TPS

If what I (and some others) say generates this kind of reaction, maybe you ought to take some time off and do some things that bring a little cheer to your life Tom--seriously.

Not quite. I do think that posting a link to an editorial/article is a good way to begin a discussion about a topic/issue. I also think that there are times when the source should be questioned, but I believe most of the time discrediting the messenger is just a way to avoid discussing a message that runs counter to one's belief. Wow! There's a "list of reasons" for why I make you feel contemptuous...interesting...Mr... "Well, I hope you're not too messianic Or a trifle too satanic We love to play the blues Well you're just a ..."

What, 6 posts in one thread and you still haven't added a thing to the discussion other then questioning the source. I'm guessing you're the monkey in disguise?

Tillman's is an editorial which expresses his beliefs; the other is a statement of fact that the Army's recent strategy to reduce violence in Iraq has not worked. No need to read them though, you already know the truth...

Kevin Tillman joined the army with his brother Pat, and both served stints in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm not sure why you think his press conference from July is relevant to this week's? According to the Post and many other sources, he stated this week that their strategy for the past two months has not stemmed the violence. That seems to be a pretty good assessment, and your last comment even supports it. If anyone else (bungeejumper?) has any counter proof to that assessment, please provide it. Hell, if anyone here has any evidence that we are "beating the insurgency and winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people" I'd love to see that too.

I would tend to believe one of the top ranking generals in Iraq when he says the "current strategy in Iraq isn't working." But, hey, "I'm a joker, and a toker, and midnight smoker...."

I thought you meant this general... Caldwell

The maybe they could have traded up to to get Whitner at #26...hind sight....

And the usual response from those who blindly follow... Do you realize the implications of this? Obviously not. The best you can do is attack the person who posts the article. IT says so much more about you than your weak attempt to attack Chicot...

First, Phillips was from New Zealand and attended the London School of Economics (starting the year Keynes, who was at Cambridge, died). Second, American Keynesian economics is based upon "interpretations" of Keynes by John Hicks and Alfred Hansen. Samuelson followed this line of thought. Actual disciples of Keynes at Cambridge--like Nicholas Kaldor, Joan Robinson (she called American Keynesians "Bastard Keynesians"), and Michel Kalecki--disagreed with those interpretations (one main reason was because those mechanical models ignored his discussion on uncertainty, which was fundamental in explaining why an economy could be stuck with high unemployment for an extended period). These economists represent the core of the post Keynesian school. An interesting side note on Hicks: toward the end of his life, he wrote a paper criticizing his interpretation of Keynes, mainly because of his admitted omition of the role uncertainty plays in a modern monetary economy. I'll try to simplify things for you: Phillips, a disciple of the Hicksian interpretation of Keynes, published an empirical paper on the trade-off between money wages and unemployment. S&S took it a step further, connecting wages to prices, and then estimating the trade off between inflation and unemployment. This simplified Phillips Curve relationship was then incorporated into the "Bastard" Keynesian models. However, without the concept of uncertainty, there's no role for expectations. This left the door open for Phelps and Friedman. So, yes, it was the American Keynesian School that was under attack, not Keynes's actual theory, which incorporates expectations based upon the concept of fundamental uncertainty. I believe you work in the financial industry, yes? You should read chapter 12 of the General Theory, "The State of Long Term Expectations." It's one of the best discussions on the relationship between real investment and financial investment you'll ever read.

I agree with you again; when will the press get back to focussing on ebezzlement and payoffs...? Can you say Mr. Abramoff?

You obviously don't know anything about Keynes' theory of inflation. Phelps (and Friedman) attacked the notion underlying the Phillips' Curve that there's a trade-off between UP and inflation. Phillips looked at historical data for the UK to come to this conclusion. In the US, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow (so-called American Keynesians) did a similar study, and they came up with the same results. Phelps and Friedman argued that this relationship would not be permanent once you considered expectations. In particular, they held to the view that expectations were formed by the recent past--"adaptive expectations." Keynes' theory of output, employment, and prices also assumes that current expectations are formed by the recent past. His "theory of prices" is based on how prices are determined at the level of the firm--prices are a function of the costs of production (wages, materials, etc.) and a profit margin. The Phillips Curve relationship that Phelps "debunks" was based on an historical relationship and promoted by the American Keynesian school in 1960, not Keynes. For the record, and I stated this years ago here, I am not a proponent of this simplified interpretation of Keynes. I adhere to a group known as post keynesians, and I am probably most influenced by Hyman Minsky.

