GG

In all fairness, Rob Ryan is a joke everywhere, except coaching ILBs

2 years?

There's 8 years' worth of discussion about it in the Obama Economy thread, followed by a direct contrast in the Trump Economy thread. To say that executives thought Obama was more of a wild card than Trump, is being kind to Obama. The CEOs didn't think much of Obama's business acumen, and they knew well enough to sit on their hands and wait things out.

The difference being that Skinner hadn't put word that he won't sign in Buffalo. I imagine if he had, he'd be booed too.

Could explain why everything has been quiet on the WR coach front.

Here come the sanctions & freezing of oil payments. Suck it up Citgo.

Dear Lord.

#Winteriscoming? Isn't it summer in Venezuela?

As always, the comments are more illuminating than the article. As Stephens predicted, the commentators can’t admit that socialism was the problem in Venezuela.

So essentially you’re saying that the head coach of the best college program that has been an offensive juggernaut and just pasted a star-studded Alabama, is an idiot for employing JP for two years?

This site generally follows the NFL's punishment rules. There's lots of leeway, until a video or picture emerges.

Dexter was referring to the past releases, not future ones.

This is really the beginning of the end.

No formal business ties. This day of reckoning had to come eventually, and it has nothing to do with #Orangemanbad, and everything to do with the economics of running a news organization. All of these small online news outlets share a common trait - they were founded as side projects and existed only through charity of the founder or sponsor. Some of them were sold to larger media/Internet companies, where the bottom line eventually catches up with the wild eyed vision. Newsgathering and reporting is hardly a profit-maker for the established outlets. For smaller outfits without a benefactor, they're mortal.

Not you, but the general inference made when people throw out the statistic without context.

The other article posted above gives additional insights into the more plausible reasons for blacks owning slaves - for emancipation, marriage and raising families. The inference that black ownership of slaves was for servitude is probably incorrect.

The model you're advocating for was blown up in the '70s when the rest of the world started to catch up to US manufacturing. It's a pipe dream to think that you can stand vanguard and maintain the same employment in the same industries and grow wages. It just doesn't work. Doesn't mean that there aren't temporary economic dislocations which naturally mostly hurt the least able and the least prepared. That's why there should be a temporary social safety net. As for the last point, single payer health insurance will only mean broader access to worse healthcare. That's why I don't support it.

It is a simple question that you're overcomplicating with unnecessary qualifiers. The big companies' size, market cap and by extension their owners' wealth has absolutely no bearing on the consumers' standard of living. Using the examples above, are consumers better off with WalMart's dominance or having Bradlees, Ames, Woolworth, and Kmart adding to competition? Just because now there's one superstore replacing four, doesn't mean the consumers' choices are worse. In fact, they're monumentally better than before. By any stretch of measurements, US standards of living keep improving with every day items become more widely available and more affordable. The only statistics that you can point to that show a worsening financial position is where you include education, housing and healthcare costs. Important ones, for sure. But also the ones that have the heaviest government hand in them. So maybe that should prompt a former trader to reconsider what the real impediments to consumer choices are.

Yup. People love to say that WalMart killed the mom and pop stores. They may have on a very small scale. The biggest thing they did was kill horrible department stores.

It's not the wrong question. It's the first question of multiple questions that need to be answered to properly gauge the impact of companies growing bigly. You just moved on to one of the follow up questions.

That's why the US has historically been very effective when the feds went anti-trust violations that affected consumers. In the last generation, the focus switched to deemed harm to competitors, without a clear tie in whether consumers have been harmed. It's the difference between the US model and the European model. This shift in enforcement aids the environment that Tasker refers to, because increased focus on companies' behaviors and added regulations tend to benefit larger corporations who can afford the exorbitant cost of compliance. It's also why the thesis proposed by TPS's book reference is full of crap.

I always thought that AOC bore a striking resemblance to SNL's Cecily Strong, and they should have her playing AOC. But now I realize, courtesy of a Ben Shapiro observation, SNL has had AOC on for years as the Girl You Wish You Hadn't Started A Conversation With At A Party. Just one snippet

Simple question. Does an average person benefit more from buying everything they want at lower prices from Amazon, Walmart, etc. or going to multiple websites to fill out the shopping cart and paying a lot more in the process?

I'm guessing Rae Carruth is now looking for a home in NYS?

It wasn't that long ago when everyone knew that Bernie Sanders was an old crank with stupid ideas that shouldn't be taken seriously.