TPS

you're probably right. It would be foolish to risk injury going into next season and have him miss the various mini camps. I do like Lewis' ability to manage games in a hostile environment over EJ's at this point in their careers.

Anyone see how he did in tonight's game?

What does top two mean in today's nfl? Most teams have a top three. I've seen a lot of talk about drafting a WR earlier, I hope not. Personally, I think they are fine with who they have. I'd draft one of the stud TEs in R1 instead (amaro or Ebron, et al). I hope they keep chandler too. Imagine the red zone match up with 2 WR (sj and woods) and 2 TEs, chandler and Ebron, and FJ in the backfield? The 2014 draft is loaded with TEs and OTs, I'd like to see them go with those two positions in the first two rounds.

Personally, I think Marrone is going with Lewis because he thinks he has a better chance to win with him than with EJ...

Looking back on the season, tell us what (insert number here) things that were better than you expected and what were worse than you expected?

its easy to miss with the way they attempt to show it.

It's Christmas, Jerry's back to his old grinch self...

The way it's shown, I can see how you miss the #1 team, bills are actually #8.

New rule, can't start a thread until you have 1,000 posts...

totally agree. They've managed to essentially replicate last years offense with a rookie QB, as well as a carousel at the position due to injuries. I think this shows the coaching is actually quite good.

wow! You usually keep a third of your assets in money markets that earn roughly 0%, and still made 52%--I bow down to your genius... it's gdp. The only paper gains counted are produced in mills...

"Many believe..." As I tried to preempt, interest rates rise with faster growth. Nominal gdp increased by 6.2% in Q3, and the average interest on government's debt is 1%. The government's finances will actually improve for the next 10 years, so worry about something that matters, and get some sleep. At some point during that time, We'll need to reduce healthcare costs and defense spending to keep expenditures at 20% (or less) of GDP, and revenues will need to rise another 1-2% and things will be fine for at least another 10 years after that. I think you will find more important issues to worry about before even the first 10 year changes need to be made...

oops! Make that 4.1% for Q3...

if you believe Rogoff & Reinhart, i linked a paper here a few years ago in which they looked at recessions and recoveries in relation to private sector debt build up in the preceding expansions. Excessive debt build up takes longer to unwind and recover from, 4 years on average according to their study. Richard Koo from Nomura securities also argued this was a balance sheet recession, and it's taken years for the household sector to deleverage. The policy that would've been most effective would be to write down household debt faster. But only finance and important corporations get bailouts...

possibly. When I make my (annual) prediction about the economy, I weigh the positives against the negatives. I saw negatives restraining things in the first half, then the underlying positives taking hold in the second. I weight my portfolio accordingly. I try to make above market gains by market timing. Maybe that isn't what you call investing, but I gave up more risky type investing 10 years or so ago. ok, you got me. It was a total pro-Obama post. Long live the king! ah, yes, proprietary... I see...

only if you are 100% equities, which is my point. I'd be curious to know how many went all in this year? And why? of course. It seems that some were trying to infer that my post was somehow supporting O; it wasn't.

I mentioned obamascare in a list of "things" associated with people who argued those things would harm the economy. As GG said, if I wanted to bring O into it, I would've done so in 2010 when he could've done some things to get us out of this mess a little quicker.

the only one bringing Obama into this is you (and GG). care to tell us when the bubble will bust?

I assume you must know a little about investing? The market leads economic activity, usually. Based on my prediction about a stronger second half, which was based on the way I view macroeconomics, I weighted my portfolio 100% equities. It's as simple as that. On the other side, I know a lot of money managers who were no more than 50% into equities this year.

i can try to dig up my analysis for 2010, if you are interested. My analysis this year had very little to do with politics, other than the the impact on the first half from contraction army policies. I'd certainly be interested to know who else went 100% into equities this year and why? I'm sure Tasker is sitting on his gold investments waiting for hyperinflation... speak of the devil, pray tell, what investments generated you lofty performance? I didn't think gold had a good year...

for my failed economic theories... Based on my ignorant views (at least according to my many fans here--Magox, Tasker, 3rd, et al), back in January I predicted the economy was going to finally pick up during the second half of the year (so far, 3.6% in Q3), at least until after the tax increases (Payroll and ACA) and sequester spending cuts had their way in the first half. Based on that prediction, I went 100% equities, mostly small and mid cap funds (2/3), the rest in emerging markets, income-growth, and resources. Yesterday put me over 30% for the year. I'd like to thank the Fed, John Maynard Keynes, and Hyman Minsky. I hope the gold bugs, ObamaScarers, and deficit fear mongers did as well... Cheers to another good year (at least for the first half) in 2014!

Sorry it took so long to get back to this...Your example supports why it's important to focus on "relative numbers" not absolute. If the interest today is $400 bil, that would put it at 2.5% of $16 trillion GDP. Suppose it did hit $1.2 trillion in 20 years or so, a 300% increase. If GDP grows at a faster rate, then the relative interest expense declines. Say GDP goes up by 400% ($64 tril) over that period, the interest expense would fall to less than 2% of GDP. this is why most economists focus on the shares of the budget as a % of GDP. Usually you separate the interest component from the total spending and taxes, the latter known as the primary budget. Regarding the size of government, pick any number you want as a share of GDP, say 20%. Then assume we want to make sure the primary budget is balanced, so we will bring in revenues = 20% of GDP too. As long as nominal GDP grows faster than the nominal interest rate on the outstanding debt, the interest burden will decline as a % of GDP and relative to total spending by the government. I'll use the numbers already given. 20% of $16 trillion GDP gives G=$3.2 trillion. (Just for the sake of making it clear, let's assume the primary def is balanced. The FY 2013 deficit was $660 bil and you say the interest exp is $400 bil, so it's really about $260 bl). The interest expense is $400 bill or 2.5% of GDP. Total spending from this example is $3.2 + $0.4= $3.6 trillion. The interest payment as a % of total G spending is 11.1%. Ok, 20 years later the interest expense is $1.2 trillion (300% increase). Government spending and taxes are both 20% of GDP, which I'm assuming increased by 400%, so it's now $64 trillion. G spending as 20% of GDP = $12.8 trillion + $1.2 tril interest = $14 tril. The interest expense has now declined to 8.6% of government's total spending (and 1.9% of GDP). Are we worse off? Would you not look at corporations in the same way? Since they are growing over time, who cares about their nominal interest payment? What's important is their interest expense ratio. While my example is not precisely realistic, it does express the most important variables to focus on once you balance the primary budget, the growth rate of nominal GDP relative to the nominal interest rate on the government's debt. The keys to stabilizing the government's finances over time are 1) make sure we balance the primary deficit over time; and 2) the growth rate of NGDP is >= the nominal interest rate on debt. There is no doubt that we will have to make sure we can balance the primary budget going forward (over the business cycle, not every year), then as long as the interest rate < the growth rate, the D/Y ratio will fall over time. To preempt an argument, If you want to argue that interest rates will be higher, then you will need a mechanism. If it's inflation, then that's also driving NGDP higher, so they offset.

LoA is tops, but One of my other favorite O'Toole films, Lord Jim.

Wonder if super M fits in that category....?

would you evaluate a business by its interest expense independent of its income? Would a bank? An investor? If you want to fix the discussion to your bias beforehand, that's up to you. Everyone else pays interest from their income.