TPS

Having read the thread, You might need to re-post this one a few times...

Yes, this is the main question mark regarding the 2019 defense. While they will most likely be in the top 3 against the pass, to be an elite D, they must prevent teams from running all over them as many times as happened last year (you're may have 1 or 2 bad games, but 4-5 is not good enough).

. So that we are speaking the same language, most people discuss QE as having three distinct phases: QE1 was the FED's actions during the crisis, where its BS expanded from $900K to $2.2 trillion the first few months after Lehman; QE2 (from late 2010 to May 2011) and QE3 (late 2012 to 2014) are what you describe, which were efforts to stimulate the economy post crisis (that link I gave with some graphs of the FED's assets and liabilities shows these stages clearly). Every major financial crisis is also a liquidity crisis, and the FED's LOLR actions through all of its various loan programs was the most important factor stabilizing the system--we agree here. In terms of size and impact, while all of the various lending programs were most significant, QE1 was 3-4 times the size of any TARP funds that went to the banks. 2. The reason QE was not inflationary is because the FED bought most of the assets from the banking system, and, since banks were now being paid interest on reserves, they were (and still are) content to hold those trillions. This has everything to do with bank management and almost nothing to do with "Investor acceptance." By harping on reserve accounting, I AM focusing on how the $3 trillion was "created out of thin air." I guess it's my turn to say "focus on the accounting." When the FED "creates funds out of thin air," it still operates under standard accounting practices--Balance Sheets must balance. Again, look at those graphs, specifically the "FED's liabilities" and the category "deposits of depository institutions." When the FED ;buys an asset, it simultaneously credits that account of the bank that it bought the asset from (or the bank of the investor it bought the asset from). In QE, The FED pays for the assets by crediting a bank's reserve account. Those deposits represent assets for the banks and liabilities for the FED, and all of the FED's actions that created them are done with keystrokes of a computer (bank reserves are created out of thin air!) at the NYFED. Prior to Lehman, that account was about $20 billion and after QE3 it peaked at about $2.7 trillion (which indicates the majority of QE was done via purchasing assets from banks). Since the FED pays interest on reserves about the same as the T-bill rate, these reserves are risk-free assets on bank Balance Sheets. Because these funds are parked on an account with the FED, they don't circulate in the economy AND therefore do not influence prices and inflation. They have nothing to do with "investor acceptance." 3. Regarding money, I never said anything other than the FED/Treasury is the monopoly issuer of US$. To quote Minsky, "Anyone can create money, the problem is getting it accepted." Yes, many people try to create things that function like money, but, as I said before, the government will squash any attempts that encroach upon its monopoly. Did you see the article today about the IRS sending letters to holders of crypto? Since they have designated it as property, any gains are taxable. 4. Your quote, sounds a bit like you are coming around to what i have been trying to say...but not quite. The Treasury "issued money" the way it ALWAYS does: congress appropriated funds for TARP which added to deficits in 2008 and 09. The Treasury still had to "sell bonds" to "fund" those deficits to provide the "money" for TARP. TARP was simply additional "deficit spending" by the Treasury (had to say it). Again, QE created liquidity by mainly creating additional reserves for the banking system, almost all of which show up as assets for the banks and liabilities for the FED (deposits of depository institutions). You won't understand how the FED creates "money out of thin air" AND why it doesn't impact inflation until you understand reserve accounting.

Two issues I responded to before you chimed in: someone asked about the $3+ trillion in Fed intervention and why it wasn't inflationary; and, do deficits matter. I answered the question in my first response when I stated the Fed's actions weren't inflationary because nearly all of those funds were parked in reserve accounts (which don't circulate and hence had very little impact on the REAL economy). I also said deficits don't matter. You then took the thread for a ride...apparently because you don't understand reserve accounting--yes, excess reserves are parked "under the FED's mattress" (on their computer actually). Now that the FED pays interest on reserves, there's less of an incentive for banks to minimize them as was the case pre-2008. I went into the Fed's LoLR function because you unbelievably stated the Fed's actions that injected the $3+ trillion in reserves played a minor role in stabilizing the financial system. Post-crisis, the reserves aren't really that important. What IS important are the actions the FED took that created those reserves. I would love to hear you explain why the FED's actions were only 10% of the story....? You also brought in other topics which took the thread elsewhere. For example, now you want me to discuss crypto and the Treasury. See why the discussion goes off track.... I'll say one thing about cryptos: if they begin to encroach on the government's currency monopoly, then the Treasury will take action to suppress their growth. Gee, the financial crisis was caused by unregulated finance, what a surprise! No ***** sherlock! The FED's role is to clean up the mess, and without its unprecedented intervention we all would've joined D.Drane in a bunker. The banking system backstops the rest of the financial system and FED backstops the banks. The FED's lifeline to banks also means a lifeline to its customers, which includes the shadow banking system. I'm surprised someone in finance doesn't get the inverted pyramid of money and credit? Yes, finance is extremely elastic and difficult to constrain, but the curtain is pulled back when crises occur and everyone is scrambling for safe, liquid assets. So, if you want to stick to the topics, then please do. I explained why the Fed's injection of $3 trillion was not inflationary. Then I tried to explain to you why deficits don't matter, and that explanation requires understanding the mechanics underlying the interaction between the Treasury, FED, and Primary Dealers.

