TPS

Yep, you're not going to want to miss that pig roasted on my spit...

Again, it's a long process, and I tried to envision what comes next; not something you can readily see "at the moment." No disagreements about the institutional needs to make the yuan a viable store of value (and safe haven currency), but that's not the only function of a currency. The $ also serves as a medium of exchange and unit of account for globally traded commodities, and it is used a vehicle currency for interventions. While the SDR could take over those functions, you are correct that it probably could not serve as a store of value, especially in a crisis when there is a flight to safety. Btw, China is slowly liberalizing its financial markets. I hope we're around in 15 years so you can buy me a beer when the yuan over takes the $... back.

GG was referring to a paper I wrote in 2005 on the end of the dollar as reserve currency. I said the euro wasn't really an option, and that the likely candidate was China and the yuan, since historically the reserve currency was established by the dominant economic/military power of the time (pound from mid part of 19th c. to 1944; and the dollar from then until ...?). However, I also said it's likely that an international currency (like the SDR) could take its place. Regardless, "historical" changes like these don't happen with a flip of the switch. While I say the pound's reign ended in 1944 (because the $ was given reserve status from the Bretton Woods agreement), it actually took another 15-20 years for the $ to really become established and for the pound to lose its role. Let's see how things look in another 10-15 years.

It takes awhile for empires (and their currencies) to die...

Again, a government that prints its own currency can't technically "go under." As some have said, the central bank can always purchase more debt which could cause a collapse of the dollar and increased inflation. "Could." There is no global substitute for the dollar as reserve currency--yet, so its safe haven status helps maintain its value in an uncertain world; and inflation is being restrained by excess (global) resources. Of course, there's also the possibility of raising taxes and cutting spending...

I think he's correct in the point he's trying to get across. If the private banking system held most of the loans, then the system could face another solvency crisis. Defaulting on loans owed to a government that issues its own currency, won't cause a banking crisis.

Roberts has been blasting both sides for quite some time now, and he is right. We've been choosing the lesser of two freaks for too long now.

I missed the first quarter, so this is qualified: there is only one thing I take from this game, the Skins D-line dominated our O-line at every level.

My thoughts about this from a post a few months back: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/143822-moats-as-the-slb/

I think Bradham was drafted with this in mind, as he has size, speed and decent coverage skills.

As GG said, deficits act as countercyclical stimulus: they grow during recessions and help prevent a worse downturn; they shrink during expansions as more people are working and paying taxes. Deficits themselves can become a problem if the ratio of debt/deficits to gdp is rising. The big issue currently is to reverse that rising trend. Government deficit spending has created a tremendous amount of wealth, especially during war time. Businesses selling to the government make huge profits, and the bonds issued by government to finance the deficits is a safe liquid asset held (mainly) by the private sector.

From the same article, "Gone are headaches, quitters, contrarians and usurpers." The following names immediately came to mind: Lynch, Schobel, Evans and Whitner." Feel free to suggest better replacements. Good article TG.

Voting for the republicrat party is a wasted vote. I'm getting tired of our only voting choice: the lesser of two evils.

I wasn't referring to independence, though it would take a revolution to create conditions for the market system to work again. Answer: impossible to go back.

1776.

Especially nice in the midst of the summer doldrums when the options consist of someone's self-promotion or voting on the number of shutouts ere a preseason pig has been skinned.... Be gone boys of summer, it's time for some football!

