colin

no you fool. i said the fed actually crowds out reponsible counterparty risk management. management of banks were correct to not bother hedging their bear counterparty exposure (or under hedging it) as the regulator obviously bailed them out.

do you know what a ccds is? do you understand what it means wrt counterparty credit? it protects against counterparty (as in the otherside of the cds or any other contract) losses. do you understand how the fed crowds out ccds usage? the actual losses of a counterparty going bust is a function of the net risk netted between the institutions. i could be any amount of notional and still be flat. 2 trill is just a guess. the real embarassing thing about the cds and other derivatives contracts is how poorly managed they are from a back and middle office POV. a ccds model actually provides what the costs will be in the case of a bust (given a specific recovery rate). so yeah, i am sure. and the only thing that is embarrassing is that i have to give you a lesson for you to begin to understand how wrong you are. do you know what a ccds is? just tell me what you think it stands for, and how it CAN protect against counterparty exposure, and why you think it is embarassing to state that it can?

2 trill is the notional, not the risk, not even close. after netting the actual risks are small, the opperational aspect would be expensive but that's just because the players are under invested and undermanaged wrt back and middle office. a ccds market could account for and protect all the counterparty credit exposures, and the effect of the fed on this market is people won't adopt them unless the fed makes them, because it's cheaper just to get bailed out. this is an example how the regulator's effect on the market crowds out the self regulation that would otherwise exist. have you ever traded any of these things? reality can be a little different than how tps and dc tom agree it is.

i did no such thing you goof. economic scarcity of money is a well established term, it essentially means the amount of money wrt the amount of real wealth in a given economy. it is absolutely a function of supply and demand, yet you've just accused me of saying it isn't. and you called me a dumbass, even tho you didn't even understand my very simple post. there have been dozens of economists, including nobel prize winners, using these terms for decades. i think your TPS lust has made you mad.

it's economic scarcity. were the market to set this value (completely as the credit market for different consumers gives us an idea of what prices the market will bare) it would be interest rates. interest rates without a credit element would represent the intertemporal demand for money. do you think inflation is too much demand?

the poster talking about all the states obama can't win is a bigger obama bear than i am. i think PA, OH, and FLA are the real battle grounds, repubs winning 2 of them (with OH and FLA being the main ones) is a lock for mccain getting the presidency. obama is a total stud with the minorities, college kids, single women, and people who suffer from white guilt. the thing is those guys are dems anyway, and are concentrated in CA, wisconsin, NY, mass, etc. at the end of it people vote for presidents they trust as being strong and american. clinton only won due to ross perot hurting his opponenet. so since regean, without perot, we have america showing that it likes republican presidents. obama isn't a strong enough substitute (a war hero dem who seemed like a tough guy would be a slam dunk IMO due to bush's bad rep). mccain is an iffy candidate by most measures, but obama is unelectable. i can't wait to see how the put the attack ads on his wife.

the bolded part is junk. although the fed might not be able to just hand out cash, but they can very much expand and contract the money supply via the banks. as this is done, the liquidity will leak out in the market. the thing is it doesn't spread evenly (which is why the cpi/ppi is a waste of time). when they inflated the money supply in the late 90s, the new cash went into tech (start ups, expansion, massive capacity upgrades, tech equities) in the last expansion of the money supply it got dumped into consumer lending (houses, credit cards, cdo's and cmo's, house builders, and lbo's a plenty). this is worse for the man in the street that bills form the sky, because they will be the last in and last out. the real junk part of that comment is the value judgement you pretend to make on supply and demand. you are essentialy saying that inflation is a problem with supply or demand (or perhaps both), something that you are ostensibly supporting the government or fed "fixing". as AD pointed out, you are saying the market is wrong and the government will be able to correct the too high demand, or "supply side shock". if this were the case the government could just fix north korea and cuba, but they can't. they can't because the market creates wealth, nothing else. this is a joke. the market sets prices (except for the price/supply of the dollar/interest rates which the fed just sets by fiat). its that simple. if you have more demand, you get a higher price. less supply, higher price. the thing is the market will respond with more supply, more alternatives or subsitites, and as a poster pointed out about demand for oil, if people can't pay the price they will just do without. so to conclude: inflation is a decrease in the value of the currency, government fiat controlling supply and interest rates (the price of money) even if that supply increase is filtered through private institutions is the real cause of this. the market setting prices in a way that you don't agree with isn't inflation.

i agree -- the bills rule. i'm gonna have a smile on my face while chest kicking pats fans.

you like mine tho right!? :>?

