TPS

Wow! I completely agree. We may have different explanations for how that will happen, but I see the same. Although as a caveat, I am bullish on stocks again because of the impact the cheap $ is having on exports, and that is beginning to filter, so there will be one positive.

Dude, You need therapy. Hopefully you are already institutionalized...

I posted it for everyone else...since everything is common knowledge for you...

Don't tape the games, so I won't be able to check, but that is a very good sign indeed. NOw if Carrington develops we've got some some good material up front. LBs next draft!

Here's a good little tid bit that I'm sure will surprise most of you (hit sarcasm button now). My ex-brother-in-law is a golf pro in Hawaii at one of the best military courses on Oahu. When Clinton was in office and visitin the islands he stopped by to play and my bro-in-law had to be his caddy, really more like a fore caddy giving him tips. Anyway, o put it mildly, he said Clinton was not the most honest golfer he ever knew.... Imagine that.

Dwan Edwards deserves some credit too, as he has played a couple of very strong games and is another one with a good motor. Troup is improving as well. There are some bright spots, but the two big holes are the pass rush OLB and the Kelsey's spot. Moats was in on pass rushing situations at ROLB. If you look at Troup's stats, he is about equal to McCoy (? the #2 DT pick), but no one comes close to Suh'

Moats was in on most passing situations as the pass rushing RDE.

If you are wrong, you should make yourself post nothing but positive things next week. It will be good for your soul.

i think Howard is better suited for guard, which is why I'm placing my bet on Wrotto. I did a little reading up on this guy, interesting prospect. Former DT who converted to RT midway through college. In fact, he has more experience too. I am starting to like the depth of the OL. A bunch of big nasty guys in Wrotto, Urbik and Howard (not sure about Wang yet). As Gailey says, "it's a tough game for tough people."

I think most keynesians have been arguing that QE is not working because of a liquidity trap, so nothing new there. Gee, you correctly predicted that within 2 years the price of oil would bounce back from the financial crisis low? I think I criticized some of your predictions based on that same math--you boldly said inflation would be higher in several years, and I said, where else can prices go when inflation was currently 0? I always argued about the overall rate of inflation, and that we wouldn't see hyperinflation that some beleived QE would create. I've always argued, like the article pointed out, that the FED can always rein things back in. I recall responding to one of your $ posts some time ago that I predicted a long term decline in the dollar back in about 2005. My difference with you here is that I recognize that commodity prices rebounded from post-crisis lows (like oil prices) as EMs have provided some stability in global growth; however, the other side of my argument is that "financialization" of commodity markets has allowed speculative investment to overwhelm the underlying fundamentals. I would say we really aren't too different here--as the article pointed out, the fear of QE2 is what investors will do with the funds? That is the key issue with QE: the FED is buying assets in exchange for liabilities; so, what will investors do with those funds? You argue that they are buying gold, oil, commodities as an inflation hedge. I agree. Now that Investors are able to plow more funds into commodity-type investments, they are driving prices higher. They are speculating on increased inflation, and that speculation creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why are commodity prices so volatile now? Cotton hit the downside max allowed the other day--was that due to fundamentals? I don't think so. That article points out our fundamental difference: you use the term printing money and say it will cause inflation; I've tried to tell you that one has to explain the process of how that money translates into inflation. I tend to focus on the CPI, but if your definition includes asset price inflation, and you include commodities as an asset in the portfolio of weatlh holders (hedge funds, IBs, etc), then I agree. But then you would be agreeing that it is investors who are influencing those prices.... I disagree on the initial reasoning for the FED swapping good for bad assets: I think it was to give the banks a stable source of income by paying interest on the $1 trillion in bank reserves the FED created by swapping for those bad assets. It was done to save the banking system. You say velocity, I say loans aren't being created--not much difference. Does anyone know if there is a PPP archives? I was trying to go back and look at some of the old posts?? Export-led growth strategies have been going on for years, and the post-crisis sluggish recovery along with the falling $ has increased the competition among the countries that use it. So you picked up the terms and concepts and posted them here before anyone else; so what? Despite all of my criticism, I appreciate your analyses and predictions. What you need to realize is that you are just as dogmatic in your beliefs as the rest of "us."

