TPS

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.

I've said a few times, I think the most interesting part of this year's Bills' draft are those three mid-round picks, assuming no trades. They will have 3 picks out of about 12 (depends on comp picks). McBean have found some good ones here--Johnson (R4), Milano and Teller (R5).

This will be key to their R1 pick this year, how many QBs will go in the first 8? Then there is always the surprise pick, a la Browns at 4 last year...

Someone actually listened to it without accepting that she said it. ?

DCDude, it's called a counterfactual. Tasker and GG claim that government distributes income without creating wealth. I gave ONE example when government was the prime generator of economic growth and wealth. If government can't cause the private sector to create wealth, then how do you explain this case? Was it only possible this one time? Why do you think president's declare war on poverty or terrorism, because they want to raise spending to fight those wars. Now, The problem with accepting this reality is that their libertarian theology comes crashing down. Government can no longer be viewed as stealing wealth if it can help create it. i understand that it is difficult for people to give up their beliefs.... That said, people conflate my describing how things work with my political leanings. The key point is government can expand private sector wealth by spending in excess of its taxes, and can do this as long there are excess resources. Note, that also means government can do the same thing by cutting taxes and keeping spending constant. Yes, I'd like to see more spending that supports the working class and less spending that supports the MIC, but that is a separate question--which is, if we can get the economy to produce more, how should we do it? What should it produce more of? If you want the private sector to make the decisions, then cut more taxes. it's that simple;and it's Trump's policy. If we ever do adopt this strategy, spending and/or taxes have to be more flexible in case we start to experience higher inflation, because the prescription from this perspective is to cut spending (or raise taxes). So there are issues with trying to use fiscal policy as a fine tuning tool, but that is no reason to waste unused resources. If you want to learn something, read this: https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/01/16/1547640616000/America-has-never-worried-about-financing-its-priorities/ The last paragraph is something i didn't know: *Modern monetary theory has the least Marxist origin story of any concept in the history of human thought. According to Warren Mosler, credited with inventing it, the idea came "after spending an hour in the steam room with Don Rumsfeld at the Racquet Club in Chicago."

Dude, I've said several times it's exactly what Trump has done: he's passed two bills to increase spending and he's cut taxes which raised the 2018 deficit by almost $200 billion. Also, I haven't said government spending is the only way to do it. As GG said, one can also increase deficits by cutting taxes, one part of Trump's plan. Back during the crisis I said one of the best policies would be to cut the payroll tax, which they actually did.

Hmmm...I thought I just said that if the Fed were to try QE at this point of the recovery it would cause inflation. silly me. It's not a necessary condition. I'm not sure what you mean by "reject the dollar"? China, Japan, the Saudis et al stop accumulating reserves? Oil is prices in another currency? You'll have to expand. Given our policies of endless war and outsourcing manufacturing, we will certainly see a demise. These are two areas where I hope Trump makes a difference.

The impact is unique to each country depending upon its resources and current state of the economy. If the Fed added another $6 trillion over the next four years, we'd see a significant jump in inflation given the current state of the economy, 3.7% unemployment currently. Slight difference in cases: people die, government can exist forever... People have to pay off their debts when they die, or their estate does. When exactly will the US government die?

Oh, you're taking about the same ratings agencies that said subprime mortgages were AAA? Hahahahahaha!!!!!

So Dick Cheney is a leftist? I didn't know that.... One point we do agree on is that our spending priorities are different. That's where the politics enters the discussion and is independent of how fiscal policy works. Yes, Negative rates were applied in Europe by the ECB a so-called independent central bank...

If you're expecting it to cause inflation but can't explain why it hasn't, then there must be a problem with your theory. And that's a general you, not YOU.

Did the government deficits and debt accumulated from WWII cause the US economy to collapse? Can you point to a site that shows the US debt has been downgraded? Thanks. That the US economy was so weak, the FEd went to extremes to try to stimulate it. Did it impact inflation? Are we Zimbabwe?

Please, let's not compare an underdeveloped country with a developed one. Zimb lacks capital; The US uses about 80% of its capital capacity currently. It's not up to the Treasury to deploy funds, it has to be appropriated by Congress. When congress passed Trump's spending Bills, that gave the Treasury the ability to spend, and it didn't need taxes to spend; in fact, Trump cut the revenues going to the Treasury with his other Bill. The private sector has more to spend and the government is spending more. The bigger deficits mean the Treasury also has to sell more bonds as the law requires. The Fed coordinates the auctions using its Primary Dealers who are required to fill the auction, and they always have the funds because the government spent them into existence (see my example above). Regarding your inflation concern, the fact that the government is required to sell bonds = to its deficits ties soaks up the newly created funds from the spending. As I said, the government is limited by the real resources available to produce real things, which is why Zimbabwe can't deficit spend and the US can, though we are getting closer to full employment, maybe...

The issue is that Tasker and GG think that government can only redistribute income, which has no impact on growth/wealth. In the case of a balanced budget that is true. With deficit spending, that's not the case. Government stimulates demand via deficits which causes the private sector to produce more output--wealth. From 1935 to 1940, RGDP grew by about 6% annually vs 12 % during the war. The average deficit in the first period was just under 3%/year; the average deficit in the second period was 17%/year. The impact of deficits of course depends on what's happening in the other sectors. Usually they go up when the private sector (C+I) is contracting, so higher deficits are associated with lower growth (as in Obama's first term). However, if the economy is growing and you juice it with deficits, it will juice the economy, just as we saw last year. It's really straight-forward. Unfortunately it's usually ideology that prevents using deficits to stimulate the economy more than if left alone, though republicans certainly realize "deficits don't matter." For conservatives, it seems deficit spending is fine as long as it for a wall or a war..... The only thing that limits us from producing more wealth is labor and capital as Tasker stated. Government deficit spending is a mechanism that puts more labor and capital to use. It's up to us to influence our politicians on how we want those resources used.

The other way around. For those who say government doesn't create growth/wealth, then what was the cause of the rapid expansion of output during this 5-year period? Where did the funding come from? I would never say the public sector drives economic growth; it can stimulate growth just as Trump has done with increased spending and cutting taxes. It does so by injecting additional demand into the economy, NOT by redistributing income.