no. inflation is growth in the money supply. the fed has control of the money supply. the ultimate level of the money supply is influenced heavily by credit expansion, but the ability of the banks to expand credit is dominated by the fed's influence. and prices ARE NOT cost plus some margin, they are what the market will bare. the do not just go up because costs go up, they go up because the market will clear at higher prices. if your labor costs went up and you decided to charg for your posts, no one would pay a nickle. supply and demand determines prices, with the exception of interest rates (in the usa at least) as they are set by the fed. when the fed inflates the money supply, you see inflation in prices, not because of costs changing, but because the value of the dollar (its economic scarcity) is reduced due to an inflated supply of dollars. dc tom, before you get your popcorn and lube and butt plug to wank to TPS' intro to eco posts, you might want to look up how the fed managed themselves under volker, and milton friedman's helicopter argument on inflation. TPS' text book isn't the only one

things will be bad but we'll pull through. tps, the fed can cause inflation, in fact they are inflation. they print the money, that's inflation. end of story.

if wright has talent but not necessarily the work ethic, then a young guy who might take his job is exactly what the dr ordered

the fed is a bad thing. we have the fed because the government will do bad things if it thinks it will expand its power.

while markets can get pushed around, the argument that speculators tend to make markets swing more wildly is silly. if speculators make the highs higher, they must do so by buying. if they make the lows lower they must do so by selling. this would make speculators losers -- they'd end up buying high and selling low. now this isn't to say that speculators can't push markets, they can and do, but this is about the true economic effect of free markets. free markets improve liquidity, anyone who's ever traded anything knows that a market without real liquidity either barely trades or just gets pinned in one direction on a fairly regular basis. speculators are a good thing.

i've had violent battles with ramius and labillz over the qb's right on on tsw, but on most other things we tend to agree. this is one of those things -- i h8 the pats so damn much! i so want porter to flip the eff out gangsta roid rage style and put his helmet through brady's knee. i want brady to come back early and look like a hero until he gets sacked double digit times by the bills in a horrible faketriot loss that pushes him to a smack habit and into his true calling of being an sfv gay pr0n star dying of aids in 18 months.

i almost spat coffee cuz of this post. lulz!!

unless you are actually violating the contract, you or a football player or anyone can demand anything. the bills can cut peters in the morning if he loses a leg in a car accident. peters has the right to hold out without forfitting his signing bonus. the bills have the right to cut him, ending the contract. that's the bottom line. in baseball and basket ball you have guaranteed contracts, so the whole contract is guaranteed up front. it's terrible.

i was thinking the bills were gonna sign evans this year, and re do peters next year. i don't think they want to drop an additional 35 or so guaranteed bucks right now at once. maybe they can arrang something -- have a two tiered bonus incase he gets hurt this year or something.

best ever o is pretty established. they set the scoring record, right?

just like how the colts have been built, or greenbay before them, or dallas before them, we are built as a team with the specific purpose of knocking off the big dawgs on the block. that's the faketriots obviously. pass D, pass blocking, power back, ball control, kick ass special teams. if we can take away the big play, and then throw some blitzes and confusion at brady we can make new england go from best o ever to average. if we can hold the ball we can wear out the old d. with marshawn we can get to the red zone and punch them in the effing mouth. with our special teams we can play on their side of the field and possibly break one. i've got my chest kicking shoes ready, THIS IS THE YEAR WE DO IT!111

100 is more than 97

fair point right there imo. if we have a decent D and O, then you go for roscoe who is more consistent with some but not as much big play %. those extra yards and 40 and 50 yardline starts can add up if we can convert some red zone tries. if our o is worthless again then you want the scores. as far as AP and lynch go, i think ap is better. i thought he was a ton better, but this thread did point out some very interesting things to me. for a rookie on the second worst O in the nfl with qb problems (and a rook much of the season) and a bad D that doesn't force punts for more chances to never have a game under 50 yards is impressive. with our oline togther for another season and some passing threats in the end zone i could see marshawn just bulling his way to some big touchdown numbers. if we only face 7 in the box i think he could absolutely gash some teams for big fat runs. marshawn might break some bills rushing records in his career (talk about a serious standard!). not for sure, but he really does have a shot.

this article really points out to me the need for changing up, guarding signals, and a little trickery. i hate the pats and want them all to get a disease that turns their legs into giant puss filled sores, but still our team needs to protect its neck.

that's a good friggen post cat. now that we have some horses i think we'll be able to go with the change up on D. i want brady in a wheelchair blowing into a straw to move since his arms don't work. i want billicheat violently gang raped by the trannies ronaldo was caught with, giving him a version of super aids that leaves him like the victims in aliens.

STOP IT BILL!! lol so this whole thread aside, yeah of course the fo is mortified. so was i when i first read this. let's hope this is the shot in the ass everyone needs to keep everything wired tight.