyrics and edginess, I'll take Royal Scam.

Roster Turnover and McDermott's Process. I think this explains the motivation for much of what we're seeing this year, especially in the past week: McDermott wants a roster that epitomizes his focus on effort and team. This will set the tone for next year when they bring on a slew of rookies. That doesn't mean they're tanking, rather he wants the team to have a particular mindset, which he believes is conducive to winning.

Another strawman-filled piece. Two examples. They claim MMTers say deficits don't matter, then quote one of the guys mentioned (Roche) who says, they do. They claim MMTers ignore the real economy. If you read my stuff, I said that is precisely what matters, real resources. I'm sure you can find many pieces that criticize mmt, especially from Austrians like these guys...

While MMT economists tend to be liberal, don't equate the argument with liberal politicos (I realize you are talking about someone here). Most "liberal politicians" don't know much about MMT. Even though Sanders brought on a very prominent MMTer to his presidential campaign, I'm told he was still very skeptical.

you can read the comment section of that piece to learn why it's not a debunking and error-filled. Interesting, through the first part he mentions most critics say it's technically correct, but then HE will show why it's not...I'll briefly mention some of the problems with the article. 1. He says government can't borrow if it doesn't have willing lenders. He obviously doesn't know about the function of primary dealers, which Are required to make the market for treasuries. 2. He seems to hold some rigid view of money when it serves him. Money is created when government spends, but that money is an electronic credit to a demand deposit and simultaneously an increase in bank reserves. It may take different forms once created--invested in short term securities, for example. Related to this, he doesn't understand the basic accounting identity. Annual government deficits = private sector surplus + foreign sector surplus. 3. He says mm that ignores the Fed. I explained the relationship between the treasury and the Fed, so he obviously is creating a straw man there. 4. MMT suggests a flexible exchange rate. If a country has a fixed or targeted exchange rate, then the central bank must counter the actions of the treasury when money is created. He creates a straw an here, as well as when he discusses historical defaults. The problem and fear of MMT is it's implications for policy. Government's ability to spend puts private sector resources to work, which creates wealth. Low unemployment gives workers more bargaining power over wages, and business doesn't like that...

all I saw was he had a recent surgery and his dr told him to stay put until recovered. Complications from it?

i was impressed by how the team looked in the final preseason game, they resembled a well-coached team. At the very least, I don't expect to yell, "what a couple of !@#$ing idiots..."

a noticeable void in Rollingstone's tribute article, 10 essential songs of Steely Dan.

Wonder if they're hoping to sneak JWill on to the PS?

This is why I've shied away from discussing "modern monetary theory" (MMT) here, as even reasonable people have a difficult time with it. Before I try to explain a bit more, a little history. Money is a creature of the State--the Sovereign, which has always controlled its minting/printing, by law. More often than not, the State abused its money printing monopoly, especially when it needed to fund wars. Over the past century, most advanced countries moved to a model of separating their Treasury and Central Bank in order to prevent the State from over-spending, and causing inflation. We've enacted laws to ensure the state is restrained: the Fed can't buy new treasury securities issues (which would directly fund government), rather they must buy in secondary markets; the Treasury is required to issue bonds equivalent to its annual deficit; and the most extreme, a debt ceiling. You tend to conflate money and income. Money is the thing the State declares as the unit of account and what is accepted as payment. Money is simply the thing we use to buy other things--it represents claims on real things. Your income provides you with a flow of money that allows you to make claims on current resources (goods and services). When you save any part of your income, you are putting your "money" into a form that provides a return and access to future resource claims--financial (paper) wealth represents future claims on real things. The more you save today, the less you consume of today's resources, increasing your claims on future resources. For any short period of time, there is a maximum amount of output (goods and services) the economy can produce, and only labor and capital equipment can produce real things. Money is simply the thing we use for payment of real things--goods and services, labor and capital. Since those real things are finite in the short run, if government did not tax the private sector, all its spending ($3 trillion) would inject more money--claims on real things--into the economy greater than what it can produce in the short run. Taxes transfer private sector claims to the government (your $10k), and they are necessary to ensure that government spending of $3 trillion doesn't put undue demand on the current supply of output, which would cause inflation. By collecting taxes of $2.5 trillion, government reduces the private sector's claims, so that it is only adding net new claims on resources equal to its deficit of $0.5 trillion. By law, the government has to "sell" bonds equivalent to its deficit, and doing so also ensures that the private sector reduces its current claims by the same amount--a voluntary reduction through saving/investing in bonds. Now the tricky part. Suppose the government wants another half trillion (more claims on current resources) to fund its Afghanistan war without increasing taxes. Suppose it starts by spending a billion dollars on Blackwater mercenaries. Blackwater's demand deposit goes up by $1 bil, and, at the Federal Reserve, there is a transfer of $1 bil from the Treasury's account to the reserve account of Blackwater's bank, let's say BofA. Since we don't allow the Treasury to print money any more, as it spends, it has to replenish its bank account at the Fed, so, at its weekly auction, it increases bond sales by a billion dollars. As one of the Fed's 21 primary dealers, BofA is required to "make the market" (ensure that all bonds are bought) for US treasuries, and it has the necessary "money" to "finance" the new bond issue because of the government expenditure. The end result is that the government increased its deficit spending by a billion which appears to be financed by selling a bond, borrowing. The way the system actually works is government spending in excess of taxes creates the "money" used to purchase bonds from its auction and the 21 largest banks in the world are required to buy the Treasury's bonds, if other private investors or foreign governments fail to. Even if the billion dollars somehow left the banking system, the Fed and primary dealers have a symbiotic relationship: the PDs must make the auction--buy up all treasuries issued, and, if they lack the liquidity--the available funds, then the Fed stands ready to lend it to them. There is no financing constraint on Government other than those self-imposed. If this happened under current circumstances (very low unemployment), it would cause inflationary pressures. Government is injecting new spending, and therefore new money, into the system equivalent to the increase in its deficit of half a trillion which increases current demand, putting more strain on current resources. Wars typically help push the economy to full employment and increases inflation. You can call this abstract academic horseshit, but this is how the system works. The only constraints on achieving full employment are self-imposed. Usually, as we approach full employment, the Fed starts raising interest rates to reduce private sector spending which reduces inflationary pressures. I hope you understand that this doesn't mean government can spend without limit; it's spending is limited by the availability of real resources and the competing claims on those by the private sector. Gotta run.

And when Reilly is signed, I hope people stop crying about him not making the 53

Fagen's statement: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/read-donald-fagens-tribute-to-steely-dans-walter-becker-w500968

My first concert ever, Steely Dan. RIP. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/walter-becker-steely-dan-co-founder-dead-at-67-w500956

at any point in time, there are finite resources, and Taxes reduce private sector claims on resources. So, for example, if government is currently spending $3 trillion on goods and services and collecting $2.5 trillion in taxes, the net claim on real resources is only $0.5 trillion--the size of its deficit. If you eliminated the taxes, and government maintained its $3 trillion in spending, that would inject another $2.5 trillion of income into the economy. With unemployment close to 4%, the result would be inflation. Taxes aren't necessary to fund the government, they are necessary to ensure government spending isn't inflationary. And The more unemployment there is, government can run bigger deficits without causing inflation. Just like it did from 2008 to 2012.

they have until the 10th week to accomplish this.

MMT won't go over well with the conservative bent on this board...

exactly.