TPS

Maybe they'll put Kroft on the PUP list, keeping Smith, Knox, and Sweeney?

I’m with you on this. Watch the Shady TD. He and Long create a huge hole and DiMarco takes care of the LB. This may be the deepest OL group they’ve had in a long time.

Feliciano also looks like an upgrade over last year, if he has to play C. Two Similar plays from last night that show a huge upgrade: Shady's TD and a 3rd down and short run for the first. The OL won the line of scrimmage on both. That was rare last year in short yardage.

Pass Pro excellent in some of those and good in others.

The US has already given up its economic supremacy, and, as I stated, it has nothing to do with MMT. The economic demise is inevitable, and it is usually associated with finance becoming the dominant "industry," an industry that produces no tangible good. Please explain why QE is "fundamentally inflationary." As I've suggested, your errors seem to stem from not understanding the causes of inflation, so please do explain. If this was true, then please explain why there is no inflation in Japan. And "some day" is not an answer....do YOU have a theory? The statement that "deficit spending stimulates an increase in private sector wealth creation" is not the same thing as saying "all private sector wealth creation depends on government actions." I'll say it again for you, government does not create wealth, but it does spur greater wealth creation by the private sector when it deficit spends because it puts more REAL resources to work (like the Raytheon example). As TRump has shown, government does not have to tax to spend more on Raytheon's "products; in fact, he cut taxes AND increased defense spending--he increased the level of deficit spending! (I wonder how Raytheon's share prices reacted to Trump's increase in defense spending...?) Yes, the discussion will go nowhere because you don't understand the nature of the argument, as that second sentence indicates. Where does money come from? How do people and firms pay their taxes? A complete straw man statement.

Context is everything.... "The Israeli government used my love and desire to see my grandmother to silence me and made my ability to do so contingent upon my signing a letter — reflecting just how undemocratic and afraid they are of the truth my trip would reveal about what is happening in the State of Israel and to Palestinians living under occupation with United States support," she said in the statement.

Yeah, he's making the team. Love and Johnson are both LDEs.

He's not ready for prime time. I doubt he's going to Play STs, so anyone who would try to poach him would have to stash him on the 53. It appears you're saying, though, that, as the designated transition player, the Bills can assign him to the PS without going through waivers? Thanks.

I agree; he would be picked up by someone. So does that mean he takes Love's spot or do they keep 5 as I suggested?

How about ST in general? The blocking on the returns looked good too. Not enough punts by the Bills to judge the coverage.

Johnson will be an interesting decision, as will Be LDE in general. Love vs Johnson. I think Yarbrough has backed up Jerry previously, but Shaw is there now. Johnson may force them to keep 5 DE, Love being the 8th. The DTs are set.

I'm not sold that the run D Has improved.

Favorite under the radar play so far: third and less than 2, McCoy run to right side for about 3. Last year the O-line rarely got that push.

Probably Pats fans, because i think she is related to Belichick...check it out....

The guy seems a bit confused. He thinks the loss of reserve status is related to money printing; it's not. It's related to the decline in economic power. Economic power is what gives rise to military/political power which is used to push its currency on the world. The decline of the US started in the late 1970s as US corps began to outsource production, and was hastened by the rise of LBOs in the 1980s and private equity over the past 20 years, both of which focus on short term profits, buying and breaking up firms for a quick buck. The decline in the economic base goes along with the decline of the middle class and stagnant wages, with Walmart now the largest private sector employer. The loss of those good jobs reduces the tax base in the middle, and with the significant rise in inequality, those at the top pay most of the taxes. However, they have pushed your favored supply side economics in order to cut their taxes, so deficits have gotten bigger every time supply side tax cuts are passed. Deficits are compounded on the spending side as the MIC gets their share by pushing endless conflict, and the day of reckoning is coming because government can't both provide the resources to maintain the war machine and provide the promises to my generation. However, the constraint is NOT about money, rather it's a real resource constraint. Will we have enough productive capacity (labor and machinery) to meet the demand for both the military goods AND the consumption goods driven by the SS payments to retirees (not to mention all of the claims on goods and services by the rest of the private sector!)? No. The government could simply "appropriate additional funds" and fill the future SS gap, but that would lead to too many claims on the available resources--inflation, which is the ultimate constraint on fiscal policy. So woe is us, it's all MMT's fault (not), even though most of you never heard of it until this year (thanks AOC!). The reality is the decline of the US began a long time ago, and just as the rising economic power of the US took over from the declining economic power of the UK, so too will the rising economic power China usurp the declining economic power of US. The US will lose its reserve currency status, but it won't be MMT's fault.....