Reminds me of a Pearl Jam song, "Spin! Spin! Spin the black circle..." So someone quotes data from a press release off of a republican's website and everyone accepts it without question. I know what the response would've been if it was the other way around. Portman simply cherry picked data to spin his points. Regarding the first point. No one denies that the "great recession" has been the single greateast contributor to increased deficits and debt since 2001. That is, of the $11.7 trillion swing the CBO notes, 2/3 of that was caused by the recession--the years 2008-2011. A more accurate depiction of the impact of the Bush tax cuts would be to look at the changes from 2001 to 2007. Over this period of more normal economic growth the swing from surplus to deficit was about $4.2 trillion. I'm not sure precisely what Portman's boys used to get their 16% figure, so my rough estimate of their method shows that the tax cuts were responsible for about 30% of the roughly $4.2 trillion swing from surplus to deficit over the 2001-2007 period. So of course once you throw in the impact of the GR from 2008, it makes the impact appear lower...duh! On the second point, we've certainly seen this argued many a time here. Yes, the rich (if you want to say the top 20%=rich) pay more federal INCOME taxes because they earned almost 51% of the pre-tax income in 2009. Of course their share of federal INCOME taxes increased (to 94%) because more people unemployed in the lower 80% means lower taxes paid by that group. Even the top 20% share of taxes fell because everyone's income declined. According to the report, the average Federal INCOME tax rate of 7.2% was the lowest rate ever over the entire period observed, 1979-2009--in fact, it fell 2% from 2007. Meanwhile, payroll taxes as a share of income increased over the same period, and, as the report stated, in 2009, again for the first time ever, federal payroll taxes generated more revenue than federal income taxes. When you include ALL federal taxes, from 2008 to 2009, the share of taxes paid by the bottom 80% actually increased from 30.8% to 32.1%, which means the tax burden of the top 20% declined by 1.3%. Final point, the income measure used in the second report include government transfer payments such as healthcare, foodstamps, etc. Only market income is taxed, not transfers. Here's one impact: for the poorest 20% in 2009, the average market income was $7600, but transfers added $22,500 to their "pre-tax income" for an average of just over $30,000. Guess what that does to their average tax rate... What this also does is lower the share of pre-tax income at the top. If one only counted market income--the only kind that is taxable, then the top 20% had 56.8% of total income in 2009 vs the reported 50.8%. Gosh, why did the top 20% pay more INCOME taxes in 2009? That's where all of the market income is! Spin! Spin!

That would be my vote too. Despite the fact they only had 5 to start last year, I think they go with 6 given all of the injuries they experienced.

Read the TJ Graham article on BB.com to find out what it takes to be a WR in this offense, that should answer your question. I think it explains why they don't take a lot of so-called gifted WRs.

That's what I'd say about the people of Buffalo. I was born in Southern California, but have now lived in Buffalo longer than anyhwere else. Buffalo and its people are as genuine as the housing stock. While I miss the weather in SoCal, I don't miss it. When I travel, and I have travelled a lot, I am so thankful to come back to this place, which has such a sense of place. I always root for the underdog, and Buffalo is the ultimate underdog city. Despite its outside reputation, it is a true American city, as the Bills are truly America's team. A take on an old song, dedicated to the city and people of Buffalo, "I wasn't born there perhaps I'll die there. There's no place left to go, but Buffalo..."

Yes, it's the old merlin's. Shatzel (from Coles) opened it. If you like Belgians (I'm an IPA man myself), he gets the best in the world on tap. The food is great too. In that last week I'm will taking the fam camping at Keuka Lake 25 and 26, so any day before or after.

I suppose I should've given a caveat to that offer, no racists.

Great minds think alike...

Crap! i was trying to find something to disagree with here.... Not sure what your point is about the multiplier and 3% growth? There has always and will be a multiplier from injections of new spending, whether that comes from financed spending of businesses or financed spending of government. Ahhh...nothing like Elmwood in the summer...next time you're in town I'd be happy to buy you a beer at Blue Monk (that goes for anyone else at PPP or TBD). Cheers.

A few points. - As you said in one of your first posts in this thread, "unless the government (fed) prints new money," which it does every year. The Fed monetizes government debt every year consistent with expanding the money supply to promote growth. The fact that the Fed monetizes part of the Federal government's debt every year means the public sector helps create new net wealth for the private sector. It' a free lunch, because, after all, money is simply a claim on resources, and the government has a monopoly on its creation. How much has the Fed monetized over the past two years? And how many trillions of $s are corps hoarding? That's no coincidence. - So, really, that last part of your sentence should read, the private sector can't create new net worth without the government running a deficit. - So the Keynesian multiplier is dead, eh? Which means there is no multiplier from private spending either? There is a multiplier; it's simply gotten smaller as the propensity to import increases. The more we spend on imports, the smaller any impact from spending.