I think we'll be saying this about all three of this regime's drafts, wrt their ability to mine talent. 2017: the first 4 picks are starters, so they hit on 4/6. 2018: the first 4 picks are starters (I'd call H. Phillips a starter given their use of two waves on the DL). Neal and Teller should both be valuable back-ups. Ray-ray is probably gone-gone this year. Call it 6/8 on this draft. 2019 of course is way too early, but...I think it's a safe bet the first 4 picks will be starters at some point. People seem very high on Vosean, so I think we can at least say they hit on 5/8 with potential for more. Overall, and it is preliminary, it looks like they have about a 70% success rate on their three drafts. The Nix-Whaley era was under 50%. Prior to that, it was the dark ages of Bills drafting...

I certainly understand the credit system and the ability to use "other forms of currency," but those do have limits. Currently, the main "currency" used to support is credit creation is whatever is accepted as collateral, and US treasuries are the collateral of choice, so in a way the financial system does depend on the actions of the Treasury and Fed. More important, the US$ is NOT "just a form of currency," it is the unit of account that is designated "legal tender," and--what you seem to have difficulty grasping--the US government owns the monopoly on its creation (note, we're not simply talking about physical dollar bills). While Apple can purchase Tesla by issuing new stock, it does not pay its suppliers with stock, it is not buying Intel's chip business with its stock, it does not pay interest on its bond in stock, nor can it pay its taxes with its own scrip. While there are many financial transaction that use different financial instruments, they have limitations. In the end, there is only one financial instrument that is designated as "legal tender for ALL debts public AND PRIVATE." In the next financial crunch, when financial entities are scrambling to "get liquid," they are not going to buy crypto or apple stock, they will buy US treasuries because they are guaranteed to be converted into the designated means of payment. Note, there will also be a dramatic scramble for the government's "currency" (I mean treasuries here) used as collateral, especially if it's been re-hypothecated.... Getting back to the main point, which is: as the monopoly issuer of the US$, the federal government does not face a financing constraint This is where you seem to have trouble grasping the difference between the US government and any other entity. It is the settlement "mechanics" between the treasury, Fed, and primary dealers that guarantees the US government does not face a financing constraint--it can spend ANY AMOUNT of money that congress appropriates. If congress says here's another $200 billion to fund war against Iran, then it will be spent, and it doesn't matter what the financial sector thinks. Central bank reserves as a minor reason for stabilizing the system? Hmmmm.... How do you think reserves get created? When everyone panics and wants to get liquid, where do you think that "money" came from? When the FED supports any market in times of crisis, how do you think it does that? Reserves are the "ultimate currency" of the banking system and the FED controls their creation. The FED's actions to stabilize the system are what created the $3 trillion in additional bank reserves. First, your favorite Wall Street banks were given a lifeline (use of the discount window) when they were required (by the FED) to become bank holding companies. This gave JPM and Goldman the ability to borrow reserves directly from the FED. However, the majority of reserves were created in the traditional way--open market operations, though they expanded the types of assets they "bought" dramatically, no longer just treasuries. When the FED bought commercial paper and MBS, they "pay" for those assets by crediting the reserve account of the "bank" they bought it from. Reserves are what backstops the drain of funds from financial institutions. As funds are drained from an entity, they can either sell assets or borrow funds to replenish their accounts. In the crisis, the only entity lending was the FED. The current $1.4 trillion of excess reserves in the banking system is the legacy of the FED's unprecedented intervention in the markets--plural! This is the issue--the US government is different, and it is NOT because the US$ is the reserve currency. NO! Again, THE MAIN ISSUE: the US government does NOT have a financing constraint (it does not have to borrow that which it creates). There are two politically imposed legal constraints that makes it difficult for people to see this: 1) the US government is required to sell bonds equal to its deficit; and 2) the FED CAN'T directly fund the treasury. The mechanics are important to understand this, and the mechanics require the use of private sector banks, the primary dealers. PDs are required to make the market for treasury auctions, and they (almost) always buy treasuries using their excess reserves (which are simply values on a computer at the NYFed). For example, when JPM's bids are accepted, their securities increase and their reserves are decreased by the value of their purchase (2 actions on the asset side of its BS); on the Fed's BS, JPM's reserve position is reduced and the treasury's account is increased (2 actions on the liability side of the FED's BS). Here is the key: What if JPM does not have the excess reserves to purchase the treasuries they are required to bid on? The Fed will buy some of JPM's existing treasuries (again, the Fed can't directly fund the treasury) and the Fed "buys" them by crediting JPM's reserve account (on the Fed's computer). Voila! JPM now has the excess reserves to "buy" the new treasuries at auction (and the treasury's account at the Fed is increased in the same way as above). In this case, the FED has indirectly funded the treasury. After these actions JPM's BS is unchanged; and on the Fed's BS, its treasuries are increased (asset side) and the Treasury's account (liability side) is increased by same. The political constraints complicate the process, but the end result is the FED "funds" the Treasury. Since the FED has unlimited "funding capacity" (because it owns the computer and accounts that credit and debt reserves and the Treasury's checking account), the Treasury effectively has an unlimited capacity to spend US$s--it is only limited by the amount congress appropriates. Despite the flexibility of finance to use other means to purchase assets and create credit (and I completely agree with you here), they ARE financially constrained--they can't create reserves and US$ in which the majority of payments are required. Note, since the treasury auctions are always filled because the PDs are required to bid, it does not matter that the US$ is the global reserve currency. Again, the republicans seem to understand there is no financing constraint--they have no problem cutting taxes (for the rich...) and increasing defense spending causing larger deficits. They ONLY seem to care about debt and deficits when the Dems are in the WH and want to increase spending on social programs. While there is NO limit to the federal government's ability to spend (any amount of money congress appropriates), it IS constrained by available resources--in the US, we typically run out of labor before we run out of physical capital. For example, during WWII, the unemployment rate hit 1.2%. This happened because government used deficit spending. In 1943 the deficit was 30% of GDP! However, the government reached the limits of its ability to spend--If you try to increase deficit spending when you run out of labor and capital, the result will be inflation. This is why I think it's interesting that Trump expanded the deficit at a point when many economists thought the US was at full employment. The bigger deficits juiced the economy and pushed unemployment below 4%. Since we still don't see much inflation, it suggests there is still "fiscal space" available to push the economy faster and unemployment lower. The end comes when the FED decides to take away the punch bowl, which is why Trump is haranguing Powell about raising interest rates. The end.

