TPS

If you can find an actual quote of "what Keynes said" about "limiting profits through taxation" I'll buy you dinner (via gift certificate) at a restaurant of your choice. Specifically, show me the source where Keynes said (in his model) that you need to limit profits through taxation. And where exactly did you find this explanation of the "Keynesian model?"

It's both, but demand is more important than lowering interest rates in a downturn. According to taterhill's post, the S&P is lower now than when Bush took office. Or did the tax cuts end in 2007? My point. Supply-side policies, or trickle-down, focuses most of the tax breaks on the upper income levels. What do the wealthier classes do with it? They purchase more financial assets or real estate. Increased values of financial assets doesn't mean increased real business investment. It's increases in the capital stock that are important, not inflated financial asset values or real estate. We're seeing the "real" impact from this period as financial manipulations based on the real estate bubble, not any real productive change in the American economy. A real supply-side tax cut would focus on tax cuts for businesses directly, not indirectly through "cutting taxes on the rich" and hoping more financial capital formation leads to more physical capital formation.

Of course he's a homer, he used to write for the Buffalo News.

Do they all happen to come from Chicago U or GMU or the Liberty Fund? Christ! Here's a simple one: look at the magnitude of recessions (the duration and severity) since government involvement was ratcheted up after WWII vs prior to WWII--on average, which were worse, before or after? Large government has stabilized demand so that servere downturns are prevented. That's an economic fact, it's not a value judgment. The market system is not some ideal that if left alone produces the best of all possible worlds Candide. The nature of the beast is based on the profit motive and risk taking, and with a financial structure based on leverage and faith, you get periodic crises regardless of government's role. Imagine what happens to those crises as "capital" gets more concentrated, in both the real and financial sectors. And what exactly is government now? Governments operate to protect the people that line their pockets. So, in a sense, I agree with arguments to reduce the size and scope of government, because you are really talking about reducing the ability to protect "vested interests." Aside: I have to laugh every time I think about the discussion of "capital formation" and supply side tax cuts. It appears the capital created was paper capital only...but it did create a lot of finance jobs.

An interesting hypothesis on the futures market manipulations, and not the first time I've heard this... futures manipulation

So you didn't jump out a window...?

This is a good piece on the CDS risks and AIG. Probably need the NYT subscription. AIG

The democrats are in the pockets of financial sector lobbyists as well.

Historically speculation and "mal-investment" have occured with or without government subsidies. Ending government loan guarantees will not end financial crises. Regulation is necessary to temper the inherent riskiness of finance which is built on leverage. Regulation will never end crises either, but it can help reduce their severity--as opposed to the black hole we now face...

The most important facet of the game for me was the ability of the Bills to move the ball--almost at will--against an excellent defense ON THE ROAD. There were only two series where they did not move the ball. Once deep in their own end, after a penalty and sack, they made sure not to turn it over and ran the ball on 2nd and 3rd. The second was with 3 minutes left in the half at their 20-yard line, and instead of going into a "2-minute" mode, they played conservative--which I didn't like in that situation. It almost came back to bite them, but ended with McGee's int. This gives me confidence that they can win any game now, even against a Belichek defense. So, no, I'm not going to curb my enthusiasm....

A few things to add: - This was a good road win against a good defense--they put up the necessary 20 points to get a road win. In fact, for the most part, it seemed like they moved the ball at will. There were two series where they played it conservative, the first time they were backed in their own territory, and that was the right thing to do. The second with just over two minutes to play in the first half, and I thought they should've gone to a two-minute drill, but it looked like they were playing not to lose. Jax got the ball back and got their first score. - I am really looking forward to see how this offense plays against the Pats' D. - I really liked the use of F. Jackson today, a couple of big plays. - Nice baby step for Hardy too. That indeed was a perfect throw where only Hardy had a chance for it. This is going to open things up for Evans in the red zone too. - Everyone in our group watching the game believed TE would take us down and score on that last drive. I was never that confident with JP. There's a little irony in the fact that JP getting knocked out of the Pats game last year lead to the emergence of Trent Edwards. - Love the depth we have at CB now. Youboty is pushing for time, but Greer has done nothing to lose his spot. In fact, he gets picked on the most and continues to make plays. - The defense had some lapses, but came up big when they needed to stop Jax in the 4th. Luckily, Jax was put into a situation where they needed to pass the ball which exposed their weakness in the middle of the line. - The Bills can easily be 5 and 0 going into the bye week, but 4 and 1 wouldn't be so bad.... One of my concerns: I think the weakest part of the Bills' defense is the LB unit, and certainly the thinnest. Of course, weak is a relative term. This team is fun to watch. In watching the games so far this year, I find the biggest difference is that I rarely say "how could they be so stupid?" Especially wrt to the offensive play calling.

As I read this thread, the very first thing I thought of was "preemptive strike against countries (accused of) developing wmds." Maybe you right wing neoconservatives weren't paying attention to what he was doing because you were so in love...err...it was still the honeymoon period....

As a GSE, the government has guaranteed the debt, so they have to step in and bail out. The argument made in the aritcle is that it was the foreign holders of the debt that forced the administration's hand in this bailout because they (foreigners) weren't going to continue to purchase new issues.

You apparently didn't read the article. The point was that the bailout was targeted toward them in order to prevent them from bailing on US assets in general triggering a collapse of the dollar. There's a difference between "involve them" and "aimed at them." You're slipping...

Why is he to blame?

Ahh...the irony...

The first article talks about the increased borrowings by banks from the fed's discount window, something that used to be frowned upon. The second says the Freddie/Fannie bail outs were aimed at foreign holders of the debt, specifically the official sources, not the private. Gee, the administration acquiesced to foreign governments for fear they'd dump the dollar? Where have I heard that before.... Bank borrowings Foreign bond holders

Christ! Stick to working the web site. Now I'm gonna bet money on the Jags...

Might want to look at that again, since I never argued that. As for taxes, I still believe the best solution for the current problem is a temporary cut (10%?) in social security taxes. And yes, everyone got a cut, but the majority of the cuts were skewed toward the top. When demand is the problem, I believe it's more effective to skew the cuts toward the group that spends all of their income.

If you watch what happened to their gunners on that punt, you could see that Roscoe was going to have a good return. Same thing a few punts earlier, our guys totally stopped their gunners, and he almost took that one back. I fully expect all punters will be trying to kick higher and shorter as a result.

Yeah, we need to cut those taxes at the top so more so we can continue the success that Bush started....errr.... Oh, yeah, it was Greenspan's fault... Note: I believe tax cuts stimulate the economy, but it's more effective to cut taxes on those who spend, not those who save.

Couple more things about D and Stroud: - Kyle Williams had 1.5 sacks. Larry who? - Officially the D gave up 252 yards, but 100 came in the 4th quarter after the 34 - 10 lead.

Maybe you don't remember Kevin Gilbride? I think the Bills passed on every first and second down...

Couple of things: - First good Turk/bad Turk: loved the draw call on 3rd and long for the TD by Lynch; don't understand why you empty the backfield on 3rd and 1 though? - I feel a lot better about the O-line depth now. Someone will go down before the season ends, and today showed they can be solid when that happens. - Glad the team did not give up on Youboty, he is coming into his own. - Finally, will Moorman create a QB controversy?

"They"?