As is always the case, there are many factors influencing the economy. On the negative side is manufacturing from the trade war; on the positive side are government spending increases and consumer spending buoyed by higher employment. Unfortunately, much of the boost from consumers will be spent on imports since we make very few consumer goods here. Again, this is what the current showdown is all about, but in the meantime, the GDP growth numbers will most likely stay in the Obama range....

I guess looking at the date would've helped, though having the original thread would too....

This is interesting....Sacha Baron Cohen almost exposing pedophile ring...but FBI decides not to act...hmmm... https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/12/sacha-baron-cohen-vegas-pedophile-ring

I'm less worried about White, though he's so entertaining that I hope they keep him long term. The reason: I am very confident in McD's ability to find players for his secondary (see Josh Norman...). I think the more difficult long term piece will be replacing Jerry, especially since they will be picking at the back end of R1 for the next 10 years....

You have an issue with selective reading.... Let me try to simplify/abstract the discussion for you (another dissertation coming...). In essence, MMT is saying that government can spend by printing the money it controls. This is both an old and "modern" concept. Historically, governments printed money to fund wars, but they can spend the money they create and control on anything. You (and everyone else) will freak out and say "but that's inflationary!" It can be, but doesn't have to be. Most domestic inflation is caused by too much spending relative to the ability to produce and supply goods. Which is why available capital--physical capital, not financial capital (which you seem to think I mean) and labor are the REAL constraints on government spending. This is also ONE of the main characteristics that is important when talking about "all countries are different." Modern Advanced countries tend to have excess capital and labor, and rarely approach capacity. For example, currently the US is using 77.5% of its industrial capacity and the "official" unemployment rate is 3.7%. This suggests there is still room for Trump to "deficit spend" without causing an acceleration of inflation. However, since I'm generalizing at a macro level, it will be much more complicated based on capacity utilization of those goods that influence consumer inflation. This is why it's so difficult to generalize about all countries. Each country has specific attributes that influence its inflation rate. Given that, here is what MMT would state: if you have excess capacity of real resources, and inflation is currently low , then you can increase government spending (call it deficit spending or money printing) until inflation begins to rise beyond your target level. Government (deficit) spending puts "idle" resources to work, meaning more output will be produced by the private sector. And, the impact will depend on what you spend on or who gets the most benefit from tax cuts. You don't think government spending can influence "wealth creation." Lockheed-Martin's market cap is over $100 billion and they derive over 90% of their revenues from government sales. What would their market cap be if you took away government sales....hmmm.... The second reason countries differ is their trade and exchange rate policies. Many developing countries export low value-added goods and import high value-added goods--they import durable goods and industrial machinery, etc., and export raw materials and labor-intensive goods. Since advanced countries manufacture those goods, developing countries need hard currencies to pay for imports. So, to purchase those imports, many countries issue bonds in hard currencies (USD), NOT THEIR OWN (one of the requirements of MMT). Since they need USD to pay off the debt, it ADDS A FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT FROM FOREIGN EXCHANGE MARKETS. As you suggested, they could print their own currency to buy USD, but that would cause their currency to depreciate leading to a spike in the price of those important imported goods, leading to higher inflation (the ultimate constraint according to MMT). In addition, as I stated, in the FX markets they are at the mercy of investors--you should be happy here. The depreciation of the domestic currency could also spark a run from the currency, so their options are limited. Note, this also answers your question about Soros. At the time, the UK was going to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, so the BoE was targeting the pound to the DM. Guess what that does? It puts a financial constraint on the BoE. When investors sell (short) the pound, the BoE must buy with hard currency reserves. The BoE can only print pounds, not $s or DMs. When you run out of reserves, you