Capco

Okay. So you’re saying the Chinese have more economic freedom than Americans?

I meant like... the degree to which individuals can make economic choices within a society or country, under their laws, etc. The parameters that define economic freedom are pointless if there are no players making choices within those parameters, like people and businesses. It's kind of built into the definition (as I thought I understood it, anyway). Here's a definition written by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank: Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself. Obviously, neither country is perfectly economically free according to the above definition, and both have restrictions and regulations governing economic choices. And I know you're saying that China is winning, but I'm still trying to find out which country's government allows, for example, labor, capital, and goods to move more freely in your opinion. Do the Chinese have more control over their own labor and property than Americans do? Are the Chinese more free to work, produce, consume, and invest than Americans are?

Just a reminder, but you literally used the term "economic freedom" in a sentence in the post you are quoting: That's your own, original thought with your own word choice. In order to make such a statement, one must have a working definition of economic freedom. So either you have a definition of economic freedom and you are just being difficult, or you don't have a definition and are making uninformed claims.

One of my favorite discussions to have about football is the evolution of the game at the NFL level over the last 2 decades. There are enough variables in play that it's difficult to narrow it down to one reason above all others.

Haha, very clever! Let me finish what I'm doing with Over 29 before I let you go ahead and do the same with me

And so again I ask you not for the recent trends, but for the overall position of each country with respect to economic freedom: which country has more economic freedom, at this moment in time? China or the US?

In which country do citizens have more economic freedom with less state intervention? China or the US?

If China is winning, it certainly isn't because their government sits back and lets private enterprise do its thing... 🤔

Which party is about combating wealth inequality and taxing the uber rich again? And which party loves tax cuts for billionaires?

I'm not so sure about the House, but retaking the Senate looks difficult in 2022 at this point. Afaik, there are 5 Republican incumbents who are not running for re-election, and two more on the fence (Grassley and Johnson). All Democrats but one are running (Leahy). Until I looked at it more closely I kind of assumed the Senate was a longshot to hold, but it's actually looking like the opposite. The Pennsylvania and North Carolina seats are probably the most likely seats to change in the entire race, if anything is going to change at all.

Same here. Thanks for the heads up House. I think the kid can do some good things this year.

Holy cow did Peters blow his block on the DE...

I always get those mixed up lmao. Yuan, not Yen.

The United States happens to be in a very unique position in the world with respect to currency. The US Dollar is the reserve currency of the world. What that effectively means is that there will always be an inordinate amount of demand for the greenback. Any time a foreign currency transaction occurs it can be thought of as one party buying the other party's money with their own money. One reason inflation is never a very big problem in the US is because of this demand for dollars. Look at the rates of inflation by year over the last 20 years; inflation has not gone anywhere close to out of control despite a massive expansion of the money supply. We'd be stupid not to use this unique position to our advantage. It's also one of the main reasons why China manipulates their own currency. They want the Yen Yuan to challenge the dollar as a reserve currency, if not globally then at least regionally. That doesn't mean that fiscal responsibility is a non-issue. It is, but inflation is rarely a fiscal issue in modern times. Economists have so much better of an understanding now than they did preceding the Great Depression (an event which was actually made worse by deflationary policies made in response). Controlled inflation (i.e. what we have had now for a while) is actually good for the economy. In modern times, under Donkey presidents, deficits shrink; under GOP presidents, deficits grow. Both parties are big spenders, but the Dems are also big taxers, especially on the wealthy. It's interesting how much supposed deference the right gives to the Founding Fathers and Enlightenment philosophes in this respect when they were so obviously against the idea of a class of wealthy families in perpetuity. In fact, some like Jefferson even advocated for an estate tax far more aggressive than what we have now. “What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich [persons], but they do not form a class.” -Alexis de Tocqueville

Just wanted to say thank you for starting this thread off with some good material to work with.

In reference to the trend in general (not the Pats in particular), I think it's worthy to note that the modern passing era cannot just be chalked up to cyclical changes in football strategy. I think there's another x-factor, one that isn't even a part of the game itself. Money. Or more particularly, the increasing commercialization of the NFL, particularly since Bob Kraft started working out all those mega TV deals and the addition of more primetime games. This change has gone hand-in-hand with the changes to the rules in the passing game. And who gets to approve rule changes? The owners... you know, the same guys who have a financial incentive to keep the game "exciting" to watch. And the general consensus is that high-scoring games with lots of passing taking place are more fun to watch than a 7-3 slugfest. For smashmouth football to make a full return, it would also need to conquer the almighty dollar.

Oh wow, Luke literally just turned 30. If he's healthy enough to play, he probably still has a few years left in the tank. His speed is going to start to drop off significantly though if it hasn't already, and that speed is a big part of what made him such a great fit for McD's system. I'm just not sure that the Bills are interested after picking up Tremaine's 5th year option and the Milano extension. The only way I can see this working is if Tremaine moves outside and they utilize a lot more 3-backer play calls.

Oh for sure it's arguable. I think your point is equally fair about sacks per game. I'd only add that if White played Bruce's position, nothing suggests that White would have done any better than Bruce, but I think it's arguable White's production per game would have gone down as a 3-4 DE.

I think he made a fair point. Producing that many sacks as a 3-4 DE is insane, especially considering that the Bills' front 7 was a little undersized for a 3-4.

And I tend to agree with them. The shutdown corners that play man-to-man physically are special.

When I read this I was confusing 1T and 3T in my head and was so lost at first haha. But overall I agree a lot. I think a good 1T/0T in football is very similar to an OL in the sense that the impact from the good ones doesn't really show up on their individual stat sheets directly. For example, you can measure an OL in how bad they are by things like sacks allowed and penalties committed, but stats that measure how good they are as players are harder to come across and evaluate. However, like a good OL, the impact of a good 1T/0T in football is undeniable. They may not produce many sacks or TFLs (or in some cases not even that many tackles), but the good ones demand attention in order to negate this impact and this itself has a secondary impact all its own. Shutdown corners also come to mind in that they might not produce many individual stats because of their reputation, but at the same time that reputation is affecting the opposing offense's entire game plan. How do you even "measure" something like that directly despite the impact being so obvious? Like a good OL, a good 1T/0T provides an overall team benefit in the aggregate. Again, such impact is difficult to measure directly, but the impact is most certainly there when inferred from things like team rankings in certain statistical categories over a large span of games. I recall Bill Polian talking about how to build teams and what his key, premium positions were. Iirc, he listed 4: QB, LT, CB, and pass rusher. Personally, I would add 1T/0T and C to that list. And if you think about it, those are the positions that can produce the most intangible benefits to your team in the aggregate. Those are the positions that can most make the other positions around them better. So yes, I think a dominant 1T for this defense is critical to keeping this unit an elite one for years. Depth is good too, and Philips can still be a solid contributor.

I love how you’ve always maintained this attitude over the years. Go Bills!

Well, the people who argue this just can't be very reasonable.

Sorry if this has been said, but one thing to consider is the following. When cops pull out their taser, they pull the trigger once. It's a one-use device until reloaded. When cops pull out their handgun, they pull the trigger multiple times. It's part of their training to shoot until the suspect is down. In some cases, they can't even recall how many times they fired because of the adrenaline of the moment. To the best of my knowledge, this officer fired a single shot. That supports the notion that she believed she was pulling out her taser.

Why are you pinning this on Biden? After all, you JUST said: So which SoCal Deek post am I supposed to follow?