TPS

They're not going to win the Thanksgiving game!?!?

It simply means that government spends more $s into the economy than it takes out in taxes.

It's disingenuous to talk about deficits in isolation from the other sectors of the economy, as there are 4 components of demand. Is it that hard to understand that injecting $1 trillion of demand into an economy when business and household spending is declining will have a different impact than when they are both expanding? That was the point of Keynes, when the private sector won't spend, and unemployment is high, the government should deficit spend and put people back to work. Guess what happens when those people spend money from their government jobs funded by deficit spending?

It's going to be a tough battle for the 6th spot...

Oh, I understand full well that you think Trump has unleashed a business boom because of the tax cuts and deregulation; whereas I see the economy being boosted by expanded deficits. I think the latter is more important than the former, in the current situation. I guess I'll counter with I'm astounded that you don't seem to grasp how the FED operates, which has nothing to do with a textbook...

When I say QE had no or little effect, I'm focused on the real economy--producing things (GDP). You're right, banks certainly took advantage of borrowing at 0%, but much of the lending went to asset speculation (including M&A). If it was so successful, then we would've seen stronger economic growth (maybe this is where you're going to bring your deficit argument???). The FED can't make households and businesses borrow to fund expenditures, and QE2 and 3 show this. You can provide all of the liquidity you want and keep interest rates at 0 for as long as you want, but it don't mean beans unless it stimulates spending by HHs and Firms. Finally, I do get the inter-bank markets. Given the level of excess reserves in the banking system now, the FED Funds market (where the FED sets its target) is not so relevant any more. The repo markets are where the action is now, and any other markets that require the use of treasuries as collateral........

Yes, the reason we NEVER really experienced inflation above the FED's target is that reserves simply represent "potential" lending power, not money in circulation. QE did stimulate speculation in other assets and commodities as I argued here back then...

Here's a nice short piece by some FED economists: https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-trends/2015-economic-trends/et-20150811-who-is-holding-all-the-excess-reserves.aspx

It's not a theory; it's fact--Reserves of depository institutions increased from 2008 to 2014 during the crisis and QE policies. Not sure why chose to start at 2010 when the crisis was over by then...? Besides, only part of JPM's BS reflects its depository banking business. Ok, $s. I responded to Foxx who said the FED created about $3.5 trillion "out of thin air." Hopefully you understand how the FED does this....it "buys" an asset by "crediting bank reserves." If it buys an asset directly from a bank, bank assets fall by an amount equal to the increase in its "reserve account held at the FED;" if it buys from an individual, the person's DD is credited along with the bank's reserve position. Either way, bank reserves increased. Bank reserves on deposit with the FED went from near zero to a max of near $2.5 trillion in 2014. The following is a link to the FED with the data: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm [just checked this, and you need to change it to "selected liabilities" of the FED]. The FED only requires reserves and holds reserves for deposit-taking institutions, so of course if you look at the consolidated BS of JPM it will be difficult to disentangle this effect--especially since you started in 2010, not pre-crisis. When the FED required the Wall Street banks to become BHCs, it gave them access to the Discount Window, which is what kept them alive in the meltdown. Back to main point. QE was enacted by the FED through buying assets via crediting reserves. The FED's balance sheet expanded from about $900K in 2007 to $4.5 trillion in 2014. The reflection of this expansion was the increase in bank reserves by $2.5 trillion. YES, this money is sitting under the FED's mattress so to speak, and (since 2009) the FED pays interest on the bank reserves they hold. This is why I argued with so many here that that QE was not going to cause hyperinflation because reserves do not circulate in the economy. This is the THEORY part. Many people, here included, thought QE would cause significant inflation; it didn't because the funds used to buy the assets are sitting under the FED's mattress.

Yes and No. As a share of total assets, "cash" went from <2% pre-crisis to to > 10% post. Securities and Loans fell by 10% of TA (mostly loans). So, yes, reserves increased, and No, the share of other assets fell.

Stashed under the Fed’s mattress, who started paying interest on excess reserves in 2009. With th the exception of vault cash, the majority of bank reserves were (and still are) “held on accounts with the Fed.”

@plenzmd1 the above might be the thread, then again we've done this topic to death in many places... QE doesn't necessarily create money, most of it created bank reserves which had no impact on the economy. Deficits never really mattered.....

If your point is the second half of preseason games is an indication of which team has better depth, I agree to an extent. Looking at the scores from last year, though, doesn’t seem to support your belief. There’s no clear trend.

I did a search of "Dutroux" but nothing came up. I was surprised that it hasn't been discussed here? This article was in one of my news feeds this morning, and there is so much more to it than the topic itself.... The Belgian case of Marc Dutroux This case is worse than Epstein's but has parallels. It makes me wonder if Epstein's case will end similarly--is the cabal so entrenched they will have the power to limit the damage? For those who doubt the possibility of vast conspiracies, asking how it is possible they can keep them suppressed, this is a good example. I hope to God that @Deranged Rhino is right about Trump being part of an attempt to expose this vile *****.

It can't happen until after I get a hole-in-one......

Cleveland via Pittsburgh where I attended a wedding over the weekend. A die hard Browns fan said "they got the best QB of the class." He also focused on the accuracy issue. I bet him a drink that Buffalo will win more games with the best QB of the class...

As you note, a lot of things point to improvement. Last year they were tied for 7th in INTs. With greater stability at CB2 and more experienced players, notably Taron J in the slot and Edmunds in the middle, there’s no reason they can’t be #1. It’s actually quite a feat that they did so well last year.

Jerry and Kyle were the only 2 DL with more than 60% snap counts last year. I think Jerry will be the only one this year to break 60. Since Oliver is a rookie, Jordan will get more than enough reps (40% range).

He's projecting 7 for Oliver which is a good over/under number. Thought I would add @Inigo Montoya's thread on this:

The Bills ranked 31st in their 4th down conversion rate in 2018. I think what this states is they were good at making the right decision on 4th and 5 or less yards. I think one of the reasons McD and Beane re-did the O-line is they did not win the line of scrimmage on most short yardage runs, with the exception of Allen and his sneaks. I expect them to be much better with some of the beasts they brought in.... https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/fourth-down-conversion-pct

Any type of 2020 free agent is not counted in the projected 2020 cap, and those two will both be UFAs. Btw, @ShadyBillsFan the Knox contract is up on Spotrac now.

This will be the main question for the Bills' D this year--can they improve the run D? As I mentioned in the thread, I think Jordan Phillips can be a big part of improving the run D as he provides a much bigger body next to Star. Then there's Edmunds with a year of experience to help as well. We'll find out early in the season as they will face some of the top RBs in the league in the first several weeks. The pass D should be even better for the reasons you mention.

The sky's the limit for this defense...

I got "Stanleyed." That's a low blow man...

I wonder if this is a line that's preached by McD, the media training gurus, or coincidence? In the past week I've read or heard both Hyde and Poyer say it about the D, and now Teller in an article in the BN today, and I believe Dawkins repeated it recently too, about the O-line. While there are worse cliches, it does make me wonder if the D and/or the O-line will reach the Karman Line this year...?