Magox

Tells me that the Bill won't be drafting a cb with either of their first two picks and that we won't be picking up a starting caliber cb in FA

So, because the government has an extreme appetite for a private entities product, they should nationalize or own a majority stake of the company? Really? Really???

This is a perfect example that you belong to a failed economic orthodoxy. Whether its on a government or personal household level your only one trick pony solution is to spend more. Doesn't matter the external circumstances, if we are facing structural issues, your prescription is to spend more. If families are facing declining wages relative to inflation, your solution is to spend more. That's all you have to offer, spend spend spend. I just hope that you aren't in a position to where you are teaching young, impressionable minds, because if you are, you are dangerous and destructive. We've already proven that Krugman was wrong on his policy prescription of Keynesian spending to get us out of this downturn, which you fully supported. We have stagnant growth and the lowest labor participation rate in over three decades. So you were wrong on that. Now on a personal household level, we are seeing wages decline relative to inflation, increased personal spending and the loss of savings and you say this is what is needed? In a healthy economy you will see steadily increasing wages, savings and spending. Right now only one of three is what we are seeing. It's unsustainable, if savings continue to decrease, which they will IF spending continues on pace while seeing the same trend in wages, then at some point spending will slow down because of the exhaustion of personal savings. At this current trajectory, all we are doing is borrowing future spending, with risks attached to it. Of course the other nasty side effect of the depletion of savings is increased personal household debt. There are many risks associated with this. One of the flaws of your failed economic orthodoxy was fully exposed during the banking melt down, which was personal household debt imploded. People racked up so much debt and personal savings was so low that when the **** hit the fan, people were !@#$ed. Personal savings rates have been declining since the late 80s and really began to plummet in the 90s, which left households more vulnerable to shocks in the economy than what would have been the case if we didn't have such an insatiable appetite to consume. I'm not saying spending is a bad thing, what I'm saying is that if we have an economy that has declining wages relative to inflation, that it is a risky and ultimately harmful development to see increased spending at the expense of savings rate. It doesn't surprise me one bit that you are incapable of seeing the risks that I'm attempting to explain to you. I mean lets not forget that you were trying to explain to me about the oil markets and you didn't even know the impacts of spare oil capacity has on prices. Or that you don't even know the basic concepts of the relationship between currencies and commodities. Your problem is that you are a rigid economic ideologue, and when I use the term orthodoxy, it applies in every sense of the word when it comes to you, because its basically become a religion to you, founded on faith. The faith that spending cures all ills. You don't have a pragmatic bone in your body, professor. I on the other hand am not opposed to spending or austerity on either a government or personal household level. I'm not opposed to higher or lower taxes depending on the situation. I'm not for or opposed to devaluing currencies or tight or loose monetary policy. I dont believe all regulations are bad and do believe they have a place in our economy. However you are virtually always for more spending, higher taxes and increased regulation. This makes you a prisoner of your ideology.

Wow! So you think increased household spending, with stagnant incomes, which comes at the expense of personal savings is a positive? It's not

So here is a stat provided by ECLAC United Nations Economic Commission and Latin America and the Caribbean ... Credible enough edit: I tried to drag the chart here but was unable to Here is the link below to see the chart, it's at the bottom http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21573095-after-14-years-oil-fuelled-autocracy-hugo-ch%C3%A1vezs-successors-will-struggle-keep So the big stat that some of the sympathizers were bringing up was the Poverty rate. On the surface it looked pretty good, but when you decide to delve into the numbers there are some obvious reasons to why this happened. The chart in the link shows the poverty rate of Peru, Brazil and all of Latin America. The Poverty rate declined even more so Peru and Brazil and virtually just about the same through out all of America. Relatively speaking, the decline in the poverty rate in Venezuela was nothing out of the norm. It's quite natural to see a country who benefited off the explosion of Oil revenues to see the poverty rate decline. Another interesting stat that I read was that the public sector force more than doubled during his tenure. Considering that he ran large deficits and was completely at the mercy of elevated oil prices, what would happen to that public sector force once prices decide to drop? I think the answer is obvious.

Why try to reason with someone who is unreasonable?

There does seem to be some sort of underlying strength in the economy, today's job reports was pretty positive. Without a doubt rising stocks and home prices are helping out as Gross suggests. We'll see how these additional taxes and cuts will play out... Also, there are questions to the sustainability of the rise in equities.....People see their 401k's and home prices rise, they feel richer and therefore spend more. However, there is evidence that the additional spending coming from the economy comes at the expense of savings. That is not a good sign. So we'll see how things play out.