Maybe someday you'll understand the difference between an entity that issues the currency we use and one that does not... you and I can't issue US$s (nor can corporations, states and local governments), so we have to borrow in order to spend in excess of our current resources. The US government, as the monopoly issuer of US$, can spend whatever amount congress appropriates. (The republicans understand this which is why they tend to cut taxes AND increase spending when they.re in the WH.) By law, The treasury has to sell bonds to "fund" spending in excess of revenues (deficit spending), AND the Fed can't DIRECTLY fund the Treasury. The FED, and its system of primary dealers, Ensures that there is NEVER a funding constraint for the US government because it can NEVER run out of a currency it controls. When the US government spends, the Fed credits the deposit of Raytheon AND the reserve account of Raytheon's bank. The bank (a primary dealer) now has the reserves that allows it to purchase bonds at the treasury's next auction, which it is required to do as a primary dealer (which is why treasury auctions always fill--the PDs are required by the Fed to bid). If the Banks have insufficient reserves to purchase new bonds, then the Fed will purchase existing bonds from the banks. In effect, the Fed INDIRECTLY funds the treasury because it can't directly fund it, by law. This is Not theory, this is how the system works. It means the US government NEVER faces a financing constraint. It means the US government will always be able spend any $ amount congress appropriates. It means that spending in excess of revenues (deficit spending) raises the demand (sales and profits) for Raytheon's missiles (and if they hire more workers in response, they spend more on consumer goods), which means deficit spending spurs the private sector to create more wealth. Because you don't understand what "deficit spending" means, you continue to believe the US government has to take from the private sector in order to spend, which makes you believe "government can't create wealth." While the US government doesn't create things, it does inject/create more dollars for the private sector when it spends which spurs the private sector to create more wealth (more Raytheon missiles and workers). Unfortunately, accepting how US deficit spending works also means the rejection of the conservative philosophy that US government can only spend what it takes from the private sector, and that's too difficult for some to come to grips with. However, the republicans have no problem with it in practice. let me point out, as I have in the past, while the US government has no financing constraint, its spending IS constrained by available real resources--labor and capital. If the government increases deficit spending as labor becomes scarce, it can cause inflation. This is why I've said Trump's policies are an interesting experiment for this correct view of government financing. He increased deficit spending when we are near what some considered full employment, pushing the unemployment rate to lows unseen since the 1960s. This suggests there is room for even more deficit spending stimulus. Final point. Only governments that issue debt in their own currency are not financially constrained. State and local governments are required to balance their budgets, so they are financially constrained; Greece issues debt in euros, so it is constrained; many developing economies issue international debt in hard currencies which makes them financially constrained; and most underdeveloped countries fall under the constraint that they lack capacity in real resources, so any attempt to deficit spend is inflationary--increasing spending when you can't produce more things. On a political board that's dominated by conservative ideology, I know most will believe this hogwash. I would hope at some point you would start to question why the US has not had a day of reckoning with its $22 trillion (and growing) debt? Why if deficits are rising under Trump the 10-year US T-bond rate has declined over the past year? Why didn't QE cause inflation to exceed the Fed's 2% target? And why is GG always wrong...? ?

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).