TPS

row is probably still mad at me because I borrowed Tom's patented line (I believe I did use quotes) in a response to him. He's yet to prove me wrong....

Only when you're near full employment. I've said this a few times, Trump's deficits are an interesting experiment from my perspective. Workers have been beaten down for the past 30-40 years, meaning they have lost bargaining power through outsourcing and monopsony power of large corporations. Trump creating a fiscal stimulus when unemployment was approaching 4% is one way to give workers bargaining power. The fiscal stimulus that pushed GDP growth over 3% last year is helping workers achieve higher wage growth. Of course, this is also what could set the Fed back on its course of raising interest rates. Interesting times for an economist...

If you don’t understand the difference between deficits in a recession vs deficits at the peak of a business cycle, you should take an economics course. You should know my position by now. I’m not criticizing his deficits. I’m saying they are the reason for faster growth in 2018.

The president isn't in control of the Fed. As I've said, Obama's economy was mediocre, and over his last 4 years, the economy's performance was no different than Trump's first year. If you want to try and compare the first 4 years of the worst crisis since the 1930s, that is not very objective... I have acknowledged that Trump's bigger deficits created by spending increases and tax cuts would juice the economy, and they have--I assume you saw my predictions a year ago? Now we'll see if there's any longer lasting effect in his next last two years which will be a better gauge on whether his policies can create sustained growth, though deficits will still have a significant impact since they are projected to hit $1 trillion by 2020.

I'll come back to the first part, but are you seriously saying Trump did not provide a "stimulus"?!? Are you going to tell us that bigger deficits don't stimulate economies?

My criticisms usually reflect the opposite issue--no recognition that the economy expanded for 7 years under BO, albeit at a mediocre rate. As I posted previously, average monthly employment growth in 2017 was actually below Obama's last 4 years. 2018 is a good year driven by the tax cuts and spending increases which have caused higher deficits--which is why I predicted 3-4% RGDP growth. We'll see how the economy fares over his 4-year term. Even though his tariffs are creating problems, I've also stated that I support this policy given China's track record. Good numbers today.

Yes, Tariffs are good for US manufacturing. It's a miracle. Some things are better and some are worse, but the fact is the economy is now almost 10 years into its expansion. In the end, his four years won't be much different than average, though Here's a piece suggesting Trump currently doesn't fare well compared to some of his predecessors. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-28/trump-economy-lags-clinton-s-obama-s-reagan-s-and-even-carter-s

It's amazing that Trump was able to keep the expansion going for almost ten years in only his first two years!

Wonder How many other teams had no def/st tds?

What will die first, this or Rocky-related movies?

Would you please stop saying things i agree with... ?

The ones I'm referring to are illegal and Apple and a few others were fined when emails surfaced of their collusion. Just as Adam Smith said: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

On skilled labor, big corps are always trying to gain the upper hand. For example, Silicon Valley and non-compete agreements between the big tech firms. And, unfortunately, government given their money and power, government tends to side on the side of business over workers. You did surprise me with your unionize answer. The Bell Curve has been attacked on many levels. I think the conversation above has highlighted some. The environment has a significant impact on IQ at conception. What the mother takes in influences the child. There are so many different environmental factors that have been shown to influence development it is difficult to provide legitimate data to test for a CAUSAL relation. Ceteris Paribus as we say in economics, all else equal. It's not a scientific test where most other variables can be held constant and then test the specific factor. What it does is raise all of those questions. We found this relationship, what is the cause? To what extent is it environmental vs genetic? It's impossible to isolate the factors. I'll check the video out when I have some time too.

I'm not over-complicating, I'm considering ALL impacts which is typically ignored by the so-called hired guns who "prove" the average consumer would be better off. It's BS. It's like free trade arguments that say on average we're better off, but it just so happens millions of people will lose high-paying jobs and industrial cities will be decimated, but we get cheaper goods from Walmart.... Btw, if the criteria is improved benefits for the "average" consumer, shouldn't you support single payer health insurance? The average consumer would have access to healthcare at lower cost....

It's NOT a simple question. The question should be: is the average person better off from an economy that is dominated by monopolies? Your question, which is behind the law and econ movement, became the focus in order to allow corporations to get bigger and bigger, and as we already argued, there are plenty of economists for hire who will testify that a merger is good for the consumer, though there is no way to quantify the effects through time. The effects on the macroeconomy are now pretty clear. As the book suggests, it is what underlies the rise in inequality. Economic power allows the powerful to extract more and more "economic rent", whether it's the monopolistic prices it can charge because there's no competition, or the monopolistic power it can use to dictate prices to producers. Both of which create more profit for the monopolist. The average person, the bottom 99%, is worse off now than they were 20 years ago, and the top 1% has been the beneficiary, as the gains from economic rent flow to the top. As Tasker stated, those with economic power make the rules because they have more free speech ($$) than the rest of us. Bezos/Amazon gained his advantage by paying off legislatures to prevent interstate taxation of online sales, providing a "competitive advantage." Walmart destroys small businesses wherever they locate. I know the average person should be thankful that they can buy the cheap Chinese crap sold at Walmart because that's the only way they can afford to survive on the ***** wages they receive from Walmart. But, yeah, let's be thankful for the company store.... You say the author's argument is BS, and I say the excuse that monopolies benefit the average consumer is BS. We disagree, as usual. But I'd still buy you a beer...

We agree on the main point. I'd certainly like to hear what you think about "free exchange" between individuals in the market if it's understood that, in the labor market for example, one side has more power over the other. Regarding the first point, you would have to provide more info since people have interpreted these conclusions different ways. I've certainly read enough criticisms of their use of statistics. There are other criticisms as well. For example, if one believes that IQ is related to race, however defined, then that must also mean we human beings are NOT the descendants of the same ***** sapiens. If IQ is based on "race," then how could we all have the same forefather/mother (Lucy)? Unfortunately this will probably take us away from the other topic...

@GG and I recently argued about monopolies. Here is a review of a book (I've ordered) on the issue Suggesting it is THE defining problem of our age. The Myth of Capitalism https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/01/seeking-cure-new-gilded-age-total-corporate-domination-everything.html there is no such thing as a "free market" when economic power is so concentrated.

@Deranged Rhino here's another alternative "journalist" that I would characterize as left liberal and critical of the Russian narrative, in fact I'm sure she's been labeled a Putin pawn. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/22/mainstream-media-is-literally-making-people-sick/ the last paragraph nails it.

With Allen's ability to stretch the field vertically, it opens up the intermediate throws of 15-20 yards. I thought some of his best throws came on crossing routes at that distance (some drops come to mind there as well). His arm strength also makes those throws tougher to defend. Improving the O-line, which will improve the running game and pass pro, will make this a very difficult offense to defend next year. Then there is his running... A lot to be excited about.

It's all about the proper footwork. However, If you don't start with the proper technique, then It's analogous to changing your golf swing: with enough practice and repetition you can do it; but, there will be times when you revert to what was natural before, especially in pressure situations.

If they can't get one of the better centers in FA, but end up drafting one, then he may hold down the position until the player is ready. Hopefully they will be able to upgrade in FA though.

I wondered as well if some conservatives might re-think their beliefs about MLK given Trump's treatment by theFBI? I doubt it will ever be cleansed. More likely They are mocking the American people.

I'll keep saying it, they aren't leftists. Aaron Mate is the most vocal leftist criticizing the Russian witch hunt, and there are many others. It's the DNC center, which is why they are becoming more and more irrelevant.

I guess this means you can say McBean are responsible for the past two drafts! I gave McD all the credit in year 1.