TPS

Good point. If that direct investment happens to occur in Mexico, there isn't much of an impact in the US. Regarding your other argument, the rich spend about 53 cents out of each additional dollar earned, while the poor spend 95 cents.

I couldn't agree more, especially the payroll tax since it's a tax on hiring workers.

While the defense did a very good job yesterday, don't put them on a pedestal just yet. If you rightly throw out the Jax game, KC has scored only 2 offensive TDs in their last 3 away games. In fact, their defense has scored more TDs. They are not a good offensive team.

That's what Tasker is trying to do as well. He'll create a condition to meet his argument, though I'm waiting for the argument. Tasker, can we simply start playing if I say, "yes, resources are finite"?

EJ has proven nothing which means he hasn't proven he is NOT a franchise QB. I think what we do know is that he is at best a good manager of the game and won't create as many TOs as we've seen with Lewis and Tuel. As most posters have argued, with EJ this team is probably 5-4. Think about what that suggests. A really good football team can become a playoff contender with a QB who can manage the game without a lot of TOs. Obviously, an elite QB turns this team into a top-flight contender, but you could say that about a lot of teams. I agree with the OP, this is a very good team, that is well-coached, and heading in the right direction.

I thought this game showed how good this coaching staff is. The only reason the Bills lost was due to a raw, non-drafted rookie at QB. Any QB with a little experience sees the breakdown in coverage and hits Stevie for the TD. Also, I think the reason they aired it out with Tuel was they were safer passes for him. He was terrible over the middle. The other safe passes were sideline to the TE.

Back to the original point. It depends on the time horizon, which is why I asked in the first post. In the long run, there doesn't appear to be a limit; growth has ensued for several hundred years. Maybe in the limit, but that assumption is meaningless for the point you want to make. Now, in the shorter run, we're constrained by the capital stock, but the only time the US has operated at capacity, since it became a developed economy, was during WW2. So, do you have a point that you're going to try and make, or are you going to keep dancing? I assume you are going to argue that government takes resources away from the private sector, but that can only happen when all resources are fully employed in the short run--again, only during war has the US experienced fully employed resources.

Turnovers matter.

interestingly here's a Cato inst editorial that captures the point I'm trying to make, to an extent. I think we are constrained by technology over the medium term, and production is highly elastic over this period. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/natural-resources-arent-finite

there is the cosmic answer: yes, when the sun runs out of energy. but for all practical purposes, no.

like every other government in the world that has a sovereign fiat currency, by maintaining relatively low inflation, otherwise people seek alternatives. Though the government requires that we pay taxes in its liability, so ultimately we're forced to use it. As for finite resources, in what time frame? If resources are finite, then how do economies continuously expand? There may be finite oil out there, but we'll never reach that point because prices will rise to the point where renewable energy resources take its place--renewable. Once all land is used up for farming, what's to stop from going vertical? Are you familiar with a Plantagon? Right now only 59% of the working age population in the US works, that's a lot of excess labor. We currently use only 78% of our capital capacity. So, what exactly does it mean to say resources are finite? Some dumb tautology about the planet?

It's definitely an interesting way of the player insuring himself against injury. But that's why I'd stay away, despite the actuarial numbers, it's the (un)luck of the draw if you take the option and he does get injured.

No, not that kind; the financial kind. Betting on his future earnings. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-01/football-player-derivatives-are-the-best-derivatives.html R

If you check out that last link, you'll see that expenditures as a % of GDP are back near their historical norm; it's the revenues that are still below norm. I'be happy to see the deficit fixed by bringing the expenditure % down to the revenue %, as long as it comes out of the spending that supports the "security state" they've created. It's not really. He's arguing to restore cap gains taxes equivalent to income taxes and eliminate the carried interest benefit.

Btw, here's a nice little piece on current trends in the deficit, and it's from an anti-keynesian too. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1794872-federal-budget-outlook-continues-to-improve?source=email_macro_view&ifp=0

Show me the data, because that's total BS. We agree. I said spending and deficits create a lot of profits. Deficit spending creates additional profits (and jobs). Though I'd be willing to bet that if all of that defense money went back to the private sector, fewer US jobs would be created (net). I agree. It wasn't really a giveaway in the first place. The top 1% (esp hedge fund managers) had to "invest" in enough congresspeople to get the tax cuts passed. The investment up front has paid off handsomely though.Does the government not provide you with benefits in some form? What did OW HOlmes say? "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." I'd like to level the playing field again with taxes, as Gross states, let capital income be charged the same rate as labor income.

Cool. Does that put me in DC territory? Are the liberals supposed to be polite here? Talk about an ass... Only during the time of the payroll tax cut; it is back in surplus now that the rate is back as of Jan 1.Do you not want to pay for the 2/3 of the on-budget expense from defense? Which, btw, generates an awful lot of private sector profits (as does all government spending).

Not completely true. The tax burden at the top, and that's what this is about, has declined significantly in the name of promoting jobs and growth. Those tax cuts that Gross talks about don't raise real capital expenditures, they raise the take-home income of the top. As for spending and deficits, off-budget spending on SS and the Meds are still in surplus, so the current deficit comes from on-budget sources. What's our biggest source of spending? Wars and the security state. Yes, we need to cut spending; but we also need to stop the giveaways to the top 1% in the name of voodoo economics--that's really what Gross is saying. Nanker: I don't defend Obama, and his words have nothing to do with mine. 3rd: I knew you couldn't get it.

its funny to see people who aren't in his tax bracket be criticized by those who aren't. And to the other posters, I suppose you think closing the carried interest tax break and raising cap gains taxes as Gross suggested won't raise revenues? Is that what the heritage foundation says? Get it straight from the horses mouth (short video): http://www.bloomberg...dPerSIHNvw.html He makes the same argument I've made for years, lower taxes related to financial investments does not translate to more investment in fixed capital.

oh, I thought that was China.Please, he's doing it for his fund? Really? if additional revenue won't make a dent in our deficit, does that mean we need less revenue to make a dent in it?

He wants higher taxes on the 1%. Imagine...

That was about as good as the new Windows...

This will be a low scoring game regardless of who QBs for the Bills. KC on offense: In their 2 away games that matter, KC scored one offensive TD per game. The key for the Bills will of course be to stop the run, and Lawson starting and staying healthy is a must. He and Mario are needed to set the edge. The bills also have to avoid penalties that help extend drives for KC. If Lawson is healthy, I think the Bills' D can hold KC to no offensive TDs. Bills on O: Having Spiller in will be as important as having Lewis in to manage the game. The bills will have to pound the ball and avoid TOs. Commit to the run and hope for two possible game changing plays: spiller breaks one; and/or they connect on a play-action bomb. ST: the game could well-likely be determined here, but I'm not sure which team gets the lucky break. Outcome: since KC's offense is not great, the Bills have a chance pull off the upset. They need a clean game with few penalties and win the TO battle--that's a lot to hope for. However, I have a good feeling about this game as the one that turns their season around. 16-15 Bills.

Bree's averaged over 360 net passing yards in his first 3 home games, and he had 309 against Buf.

I found it amazing that some were criticizing Gilmore for his not so great play as a one-armed man. A healthy Gilmore and Byrd will allow Pettine to incorporate more of his play book. I really think this team is poised to turn the ship around, and it starts this Sunday! Marrone is feeling it too, if you saw his Monday Presser.