TPS

Amen. Despite Fitz's play, I'd still vote for Freddie as the O's MVP. They should've tried to run FJ more for sure.

Funny, I was going to post that Gailey quote too--he got humbled this week, which I think he needed.

I think that's what Gailey says in the intro ad on most of the BB.com videos. This team went toe-to-toe with one of the most physical teams in the league. The boys in the "trenches" deserve a lot of credit. I thought Carrington had his "coming out party" today. It will be difficult to keep him out of the line up now. I think it's a matter of 2 playmakers at the LB positions and this team competes with anyone. This was a barometer game for the Bills, and "a storm is a brewing"! I can't wait for the Pats game.

I'm with you--it's the lack of talent with the LBs. The Bills now have 6 solid players for the 3 part of the 3-4. Akin also made a bone headed play that went for long run. Bring in 2 playmakers at the LB position, and this D becomes top 10.

Once again Johnson out (injury still keeping him on sideline) and Carrington in. It looked like he held up ok last week, so good to see him get more experience. This will be his type of game--good n' physical. I hope the D builds on its second half performance last week. A good test for both sides of the ball.

Surprised no one is picking up on the Wrotto part. I won't be surprised to see him there for quite some time.

Should I start Fitz? Stevie? Freddie? Well, maybe not this week against one of the best D's in the league.... On the other hand, I think this week tells us exactly where this team is offensively. I think 20 is a good number.

Buffalo Rumblings reporting that he's been waived off the IR list. Gailey apparently likes Wrotto (and depth on roster)

the humble and the humbled. If you're not in the first group, you'regoing to find yourself in the second." Or something to that effect in his presser this evening on BB.com. A wise man that Gailey.

Let us know how the numbers look this week. Thanks.

Some people need to get a grip--including Sullivan of the B-News, who keeps throwing little darts about Carrington not cracking the lineup. I think he is going to be a solid if not excellent player eventually, but to expect that a 3rd round non-D1 player is going to come in and light it up or take away significant playing time from some pretty good veteran players? sheesh!

I think any current change has to include allowing the top rate to expire; I would keep the "middle class" tax cuts. As for her other investment-related tax increases, I'd prefer to see a financial transactions tax on short term ativity, rather than taxing long-term investment earnings.

Wasn't criticizing you about the Keynes quote, just surprised when someone, who is usually "critical of so-called Keynesian economics," quotes him. To be clear, I am also critical of the bastardized version of keynesian economics that is preached in academia. I follow Minsky's interpretation of Keynes, which describes the economy as one that is never in a stationary equilibrium, rather it's an inherent cyclical process. Keynes also said (from the same chapter, 12), "Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlwind of speculation. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done."

Here's a good piece on the input cost issue--article from Bloomberg on Cotton prices. Also, the PPI came in less than forecast, so that probably makes the fed happy. cotton prices

He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about then... The Fed is focused on demand-side inflation which comes from spending by households, businesses, and govt. As I mentioned, the bernanke doesn't think firms have the pricing power to pass rising input costs along--they don't think supply-side inflation will be a problem. I'm not so sure about this belief--I lean toward your view here. As for low i rates and corp bond issues, it's no different than mortgage refis--corps are taking advantage and locking into historically low rates--who wouldn't? You do realize they are simply repaying one bond with another, yes? It will reduce their interest expense. Agree on the $. they can't say it, but that has to be part of the policy to stimulate. I didn't know you were such a Keynesian? All of this "animal spirits" talk.... And yes, the fed can always reverse its actions to try and restrain inflation. Plus, I don't think the dudley means they will try to pull reserves back by paying higher interest on them, rather it would help maintain the excess they already hold--as I've said a million times, it's close to $1 trillion. Again, all of these actions help restrain demand-side inflation. They are in a fix with commodities. The only way you can prick that bubble is with higher interest rates, but that ain't gonna happen.

Is that a convoluted way to say that you agree with me?

Not quite true. As I mentioned, the Fed also looks at PPI, which does include input costs other than wages. This has been increasing by 5% on an annual basis. Bernanke is on record as saying he didn't think firms had the ability to pass these costs on--That's Bernanke's position. I have not disagreed with you about commodity prices; I have disagreed about the main source of those price increases. As I said in my article, this round of QE2 is adding fuel to that fire. I said it would probably lead to stagflation. I agree with you on all of that, I just disagree with you that the main source of increased commodity prices is demand from China and EMs--I've said it's driven by investors jumping into that market making speculation the driving force. It seems as if you must agree now, since you say that Fed intervention is causing asset bubbles. Inflation can come from demand-side issues or supply-side issues. This is not a demand-side issue (hence it's happening without loan creation), it's a supply-side problem, which is being fueled by Bernanke's irresponsible actions. There is a fairly easy way to prick the bubble if policymakers wanted to, but it won't happen.

nothing in that video that I would disagree with. In fact, I like that part about the Fed buying securities directly from the Treasury. I am wondering also when the fed will start printing money and giving some to me...