can't maintain your peg any longer. They were forced to let it float. Moral of the story, if you have an exchange rate policy that targets or pegs your exchange rate to a particular hard currency, then you better have a boatload of that currency in reserve... Regarding the yen-yuan.... The yuan has been pegged to the USD because of China's export-led growth strategy. They accumulate USD from their trade surplus (our deficit) with US. If they sell those USD off, then the $ would weaken making their goods more expensive in USD, instead they invest those accumulated $s in US assets (mostly treasuries). This is the main issue underlying the China-US trade dispute--they ARE a currency manipulator. They are not holding $s because it's the reserve currency, they are holding them as an exchange rate management policy to sell goods into (what is still) the largest consumer market in the world. Japan usually lets its currency float, but they manage it quite often as well. They are threatening to intervene now, just as they did in 2011 when the yen strengthened against the $. As they showed in 2011, they have unlimited capacity to keep the yen from rising, since they can sell any amount of yen they want (they own the printing press) into the market to buy $s (why do you think the BoJ of is the second largest holder of treasuries?). Why do they do it? Because they are also dependent on exports for growth. I certainly respect your understanding of financial markets, but your inability to understand MMT is related to a limited understanding of what causes inflation, the causes of which can be very complex, which is why you can't make simple generalizations about MMT (which is really the ability to use fiscal policy--deficit spending--to stimulate the economy). Again, in essence, MMT simply says a government that controls its own currency does not have a financing constraint--it does not have to borrow the currency it controls in order to spend; it can simply create it and spend it. Three examples we've discussed: 1. The US. QE did not cause inflation because the majority of the assets (over $2 trillion in treasuries) it bought remained on bank balance sheets as dead reserves, with Fed now paying interest on those reserves, they are much like holding treasuries. I would not deny that being the largest economy in the world and the reserve currency is certainly a benefit to the US--characteristics specific to a country do matter, but that is not the reason QE did not lead to inflation. 2. Japan. The BoE has purchased 120% of Japan's government debt, which means they hold 20% more than the size of Japan's economy. Why no inflation? I can't talk to specifics about what the deficit spending is targeted at, but I do know that the Japanese have a very high propensity to save, so that attempts to bolster income of Japanese households tend to lead to higher domestic savings, and not fuel significantly higher consumption demand which would fuel inflation. Important point: causes of inflation are specific to each country's characteristics. Note, the yen is not the world's reserve currency, but the BoJ can carry more debt than the Fed without causing inflation. It doesn't matter what investors think here. 3. Argentina. Their central bank has funded large government deficits for years, fueling inflation. In this case, MMT would argue their deficits have been excessive. One also has to look at their specific characteristics for the causes of inflation. I mentioned the fact they issue bonds in USD, which puts an additional constraint on their central bank. They can't simply print pesos to buy USD because the depreciation of their currency would fuel inflation by raising the cost of imported goods. There are many other issues that influence domestic inflation. For example, given their current inflationary spiral, the current conservative regime is going to raise the minimum wage as a political ploy. Conclusion: Given Argentina's specific inflation characteristics, their ability to "use MMT" (print money) is very limited. To those following along, the key to understanding the nuances of the argument is to understand what causes inflation, which is much more complex than Milton Friedman's simple phrase, "Too much money chasing too few goods." I can't wait for the season to start....

Yes, once you get past #7, that may have been the worst R1 draft in history....

Was just scanning the thread to see if this had been posted...

It was effectively zero for the 7 years after Lehman collapsed and inflation remained below the Fed's target. Unless low (or zero or negative!) interest rates stimulate borrowing to purchase real things, the answer will be NO. Hell, there are negative interest rates in more and more European countries now!

Btw, if the route continues, I can see the FED dropping rates by 50 basis points very, very soon. The 30-year rate is approaching the 3-month rate....