Linked is an article on QE2 from the FT. As usual, they do a good job explaining what's expected, possible impacts, dangers, etc. In particular, the section on "Could the exercise end in disaster?" discusses some of the issues we've been debating here. Regardless of which side one takes, as the article points out, there are differences even within the FED on its impact and dangers. I would hope that some of us here would finally understand that there is no one-world view on economics, and given an uncertain future, even the insiders aren't sure what the outcome will be. FT.com

Get a grip dude. No one is wrong...yet. And nice cherry picking. What's the GSCI at? What's oil doing? Sure commodities have risen from post-crisis lows, but Every time I read an article on some move in a commodity there is mention of "investors" or speculation or some supply issue. I'm not saying there is no influence from demand, I just don't think it is the main driver currently. I understand the $-commodity link, but who drives that? Industrial demand? Think a little deeper. Yes, Milton Friedman was wrong. Why do you think central bankers no longer have money supply targets? I certainly respect Bill Gross, but has he made any predictions as to what the rate of inflation will be next year? 2 years? I'd be interested if you know that.

OMG! There's going to be an increase in inflation? The negative TIP implies it will be about 2% over the next 5 years. OMG! Run for the hills! As I have said all along, the FED will probably try to maintain a target of 2-3%. As I've also said, a bazillion times!, if the FED directly funds the treasury, it could be inflationary. If they are buying assets from investors then the impact will depend on what those portfolio holders decide to do with their printed money. Milton mixed up money with effective demand. He used the old MV=PY equation, and was more often wrong in his predictions than he was right. I have 3 articles I saved from 1983, 84, and 85 from the WSJ and Business Week, and in each one he made a prediction about next year's inflation rate based on growth of the "money supply." He was wrong all 3 times. You need to work on expanding your old fashioned views about money.

It is a fact that Reagan lowered taxes for the top brackets and then raised the payroll tax. I guess you are having difficulty stepping out of your narrow, old fashioned view on this one... We are talking about $4.5 trillion here. That is not some simple "co-mingling of funds."

Maybe you are showing your bias. The point made is that all of the revenue raised is used for all govt. expenditures. The fact that they call one a payroll tax and the other an income tax really doesn't matter--they both reduce my current income and raise government's current revenues. The only thing that it allows us to say is that the so-called surplus of $4.5 trillion, the accumulated excess over the SS payments over time, is the amount government has used from this particular source on all of the other things it buys. You are simply looking at things wrong. I'm sure you know government spends a lot on a lot of different things. While there is a commitment to spend on certain things, there is no obligation. The government has made commitments on SS and Medicare, but they have no obligation. They can change benefits and taxes anytime they want (it may be politically difficult, but they can, and they will), just as they can change commitments to any other form of spending. Which is why I've always argued for cutting the payroll tax instead of income taxes.

And Gailey canned him. This is a guy they know, and know what he's capable of, otherwise he wouldn't be here. It's a prediction, so we'll see...

You must not understand what he is saying or misinterpreting it. It's very simple, each year the government uses all of the revenues it takes in to fund all of its expenditures.

Maybe I missed it, but I expected to see "you're an idiot." For anyone who has been here for awhile, you probably know what influenced last night's post--sorry. lybob, I agree with all of your points, especially #3. Conservative talking heads have convinced people that the poor don't pay taxes--BS! DC, I would still argue that one should define a surplus/deficit relative to all revenues and expenditures in a given period--it's the income statement of government. One has to look at whether the government has positive (surplue) or negative (deficit) net income during the period. By your definition, you would be mixing in balance sheet issues, which is probably something the government should do to give the public more information in the debate--determine the net present value of future liabiities on SS and medicare. As I recall a former budget guy has tried to inform people using this concept. What should anyone do about this farce? Make sure your representatives know that you know it's a scheme, especially as we are now moving to the debate about how to "fix" the deficits, and they will try to use SS as a way to convince us that we need to raise taxes. As lybob said, it's all about the general fund. We all know that spending has to go down, but they will go after revenue increases, and my prediction is "they" want the middle class to foot most of the bill. Look for a strong push for an increase in payroll taxes and a VAT.