ON Moats, in the Bears game I thought he looked more active and was getting close to pressuring Cutler. He is getting better. I don't now if he will be the longer term answer, but he could well be the best pass rusher we have at the moment.

So you believe that an increase in money can cause inflation but an increase in the flow of savings can't affect asset price inflation? Ok, have it your way. As for my other point, I guess you have a problem with facts. I provided you with a link from the Fed with the excess reserve data. It is a fact that banks are sitting on $1 trillion in reserves. If you can refute that, please do so. Just as it is a fact that tax rates have been cut and the share of income to the top is the highest it's ever been. Facts seem to make you uncomfortable, and want to return to other issues...

Do the math dude. Here's a simple example, so I hope AD can follow it... 2009 personal income = $8 tril; income share of top 20% = 50%; average tax rate approximately 25%; savings rate = 25%. So we can estimate the flow of savings from the top 20% as: Income share of the top = 50% x $8 tril = $4 tril; after-tax income = 75% x $4 tril = $3 tril; savings = 25% x $3 tril = $750 billion. Now assume the income share and tax rates were the same as they were in 1980: income share=44% and tax rate =50%. Income share= 44% x $8 tril = $3.52 tril; after-tax income = 50% x $3.52 tril = $1.76 tril; savings = 25% x $1.76 tril=$440 billion. That's an increase in the savings flow of $31 billion for the year! That is not a trivial amount. Is it any wonder Hedge Funds took off? While we can debate the underlying politics of the changes, these are essentially the correct data. It's pretty straight-forward: cutting taxes at the top combined with rising inequality has increased the amount of money chasing assets.

How else are you going to understand it?

Somewhat related to what I am currently writing about, which is a topic we debated previously. You say cheap money policies, I'd say look at changes over the past 30 years that have lead to too much money chasing too few assets. Several major related changes have taken place which have led to the taming of goods inflation, but that has been replaced by rampant asset inflation. Increasing globalization has helped seriously weaken labor's ability to bargain. Globalization has tamed wage inflation and increased the inequality of income. Goods inflation has been conquered through cheap imports and the destruction of the unionized industrial base (good or bad depending on your politics). The other side of this coin is that most of the benefits from these changes have accrued to the top 5% of the population. From 1980 to 2009, the share of income going to the top 20% has increased from 44.1% to 50.3%, but most has gone to the top 5%, as their share increased from 16.5% to 21.7%. In current $s that means an extra $200 billion per year going to the top 5%. Combine this with the trend to lower tax rates at the top (while increasing taxes for everyone else via the Social Security tax increase), and you get a massive flow of savings looking for financial returns. It is no coincidence that asset inflations--bubbles--have become more frequent and more intense. This is a consequence of the belief that increased savings leads to productive investment; it does not. Business expands because of the expectation of higher sales, not because there is an increased pool of savings--in fact, that tends to dampen demand for products. There is too much money chasing too few assets. Tax cuts for the top combined with a massive shift in the distribution of income IS a major cause of the bubble economy.

The Front Office sucks! We can't even get a 5th rounder into the starting line up. Sheesh!

Interestingly Bernanke said last week that he is not worried about commodity prices because he doesn't think firms have the pricing power to pass the costs along... Guess we'll see if B is right or wrong--if those price increases hold. You raise an issue that I tried to tell---crap! getting old--mr.end-of-the-world(what was his handle?), when he said something like "the fed will run out of jack." In a fiat currency world, the fed is never out of jack. It buys assets by issuing its own liability! If only I had that power or a printing press! i could buy up the world...assuming people accept my dollars.... But we do have to accept the fed's dollars because that's what government requires us to use when we pay taxes. The Fed balance sheet is not relevant in terms of the fed as "an on-going concern." The fed can hold assets forever if it wants, and they never have to mark-2-market. The only expenses of the fed are some buildings and people. They earn income via interest on their treasury holdings, AND they give any excess interest back to the Treasury. They will never run out of liabilities to issue in order to buy assets. It is possible for them to run out of assets to sell back into markets when they begin contractionary policy. But they don't care if they take losses because they are not a profit-making business. They work for the public good, or more accurately the banking good....