What a dope. First, you should be referring to me, not BlueFire. Second, I gave a possible scenario for how someone or an organization could have influenced gas prices; or, in fact, as the articles stated, did influence gas prices (not the only influence, but added "fuel" to the downward pressure). I stated it was either serendipity or consipiracy, and that I leaned toward the former (however, I said the latter wouldn't surprise me either). Who said that one was ok and the other wasn't? It is politics as usual. Many corporations make "bets" on which party (person) they believe will win the White House. They give to both sides, but tend to give more to the side they think will win. I don't think they should be giving at all, and I've constantly ranted that "both sides are bought and paid for." I've stated time and again, that I DO NOT VOTE FOR EITHER MAJOR PARTY ANYMORE (10 years now). I have voted for independents, greens, and believe it or not libertarians. The hypocrits around here are people who constantly defend (and believe) one party to no end. And from what I've read, you are one of them.

Would you say the same thing about a 16 year old girl and she was an intern for someone? And then imagine if that girl were your daughter...

Excellent point! That fits right into the Bills' game plan. Keep runnin' willis, don't turn the ball over, and play great defense. The Bears can be had!

I think people sensationalize it because it's not something you can reverse or slow in a short period: something has to be done now before we pass the tipping point. Fortunately, businessmen/investors have to be pragmatic, and they know which side is spinning the issue.

I'm sure it's only liberal groups who believe in this global warming crap... climate change?

Given Da Bears have given up a total of 13 points in 2 games at home, I think the Bills defense will have to score a TD to have a chance.

Thank you for putting words in my mouth. I stated that the previous high was in 2000, and mentioned that Clinton was president then. I did not state the market went up 0% with republicans in charge. I said the market's gained 0% since the previous peak in 2000 (In fact, the market has gone up since Bush took office, because as we all know it started its fall before he took office). Then, panties got twisted, and you guys all inferred I said "Bush bad." Now your telling me I'm saying "democrats good." Yes, there was a long bear market for much of Bush's first term, and many things happened to extend it--not the least of which was the accounting scandals. The bear ended in 2003, and the market's done pretty well since then. As KD said, only if you were foolish enough not to invest while it was down, did you experience the 0%. By the way, how do you know I wasn't complaining when the market began its decline in 2000 (under Clinton)? Oh, and I'm not political either....

And the Dow dropped some 2000 points. Your point?

How are you defining the crash? The bear market that lasted for 2+ years (and, yes it began in Clinton's last year)? Or the initial drop in 2000? In percentage terms, one of the largest "crashes" over the past 40 years was in October 1987. But, hey, what do I know...

Coming from the guy who thinks the administration controls monetary policy. It's quite a stretch to go from my statement that "it took 6 years to break the previous high," to I must believe stock prices should always go up. I'm getting used to people stretching my statements though. The obvious inference from my statement is that the down turn in the Dow must have been pretty severe, and the resultant recovery a long, slow process. But maybe that's too complicated...

Whew! That sure took a long time. I never said the prices were being affected by the index weight change after that. I agree prices will eventually settle to what the fundamentals dictate. Oh, oh! In one paragraph you admit there can be a "pop", and the next there's no effect? Who said they were manipulating it for their own benefit? You asked some flippant question earlier about who the GS traders work for, not about manipulation for their own benefit. Try to stay on topic. The topic: Both articles STATE that the change in the weight had a significant impact on gasoline prices in August. Are both the NYT and FT articles incorrect? Who should we believe? Them, or you and the monkey? Seems to me the only contentious issue is, what was the underlying reason for the change? As i said, I lean toward the serendipity explanation.

By the way, I wouldn't get too cozy with the DOW at the moment; the put-call ratio on the index is about 2-1.