Who said otherwise? Remember, you responded to this:

Fine, you aren't embarrassed for fabricating stuff and I'm not embarrassed of calling people for what they are. You said "So what?" when confronted with his motives for amending the constitution. Now you are back pedaling. Also no mention of his amending of the constitution to throw out Supreme court justices that he disagrees with and the choosing of his own electoral board. That's not an abuse of power? Sorry, but if you don't think that is, then we really have nothing more to say on this topic. In regards to corruption, please, it's well known that his family is living high on the hog, driving exotic vehicles, wearing so much bling that it would make Jay Z blush.... How did they get that money? They worked for the government, before Chavez came into power he was in the military. It's just common sense, anyone who lived in South America who keeps up with politics knows this to be the case, unless of course you are a sympathizer of Chavez and choose to turn a willful eye.

The professor is one of the few "economists" on this planet, that believes that currency devaluation doesn't lead to higher commodity inflation. It is basic economics 101, you devalue a currency, the price of commodities tend to go up. Facts be damned! Who cares that growth rates are slowing and supply is increasing, yet prices are steadily rising. It's almost unfathomable how someone who purports to understand the economy, doesn't understand this basic principle. Prices are rising for a number of reasons, but the long-term trend is for two main reasons, global growth and monetary policy. Global Growth along with dollar devaluation led us to an explosive rise pre 2008. Ever since then Growth has lagged, yet the price of commodities have either risen or remained elevated. Coincidentally, we've seen the augmentation of currency devaluation policies through out the developed world. If growth was still relatively strong, we would see an explosive rise in commodities, but we don't. So the main engine of commodity price growth is coming from monetary policy. If Growth remained where we are today, and monetary policy were to tighten considerably, then I guarantee you that the price of commodities would drop off sharply.

The people that were in charge of Bolivia and Venezuela were a bunch of corrupt mother!@#$ers. They sucked their countries dry of whatever resources they had, and spread it amongst themselves, which is why people were clamoring for change. But that isn't what this argument is about, what we're talking about is that Chavez himself is a corrupt son of a B word, and has done more harm for his country than good and apparently there are people on this board who believe that his policy prescriptions were both effective and appropriate.

Wow, you are one warped individual... No sane rational person believes that Chavez has been good for the country of Venezuela. At least we all now know that you have extreme views of your economic policies. Good to know you support Chavez

Hold on a second, so a few months ago you saw the economy was gaining strength despite the flat GDP growth? Dude, you're not making any sense. You are going up against a brick wall here, this is the point that I made to both of them, and they were both incapable of comprehending this point. Global growth is much weaker today than it was then, yet commodity prices are considerably higher. But yeah, easy money policies has nothing to do with it. Morons

Oh, so the payroll tax increase affected fourth quarter GDP. Okey dokey

Re negotiating contracts is a good thing, in the terms that they did it under, wasn't. So I guess you are ok with their treatment of Owens-Illinois, Conoco , Exxon etc.? Also, why no mention of personal seizures of farmland and possessions of private owners? Just shows what you are all about And that is a bunch of bull ****. Chile weathered the storm better not because of a decision to set up a sovereign wealth fund, which was originally created well before she got there you twit, it was able to weather the storm because of the diverse investments it has made for decades. And it doesn't surprise me one bit that you prefer the incorrect spelling of Chile.

Hold on, are you comparing "Chili" (Chile) to Venezuela? Sure, their main commodity will have an impact on growth, but the main distinction between the two, and there are many aside from fiscal policies is that they have invested in many other areas to help sustain growth when their main export drops off, whereas Venezuela hasn't. The entire world plummeted in 2008/2009, the fact that they had only had one year that they were barely negative says a lot. http://www.gfmag.com...l#axzz2Msqd5p9y Where as Venezuela endured two years of negative GDP growth http://www.gfmag.com...l#axzz2Msqd5p9y Yep, just like Chile

I wonder how much the increase of oil prices contributed to these numbers? It's a small country, if the price of oil increases close to 500%, it is only natural to see GDP per Capita rise along with a decline in the unemployment rate, and they should be doing much better than what it is that they are doing. According to "official government figures" I can tell you this, the standard of living for the poor in Venezuela or Bolivia is no better today than it was 15 years ago. Can anyone imagine what would happen to Venezuela if the price of oil would drop down to $60 a barrel, under Chavez's policies? It would be armageddon over there

Oh, so "travelling" is where you picked this bit of information from? Got it So you agree with what I said then? That it's primarily because of a transfer of wealth

The hawks are becoming a dying breed.

Oh looky, A youtube video to form Lybob's thoughts. Right on cue

Imagine that, a transfer of wealth from one class of people to another. I've seen it first hand, how did you come to this conclusion? Reading about it?

