TPS

Btw, I was at a presentation by Steve keen several years ago where he was predicting a debt fueled crisis in China based on his Minsky model. Regarding propping up the zombies, that's why I'm a little more skeptical that Trump has the upper hand, the authoritarian state can always choose to bailout (especially with their level of $ reserves) its banks/companies, unlike one that relies on markets--we only do it in severe times of distress. They can outlast US no matter who is president. My opinion. None. I agree here.

No, and I've consistently said I support his efforts here. Saying that this phase one part of the negotiations is less than what it appears is my analysis of the situation, not a criticism. I also think China has more flexibility in its dealings than some here think, mainly because of its authoritarian ability to manage the economy, which is also an analysis.

We'll find out soon enough...

I'm sure they can live with 6%, so we disagree...of course. The short run impact really hasn't been that significant for China, at least not as much as the overall global slowdown. Compared to the first half of last year, their goods surplus with US is down $20 billion, and will probably be close to $50 billion for all of 2019. The real issue is whether or not it's significantly impacting the supply chain decisions of US Corps, and I'm not sure what that answer is yet...

I wouldn't call a decline in GDP growth from 6.7% to 6% an "economic downturn." I'm not disagreeing about the timing of the announced deal, I'm simply saying it's more window dressing than the significant deal that Trump claims it is. China has more leeway and time than you think.

Yes, I saw it, and disagree. China's position won't change much either way. trump needed a win more than China, which is why he's making it sound like the deal is bigger than it is.

I think this sums up the DNC Dems pretty well.

Agree, I've been saying that for awhile now myself.

As I stated further in that thread, And related it to other similar threads, the issue is the trade off of who to dress for the 46. Duke gives the Bills something they don’t have on the 46, and I questioned whether Roberts ST contribution was worth it? I agreed with another poster in the thread that the trade off is probably more appropriately focused on foster or McKenzie.

It’s apparent you didn’t read through the entire thread.

Thanks, just saw this on wsj.com, though they called it a "limited" deal, which is what I essentially described it as.

Not smoke and mirrors, but it's not much different than the last time Trump said he had a deal. The real issues haven't been addressed in Trump's agreement. And, according to the WSJ, that's all it is for now--Trump's agreement, as China says it hasn't reached a deal. Go ahead, though, believe whatever he tweets....

This "deal" is for show, mostly. You buy farm products, we'll reduce or hold off some tariffs. A few more weeks until election year...

@Deranged Rhino, maybe you should re-name your deep state thread... You can't reform a government that's simply a reflection of concentrated economic power, whether it's the MIC-security state, Wall Street, big tech and pharma, you name it. The rules of this world are made by those who wield economic power, and the rest of us are forced to live by their rules. but, yeah sure, it's liberals and pc culture that are the problem....

According to Spotrac, the Bills are projected to have the 4th most cap space ($90 mil) in 2020 behind Miami, Indy, and Tampa.

They are going to beat the Patriots.

Dr, I may need this on the PPP board, is the possessive Keynes' or Keynes's? Also, take heart that you're not a Jets fan.....

@atlbillsfan1975 I always liked Blackies (very close to ML) which is more of a dive bar, but it's been awhile since I've been. Check out the Crab Cooker for seafood.

I think Eric Wood nails it in his weekly piece on OBD: Until Allen starts hitting those deep balls, it's going be very difficult on the rest of the offensive scheme. In other words, maybe Daboll deserves some blame, but Allen has made his job very difficult...

Shirley, you can't be serious...?

Yes, he didn't have a lot of time, but he did on some key deep ones. They probably win that game if he hits one of Smoke or Foster. Beasely's was inches off down the sideline. There may have been one more...? To beat good teams, you have to make (some of) those plays when you get the opportunities.

These threads (this one, Roberts, Duke, and others) show the Bills still have some work to do on the roster. They have some weaknesses that are exposed against good teams. Despite that, they still had a good chance to win that game.

Yes, Dalton will be fired up to get his charity some $$....

I would agree with your take, for the most part. If you read my post as blaming Roberts, then you've misinterpreted it. His contribution has been on ST, not offense, and that is the trade-off I'm looking at--giving up something on ST to get more on O. However, where I'm in agreement is your point that it may be Foster where the real decision lies? It's not a bitchfest. The issue is the Bills need a big-bodied WR, and if they want one on the 46, then they have a decision to make. I think @Rochesterfan probably has the right take.

The issue isn't about Roberts himself, it's the trade off on the decision for the 46. Roberts is strictly a return man. In 11 games he has 2 catches for 13 yards. He is in the top 4 in kickoff return average; however, I'm not certain he has given the Bills a significantly different starting position than not returning the kick? One alternative is dressing Duke to provide a big sure-handed WR. He has 6 catches (on 7 targets) in 3 games and a game-winning TD. Yes, he doesn't have the speed or the separation, but his separation is his size, and his stats show he's more valuable on O than Roberts. So, In an ideal world, the Bills would have both on the 46, but they have to make a choice. Some of you may think it's a clear choice; I don't, which was the point of my post. Btw, This Is also the the reason there's a Duke thread going again.