TPS

Reagan is only #17?!? Damn liberal media....

Pelosi=Halliburton

I don't think it's being a smart aleck; you're basing it on experience. As I said, I "believe" he will be different--doesn't make it so.

No politician is perfect, but I believe he will change things from "business as usual"--which is using government to enrich yourself and your cronies. He's the one democrat I voted for. spitzer Someone must've found this just for me...

Not to rain on your parade, but someone was way ahead of the curve here... Dr. K

Came across this interesting article, while not about peak oil, it's certainly related to the situation the US has created for itself by our oil-centric energy policies and dependence on foreign sources. While it doesn't state this, it highlights the fact that our dependence on foriegn oil is a more serious issue than peak oil. changing oil markets "Russia has found the Achilles' heel of the US colossus. In concert with its oil-producing partners and the rising powerhouse economies of the East, Russia is altering the foundations of the current US-led liberal global oil-market order, insidiously working to undermine its US-centric nature and slanting it toward serving first and foremost the energy-security needs and the geopolitical aspirations of the rising East. "

Aha! The underwriting on the wall is clear now--they are behind the futures activity....

I wonder what the futures market activity is like????

You are correct. I'd rather see them go for another DT (or LB) with R1 pick (gotta stop the run), then RT (OL in general) with R2 and R3.

He outright flattened a Houston DL on one of JP's scrambles.

Absolutely. Every Econ book I ever read is on the shelf. My favorite shelf is in chronological order, beginning with the "Wealth of Nations." It's unfortunate that Milton and Maynard never met--that would've been quite a debate. By the way, I own two books by Milton. The second is "Milton Friedman's Monetary Framework: a debate with his critics."

Something that might surprise some here, the first economics (related) book I read was "Free to Choose." The irony.... RIP M-1 Milton....

"iTPS" strikes again!

I wondered the same thing about IRAQ. We've spent $400 billion minimum to date (most of the expenditures have been hidden in additional appropriations). Is this investment worth it? Was invading Iraq worth spending hundreds of billions of $s on the so called war on terror? Or is the $865 thousand question more important?

Paraphrased: It looks like you are doomed! Doomed I say! Hahahahahaha....... First month of fiscal year 2007 Those spendthrift rebulicans will do you in....

What's the final tally for the House? In perusing the posts, and i haven't had time to read them all, I hadn't noticed any comments about Rahm Emanuel. He was really the driving force for the dems in this election, and had a lot to do with supporting (choosing) dem candidates that were center, not left. I have to say, I'm impressed with what he helped carry off.

I look at these results, and my conclusion is: America is so out of touch, so ignorant, that they (we) decide to elect the inept party to control the worse than inept party. would u agree?

Where I had choices, I voted 3rd party--with the exception of Spitzer. I voted green party on AG and Senator, and Libertarian for Comptroller.

What would you suggest in a Cab of equivalent cost ($15)?

You guys should know better, a late night post is from "inebriated tps." "Red, red wine....." At any rate, here's an example of the trend on this side of the pond (and certainly it doesn't apply to you chef, not yet...). habeas corpus Ps. That J. Lohr Cabernet with lamb chops first seared, brushed with dijon, then coated with bread crumbs and toasted medium rare... yummmm....

These guys defy everything negative about Buffalo. I stopped watching the game because I thought they played lazy and didn't care about this one. They are so friggin' cocky(good), they knew they could beat this team with a little effort in the 3rd period. Fortunately I saw the shootout.

lack of rights This is what bothers me most about you guys on the right: you so easily give up our rights to a republican administration. If this were a democratic administration that was taking us down this path, that is so very difficult to come back from, you'd be leading the charge. But because it's a the right that's breaking down the constitution, you guys are silent, or ambivalent. Don't you agree DC Monkey Jumper?

Again, there are two different issues: 1) their primary goal is to prop up the $; however, 2) increased government deficits means it takes more foreign investment to keep the $'s value up--again, depending upon what happens with the domestic savings and investment surplus/deficit. They are buyers of $ assets as long as three things happen: 1) the US has a trade deficit with them; 2) there is insufficient private foreign investment (from their country to the US); and three, they want to prevent their currency from depreciating against the $. How about as measured by CBO? Whatever. I don't have a problem admitting when i make a mistake. Unfortunately most people here are too egotistical to do that. Please point me to a post when you might have said that. That is revolutionary to me. Selective memory? NO. Age? yes. Now, to be clear, I have focused on personal tax cuts and personal tax revenues. I believe there are "marginal" effects from tax cuts directed at capital, but cuts in the personal income tax rates are not (explicitly) directed at capital. It doesn't matter now that we're both Keynesians.... A marginal factor, but a factor. Also, as I said, you get a twofold impact--lower taxable income, larger taxable cap gains . Nope. I agree with the agency theory crowd here.

It's not just Florida... More voting machine woes...

It's not innocuous. Asia certainly financed a large part of the US budget deficit. I hope you're not confusing the deficit with the debt? IN an era when private domestic savings is inadequate, a budget deficit must be funded from external savings. That's what the twin deficit explains. Yes, you weren't talking about the official flows, which, as I pointed out have been the most important in supporting the $ over the past 3-4 years. By not focusing on it, you miss the most important part of the story. Only if you provide your definition of a "surplus" before hand.... Let me simplify the Twin deficit relationship for you: assume domestic savings = domestic investment (S-I=0), then NX = (T - G) This relationship implies that any budget deficit has to be financed by the foreign sector. When the government budget deficit went from surplus to deficit, it required an increase in foreign savings. In the worst years, 2003 and 2004, private foreign investments were insufficient to supply the gap. The CBs of Asia supplied the additional funds, buying US assets. In 2003, the budget deficit was -$415b and foreign CBs bought $225b in treasuries. In 2004, the budget deficit was -$428b and foreign CBs bought $305b in t-bills. In 2005, the budget deficit was -$360b and for CBs bought $156b in t-bills. So, yes, a decrease in the budget deficit reduces the need for foreign savings, just as an increase in deficits increases the need. The argument most experts have made about the possible collapse of the dollar is that we need to reduce the need to borrow from the foreign sector, which can be done by either increasing private savings or reducing the budget deficit. There is also the additional worry that foreign CBs will diversify their holdings and sell off $ assets. You won't believe me, so read some WSJ articles on this. Last, the CBs of China and Japan purchase US Assets if foreign private investors aren't purchasing enough to keep their exchange rates up. The CBs pick up the slack when private funds to the US slow, as they did from 2003-2005. Got me here; I did misinterpret this one. Based on expenditures growing by 3% using 2001 as base: insufficient revenues were responsible for 2/3 of the deficit in 2002, half of the deficit in 2003, and about 44% in 2004. And that is the point--the deficits were a consequence of an increase in spending and a cut in revenues. Congratulations! You are now officially Keynesian! This is the first time you've ever mentioned "the short term hit in revenues" which creates a ______? Keynesian theory states that if you cut personal taxes without cutting govt spending, it stimulates economic growth in the short run by increasing disposable income and consumption. The impact is increased deficits in the short run. You pursue this policy whenever the economy is in need of a stimulus. As the economy grows, and tax rates aren't changed, revenues of course increase. Assuming no change in taxes or other government policies, deficts always decline during growth (more people working and paying taxes) and increase in recessions (fewer people working and paying taxes). So, yes, we are now in complete agreement!!! Very easy when you include the other part of what happened--a bubble in stock prices. Did investors not sell stocks during the bubble? The options are just an additional influence, especially when you consider a nice little chunk of income has now been transferred to capital gains--less income taxes paid; more capital gains paid.