TPS

A couple of points to add about judging "football men": I remember Wade Phillips' first draft; we didn't have a first, and he took Sam Cowart with the 2nd round pick. That told me he was about creating a tough, run and stop the run team. Fast forward to Jauron's first pick, while most of us were salivating when Ngata was available, he picks Whitner, which told me all I needed to know about his philosophy...ugh. Ngata goes on to become a Pro Bowl DT with Baltimore. While most wanted to see an OT at #1, Spiller was too good to pass up relative to who was left at OT (and DT). The next two picks sent the right message (in my mind). An interesting note as a way to judge Nix in a few years, much like judging Jauron, will we look back and wish we had the guy that Baltimore took (Troup vs Cody)? my 2 cents

Remember all of the whining about the Byrd pick? We really didn't need another safety at the time, but we got one hell of a player and upgrade. Take a player who might turn out to be an all-pro, not necessarily an adequate/good guy who fills a need.

First, yes I am truly an idiot, and someone still needs to make a breathalyzer for computers... M, I agree with your statement that inflation devalues the $, but your example does not happen in the real world. If "money" were gold, as it was a century or so ago, then you'd be closer to correct; but money is not gold. Most of it is created by the banking system when loans are made. And if it is created when loans are made, then it is destroyed when loans are repaid. You also seem to be confusing "money" in circulation with bank reserves. The $1 trillion swap the FEd made with the financial system is mainly sitting as excess reserves, which the FED now pays interest on. Greenspan and I are saying the same thing: as the economy recovers down the line, those reserves will have to be "unwound." That is the Fed's stated plan. You may be correct, that the fed may not have the political will to restrain inflation below its 2-3% target, but it will not let inflation go any higher than 4-5%; that won't be a bad thing, as it will reduce the cost of outstanding debt held by businesses and consumers. While I also agree that inflation is realized in commodity prices, I disagree with the inclusion of gold. Gold is not a commodity used in production--unless you include weddings; it is a speculative asset. If your definition of inflation includes assets, then we're a bit closer in agreement. Right now commodities have rebounded mainly from speculation on a rebounding economy; there will be a correction very soon, including gold. The biggest problem I see in the US or global economy has been too much money chasing financial investment opportunities, which leads to asset-price speculation: tech bubble, housing bubble, and commodity bubble. If anything needs to be fixed by re-regulation it is to reduce the influence speculators have on commodity prices (I don't care about gold, because I can't eat it or fuel my car with it). If you want to speculate on oil, ag products, minerals, then buy stock in the companies that produce them. Last point for you, it is very possible that we will experience a long period of low growth and somewhat higher prices (not hyperinflation). In my view it will be because of the lack of productive investment within the US. Where will jobs come from? The strongest private sector area is medical--my generation is aging. Finance is shrinking, and should shrink; there will not be a construction bubble again for quite some time; maybe a government directed "green revolution" as some think, but that is a longer term solution. The US is at the end of its superpower reign because we no longer have the economic muscle to support the military one. So we are in somewhat agreement about the possibility of stagflation but for slightly different reasons. We'll see. Concluding remarks: I've been around these parts since TBD started some 14-15 years ago (?). It's been a good and mostly fun outlet, but it's time to move on. Sometimes I take it a bit too seriously; when, in essence, it's simply an internet posting board where people should be able to say (almost) anything they want. I have posted less and less, in part because I've gotten busier, but in part because I don't find it as entertaining--that's more about me, not about anyone here. There have been some really colorful characters at PPP and TSW--funny and intelligent people. I can't really tell now, but this place was mostly populated by conservatives in the early years, and I've had a lot of arguments and debates with a lot of people over a long period of time--SDS, Gavin, Lamb, Darrin, GG, and many others. To my recollection, no one has ever been wrong here! Seriously, the people and discussions here force you to really think and know your positions--that has been the strength of this place. Thanks for the ride and Go Bills! Time to find my own bunker... TPS

The Fed's target inflation has always been 2-3%, so higher than that is "pretty damn High"? 4%? Please explain the mechanism of how not reducing the "crap" on the Fed's balance sheet leads to inflation. The Fed can hold that crap until it disintegrates. Then what? Unfortunately most of the debate around here has turned into "you're an idiot." So there is very little real discussion and debate any more. Much name calling--Thanks to the moderators who act that way. Yes, I am guilty, but it stems from those who moderate. They (he) could've tried to keep things civil, but choose not to.

When I say "unwind" their position, I am talking about the level of bank reserves--the monetary base, high powered money. Most people seem to think that a banking system with close to a trillion in excess reserves will cause inflation; I don't, for the very same reasons you mention. When I say high unemployed resources, what do you think that means? How do you know I don't take those things into account? I have focused on the near term, and have said there are no inflationary pressures--and I've been saying that all year. No inflationary pressures does not preclude a global perspective. I have not made a guess about 3-5 years, other than saying I think you are wrong about hyperinflation. Just my opinion against yours. Only time will tell. Btw, it's not much of a stretch to make a prediction that we will see elevated inflation in the next 3-5 years. When you currently have deflation or zero inflation, the only way you could be wrong is if "Time to Choose" is right and all hell breaks loose. As I recall, your defintion of inflation was something related to the money supply, which is where I disagree the most with you. Well, let's see, are you saying that all that money the fed created will cause hyperinflation or not?