Wow! If that was the case, that people realize their payroll taxes aren't really saved, then they are dumber than I ever gave them credit for.

This must be too difficult for most of you to understand...

While a lot of people think that Cordero Howard is the answer, there is a new G-Tech prospect to keep an eye on: what hath Gailey "Wrotto"?

It seems more and more clear that what the Bills will need with one of their first 2 picks is a playmaker at LB, not the pass-rush side, but Kelsey's position--someone who can cover the TE. Also, I think one of the more interesting developments over the course of the rest of the season will be to see if Moats or Coleman can do what the late Aaron Maybin couldn't, put heat on the QB?

DC raised a serious issue with respect to government financing of the social security fund when he asked, “why does gross debt increase when government’s total revenues (including SS taxes) exceed its expenditures (including SS payments)?” This gets at the nature of how government has hoodwinked the American public on social security. The greatest sleight of hand in recent history occurred in the 1980s under Reagan/Greenspan. With one hand Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, and with the other (Greenspan Commission) he raised payroll taxes in order to help “finance” future expenditures. The straight dope is that government uses all current revenues it receives to fund all current expenditures, and if there is a deficit (surplus ) across all of its accounts then it will cause government to sell (pay off) securities (finance its real deficit), and thus increase the privately held debt measure. The Gross debt measure incorporates government’s fictitious “funding“ of the SS account. That is, the excess funds collected on the SS account over the past 25 years are borrowed by the government (and the government spends it like any current revenue), and in return the SS “trust” fund gets credited with a security. Government “borrowed” the SS tax revenues from the trust fund and used them to fund its current expenditures. The so-called SS “surplus” is currently over $4 trillion; that is, the SS fund has a bunch of government IOUs with a notional value of $4-plus trillion. So what? The SS account is now (or soon will be) paying out more than it takes in, so how will SS (the government) make the excess payments today? It will take some of its IOUs (treasuries) it was credited with and sell them on the open market, which now become part of the privately held debt. Now assume the government stole or spent the SS revenues over the past 25 years (which it did), and there are NO IOUs on the SS account--nothing, nada, zip. How will it fund today's increasing SS payments? It will sell a new treasury on the open market today—IT’S THE SAME THING! It doesn’t matter whether that treasury security was created/credited 20 years ago or it’s created today, the government has to raise funds today. On the other hand, government could once again tell us that SS will go broke 20 years from now, so we need to raise SS taxes or cut benefits today in order to “fund ” those future liabilities, thus increasing its current receipts and cutting current expenditures. Once again the American people will be suckered into this…

No one doubts that. What you failed to understand the last time I wrote about this subject was that the MAJOR factor that created the surplus was the FED's belief that it could allow growth to continue and unemployment to fall below 6%, the believed "natural rate of unemployment." There is always some source of growth, but the determining factor that slows the economy down is the FED raising short rates (inverting the yield curve when it really wants to choke inflation and growth). The fact that the FED allowed the party to conintue, and unemployment fell to 4%, is the reason for the surplus. This should sit well with conservative who don't want to give Clinton credit--the FED gets the credit.

Because that site uses "gross public debt" which counts the social security surplus as additional "debt." Clinton ran a budget surplus in 1999 and 2000 as Connor mentioned, defined as "on-budget." The social security surplus, which is counted as increased gross debt, offset the on-budget surplus. I think the correct way to think about it is that overall government revenues were greater than overall government expenditures in fact from 1998 to 2001. Here's the paradox: while outstanding gross public debt increased (the government sold bonds to itself), outstanding private debt held by the public decreased (the excess of all revenues over expenditures were used to purchase privately held debt), and this happened from about 1998 to 2001. Simple, right? CBO historical #s here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/AppendixF.shtml