Wow, your stupidity has no limits. I said that we have higher inflation because of current monetary policy and never made any mention of Obama's policies contributing to it, moron. And uh, the price of precious metals don't support whatever it is you are trying to say. Not to mention that currency exchange rates is a horrible point of reference considering everyone is involved in the same monetary policy. Oh, you think that interest rates tell the whole story? Sorry to burst your bubble youtube boy, but interest rates move up and down for many different complex reasons. So I guess when bond yields were soaring in Spain, Ireland, Portugal it was because of inflation? There is this little dynamic that you were unaware of and that you are incapable of understanding which is this reserve currency status we have. When the rest of the world believes that there aren't too many places to invest, they flock to safety, which drives demand for our debt up and pushes yields lower, despite all our domestic issues. As El Erian and Bill Gross would like to say, We are the cleanest dirty shirt. Now I understand that your little pea brain doesn't quite understand all the complexities that come with the bond markets and currency exchanges, but I mean before you cast a stone, don't you think that you should have at least a little knowledge on the subject before you opine? Wouldn't that make at least a little sense? Why don't you run along and form your next thought from a youtube video. And yet GDP growth is flat. Good call.

This post was filled with so much poppycock, Don't even know where to begin. So I'm going to dismantle this pile of garbage point by point. Really? huh, that's funny, considering that I am a citizen of Bolivia, not a resident but citizen. We receive more news coming out of Venezuela than any other country in Latin America, aside from Venezuela of course, and most of the news is sympathetic to Chavez, never mind the fact that the president of our country is Evo Morales. I'm not opposed to amending the constitution, I question his motive. He amended the constitution to end term limits, to gain full autonomy of the central bank, to facilitate the removal of supreme court justices and name his own election board. Why would he do this? I know why, and so do many other rational, knowledgeable thinking people, which is to retain control and power. No free thinking person would disagree that this was an utter and perverse abuse of power that was solely driven by his desire to retain control. I'd love to hear your spin as to his motives for this. bull ****! You are talking out of your ass again. http://www.reuters.c...146551720090801 Everyone that is from Latin America that has any interest in politics that isn't a kool aid drinking sympathizer of Chavez knows that he coerced, intimidated and jailed voices of opposition. When you intimidate the opposition, and effectively have state run media on your side, the ability to control message becomes much easier. You'd have to be a moron to deny that. Also, it is a well-known fact that Chavez and his family has been involved in charges of corruption and nepotism. You disputing that? http://www.guardian....rruption-claims And to this: Hold on, So their CEO Jerry Brewer is an exile? huh http://www.linkedin....er-sr/8/829/25b http://www.cjiausa.org/ The notion that they are a bunch of "exiles" is yet again, another fabrication on your part. Read more at http://www.inquisitr...6YsSVkuKz9T6.99 http://www.hrw.org/n...ritarian-legacy Now that we've established that you were wrong on just about every count and that you resort to fabrications to make your points, you have no more credibility on this subject, and most likely on anything else that you opine on. Also, I would suggest the next time you decide to engage in a conversation, that you make sure you come with facts, because if you don't someone like myself who is much more knowledgeable than you (in this particular topic) will come along and embarrass you.

You are making a specious argument, by suggesting that who people vote for is proof positive of voting for their best self-interests. Lets not confuse populist rhetoric with tangible results. Which country do you think has one of the highest inflation rates in all of South America? Food prices have been soaring, leading to widespread shortages. When food prices rise, who do you think that hurts the most? The poor. Now magnify that times 1000 in a country like Venezuela. So when you have a charasmatic populist like Chavez, who amends the constitution to retain virtually permanent control, then takes over all the media outlets, he in fact does create state-run media, which of course suppresses his opponents rights to free speech and drives home his propaganda of fighting the imperialist Americans (which of course resonates with many uneducated South Americans), and the rich ruling class aristocrats who suck the country dry leaving the poor to fend for themselves. So when you combine his amending of the countries constitution for his perverse intentions of control, nationalize all the major resource producers to control the purse strings, take over the media outlets for reasons of suppression and the spreading of propaganda, with his ability to connect to the people of Venezuela, it's quite normal to expect people to vote for him, despite what is best for their own self-interests. Lets not also forget that since he has taken control, oil production has gone way down, that the most capable human capital that his country has to offer has left Venezuela, reducing their ability to succeed long-term, while amassing over 2 Billion dollars of wealth for his family, essentially robbing his country through corruption, while railing on his opponents for doing the same despite him being the largest culprit of them all.

I'm not vouching that he should or will play LB, just that I doubt he will play Safety based on the things I mentioned.