TPS

No complaint from me. That was sarcasm.

Roughly the same D personnel last season kept ppg at 18. The windbag has it at a TD higher. Yep, that's all on Whaley....

personnel evaluators, though I think they've built a good roster. Whaley didn't destroy this defense.

The combination of Whaley, monos, and fisher is the best personnel group this team has had in decades. Sure, go ahead and blow it up...

I did the same comparison awhile back, here. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/178856-the-defense-hype-vs-stats/?hl=hype

One warned us about the mitary establishment and the other took them on, in a way. In other news, it's finally that time of the season...when PPP gives me more cheer than TSW...

It's definitely more appealing to me now.

So they were created to punish the rich? It may not be explicitly stated, but that is an outcome of a progressive system. It tends to lessen inequality, and redistribute income from those who save more to those who spend more. Of course, once that "productive" class buys Congress, they put in loopholes that allow them to "pay less than Warren Buffett's secretary"....

See my response to lybob. As for labor shortage, we aren't even close to robotics replacing significant numbers, but when it happens, it will happen fairly quickly... The system redistributes income from those who don't spend to those who do spend. I know, you're going to tell me how higher marginal rates reduces revenues or some nonsense...

A progressive society raises wages consistent with productivity growth. Productivity gains can also be distributed to workers by lowering the average work week while maintaining the same salary, allowing more people to work full time. This is what Germany does. Since the late 1970s, productivity gains have gone to profits, not wages. Keynes wrote "The Economic Possibilities of our Grandchildren" in 1930. Based on capitalism's productivity, he argued output per worker would expand by 3-4 times in two generations, which would allow the average person more leisure time which could be devoted to education, the arts, etc. He underestimated the power of vested interests....

I've had this argument too many times. Financial investment does not = Business investment. Financial investment raises asset prices. Increased Sales raises business investment. One of the reasons you have a progressive tax system is the need to maintain aggregate demand (especially for mass-produced goods). And it's demand for its products which brings forth spending by businesses on equipment, etc.

Yes, it does not mean that there can't be entrepreneurs, innovation, and profit, but it does mean government has an even larger role in ensuring there is sufficient income/demand in the economy to keep the production-consumption cycle moving. Your thinking too much in the here and now. The changes will take place over the next 20-30 years. There will be a realization by JSP's business owners that not having and paying workers = no demand. The decisions will be how best to generate demand and keep the economic cycle churning. "Entitlements" for the security state or for the masses that are no longer needed in the workforce....?

That was good.

I don't know about Heinlein, but I've read Marx and Keynes...

AS the author suggests, there will have to be a basic income paid to those who can't find work in the private sector, otherwise there will be insufficient demand for goods, and a growing populace of the discontent. Government would have to play a larger role in ensuring basic incomes and sufficient demand, significantly more so than it does today. We are already somewhat socialist in that government spending ensures a $3 trillion flow of revenues to businesses directly (via defense spending, etc), and indirectly via income transfers which is spent at Walmart, etc...

In other news, all that Fed money printing has caused oil prices to hit $35 a barrel...

Here's a piece by a tech dude on how robots will replace most work in the near future. It's an issue that has actually been addressed by economists over 100 years ago (JS Mill, Marx, Keynes): what will happen to capitalism after it becomes so capital intensive and productive that there are not enough jobs available for the population yet there more than enough output to more than meet our needs? This is what underlies Marx's analysis for the emergence of socialism/communism--capitalism is so productive that it will lead to a new system. Thoughts from the right field section of the bleachers? http://www.businessinsider.com/ai-expert-jeremy-howard-on-universal-basic-income-2015-12

Yawn..the most expected action in the economy all year. And the markets apparently approve.

This was a playoff team. A healthy harvin, clay, Sammy, TT on O all season would've been fun. Kyle on D would've helped. The key has been the outcome on D. The O has done its part raising ppg from 21 to 24; the D went up from 18 to 24-- that's the underlying issue.

Yep. I don't think RR is going anywhere, so they will need to do a quick transformation of the front 7. They need 2 more DL that mesh with RR's scheme, as Badol essentially suggests. On the bright side, it's looking a like a very good draft for DL....ugh!

Not just for his play, there seems to be a big hole in leadership out there.

TT had a rough day today. It will happen. That missed TD to Sammy, then not running for a first on the next drive probably cost the bills 10 points.

While there is some truth to the petro dollar argument, it's way over-stated here. The plan (put forth by the Neo Cons in a "Project for a New American Century") for regime change was created before Iraq started selling oil in euros. I believe the original countries targeted in that document were Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran (probably several more, but can't remember).

The Bills are toast. KC has an easy schedule and the tie breaker. Pitt has two tough games coming up, and if they don't lose both, I'm afraid the Bills are done. I'm not sure what the tie breaker would be for Pitt and Buff. However, I don't see the Bills winning out either....