Thanks for (almost) starting civil this time. My point is that it is in his best "interest" that inflation remains low if he has moved into longer term fixed maturities. If he guessed wrong, yes, he will reallocate, but if there is a surprise in inflation (or rates move up for other reasons) before he moves out, then he will be selling (reallocating) at lower prices--he will take a loss on the current movement. That was my point. As I recall, you started out by talking about how the FED was going to cause hyperinflation from all the liquidity it was creating, then added in future posts that you believed it would happen a few years down the road. My position all along has been: the liquidity that the FED has pushed into the financial system will not cause inflation in a period of high unemployed resources. Since most "money" is created through credit expansion--it's not gold and it's not pieces of green paper, the FED can "unwind" its position when the economy is on more solid footing.

What, yOu don't like puns? Ok mr genius. So what you are saying is gross was wrong about inflation in the short term, and is now lengthening the duration of his portfolio. Since you and gross is so smart, now that he has moved into medium term maturities, what will happen to his portfolio if interest rates rise? The answer explains the point I was making. Chef, it was a little joke about grammar...

Nothing. Why?

I'm not so sure linking to a poll that indicates the public doesn't approve of his handling of the deficit says much. Pimco has the most to lose from allowing the economy to reflate a little faster than normal. He's protecting his interest (as I think Chef was implying). I also disagree that PIMCO are.

Thank God! Just went through the thread and found I didn't post Monday after 3 martinis....whew! While I am here, I will toot my horn. While I am not totally convinced things will not go to hell in a hand basket, I did tell "Time" that he was wrong about the Fed being "out of jack." That the Fed could never be out of jack with a fiat currency. On the other side of the coin, those of you who believe that all of the "money" that the Fed has created over the past year or so will cause hyperinflation are clueless too. :-)

I wasn't. It says a lot about you though.

Funny, I mentioned to a friend tonight, "imagine if the Pats lost that game, would their season implode?" I was thinking the same thing. No, they won't go down like Titanic, and Belichek has always collected extra picks. It will be a long process, like the decline of the dollar... btw, I grew up a Rams fan, and moved to Bflo the first year the Bills went to the Super Bowl. It was easy to adapt...

I went into this simply hoping for the Bills to be competitive--and were they ever! Sure, it was an extremely disappointing finish, but realistically very few people expected us to even be in the game. This team will only get better over this season, and the bounces will begin to go their way--the playoffs are a very real possibility.

I thought the play calling was excellent! Screens and draws, what a concept... And I am in the Jackson as #1 camp, but they make a great 1-2 punch.

I think 4-4 in the first half of the season would be a good outcome. They will definitely be a better team in the second half, and I can see them finish it 6-2.

Agree with your assessment. It will take the first half of the season for them to find their way. Hopefully Edwards will be around for the second half...

I think the Bills made a conscsious decision to change the direction of the team, which is evident with their draft--they realized their O-line needed to be more mobile and tougher. The next epiphany will be that the cover2 can't get you to the playoffs unless you have Pro Bowl caliber players at a couple of key positions.

They start with Roscoe Parrish running the "wildcat."

On the bright side, from the looks of things, Special TEams ought to be excellent again, and could possibly win a game or two.

Dude, simple joke about our long-standing disagreement over supply-side. Not disagreeing with your point--of course it's a truism that as incomes rise in a progressive system, so do revenues; and the reverse is also true. However, my point was that higher average income will also add to the greater swing in revenues--there are more wealthy people in California than Alabama. Btw, the egg was golden, not the goose.

So you are saying high income tax rates generate higher revenues. So if you cut income tax rates that will generate lower revenues? To add to the story, the (blue) states with higher income tax rates also tend to have higher income per capita, so ASSUMING states are hit equally by the downturn, blue states experience greater falls in revenues at all income levels (of course, those with higher incomes will pay more). I believe the wealthier states also tend to have higher sales taxes, which adds a triple whammy. I don't think one can really assume that states were hit equally though. Not all states experienced the housing bubble. California's economy got hit much harder than (say) Alabama's.

I posted on this article yesterday. I have always thought the Bills brass under appreciated the use of screens and draws. Maybe this explains why they didn't run them often enough. Even if they are unsuccessful, those plays put DEs on the "defensive." I hope the Turk takes advantage...

I knew someone would comeback with this... Here's something from a former regulator: William Black A snippet:

Yeah, it's consumers' fault because they forced the banks to give them loans to buy those houses... Lenders would never lie; lending institutions would never fudge income numbers; Moody's and S&P would never provide AAA ratings falsely; banks would self-regulate; and on... But let's make it simple and blame the consumers...

Interesting point made by Brown (off the front page). I'm a big believer in using the draws and screens to keep DEs honest, and always wondered why the Bills didn't utilize them very often. Brown provides a reason--interior of OL was not athletic enough. We'll see if it actually happens.