MARCELL DAREUS POWER

was it really?

1999 Rnd Name College Note 1 Antoine Winfield Ohio State 2 Peerless Price Tennessee 3 Shawn Bryson Tennessee 4 Keith Newman North Carolina 4 Bobby Collins North Alabama 5 Jay Foreman Nebraska 6 Armon Hatcher Oregon State 7 Sheldon Jackson Nebraska 7 Bryce Fisher Air Force 1998 Rnd Name College Note 2 Sam Cowart Florida State 3 Robert Hicks Mississippi State 5 Jonathan Linton North Carolina 6 Fred Coleman Washington 7 Victor Allotey Indiana 7 Kamil Loud Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo 1997 Rnd Name College Note 1 Antowain Smith Houston 2 Marcellus Wiley Columbia 4 Jamie Nails Florida A&M 5 Sean Woodson Jackson State 6 Marcus Spriggs Houston 7 Pat Fitzgerald Texas 1996 Rnd Name College Note 1 Eric Moulds Mississippi State 2 Gabe Northern Louisiana State 3 Matt Stevens Appalachian State 4 Sean Moran Colorado State 5 Ray Jackson Colorado State 6 Leon Neal Washington 6 Dusty Ziegler Notre Dame 7 Dan Bradenburg Indiana State 7 Jay Riemersma Michigan 7 Eric Smedley Indiana 1995 Rnd Name College Note 1 Reuben Brown Pittsburgh 2 Todd Collins Michigan- was a decent backup for a few games. sucked as a starter. 3 Marlon Kerner Ohio State 3 Damien Covington North Carolina State 4 Ken Irvin Memphis 4 Justin Armour Stanford 4 Tony Cline Stanford 5 John Holecek Illinois 6 Shannon Clavelle Colorado 7 Tom Nutten Western Michigan 7 Darick Holmes Portland State 1994 Rnd Name College Note 1 Jeff Burris Notre Dame 2 Bucky Brooks North Carolina 2 Lonnie Johnson Florida State 2 Sam Rogers Colorado 3 Marlo Perry Jackson State 3 Corey Louchiey South Carolina 4 Sean Crocker North Carolina 5 A.J. Ofodile Missouri 6 Anthony Abrams Clark 6 Kevin Knox Florida State 7 Filmel Johnson Illinois 1993 Rnd Name College Note 1 Thomas Smith North Carolina 2 John Parrella Nebraska 4 Russell Copeland Memphis 5 Mike Devlin Iowa 5 Sebastian Savage North Carolina State 6 Corbin Lacina Augustana (IL) 7 Willie Harris Mississippi State 8 Chris Leuneberg West Chester (PA) I thought butler did a good job! 31 starters... not bad

any new money would come from business costs. thats what reps are for. if a new person is working, they are in the collective process, they should have a say. everything else is common sense. if cutbacks are needed, we would look at skill, and time put in, family situation, etc. duh... again, reps. germany many have the greatest most efficient economy in the world per capita... :worthy:

i agree with this 95%. unless its trent richardson or adrian peterson. and even then id rather take a olineman or dlineman

this isnt some theoretical concept never tried. co-ops do it all the time. germany and europe do this as do other countries... germany is very strident about having worker councils and worker reps

because you need to start a business to make money, and without certain skill you cant... there are market forces that will force them to pay. otherwise they will go out of business. ie a doctor, or lawyer. the janitor cant become a lawyer so he knows for his protection and protection of workers, he needs to pay his lawyer. generally speaking this would also take consensus. so why would a lawyer vote himself out of money? " i vote to get paid nothing"... this logically doesnt make sense. the 51 could vote the 49 dont get paid. and then nobody gets paid.... this wouldnt make sense in game theory. its doesnt really happen in govt either. for example, many repubs dont like romeny, but they wont vote for ron paul because he has no chance. democracy tends to gravitate towards reality, not extreme out of the box scenarios. what if 51% of the country wants to take over the other 49% and make them slaves?

to be fair, outside of the 2000 draft, butler was a fantasitc gm. he was the major reason we had good success in 98-00. his 93-99 drafts were really good. ironically nix was the lead scout during this time....

yes. they are both producing for the company. everyone plays a huge role. from the janitor to the cfo... you might see higher ups on workers councils making decisions that are not voted on. but they would be voted in. there are people way smarter that need to trusted in their decisions but still held accountable. like any job....

i hate al gore.

this is because wages are going down over 30 years for the middle class and lower. people are getting more poor. unemployment, medicaid, ss at 62 instead of 67, disability, food stamps, etc etc. pensions are part of this too, unless we should cut those also... i mean, i guess we can just let them die on the street.... when i just got out of the coast guard, my dad was laid off from his auto job( there was literally no work, i mean it was bad for a year or so... and my mom was working 60 hrs making 9.50. we were on food stamps for a few months to help get by. during that time for about a year, we went to applebees three times. that was our fun time,lol... we ended up losing our home. it was rough, but we are getting by now. we will get back on top!

carrington is a potential monster. hes a beast imo. he wasnt a 43 de last year, he was a 34 de. he played regular dt in 4 man fronts rushing the passer... carrington and heard are locked in as backups. no way johnson or edwards stay as a 5th dt making that money. inactives dont make that, and they wont cut heard or carrington. that would make no sense. that 5dt spot will be between, troup, dotson, ross, and gilbert. i think gilbert wins that job...

i work a few hours part time helping out the political science and philosophy dept at my school. about 4-6 hrs a week,( sometimes less). my main job is a security/logistics manager. i just started that one. before that i worked under the table for my friend.(the recession hit hard). before that i was in the coast guard, and was sort of the cfo for my station. well, at least i did all the work for the cfo, ... but when i graduate in a year, my dream job is to start out in scouting for college football and eventually replace buddy nix!! thats my dream, either that, or be a political activist crushing people like dc tom. yes i work, yes i go to school, yes i work hard.

the workers are the owners. so yes, generally speaking. again, sometimes reps are needed to just make decisions. not every decision will be voted on. thats impossible for any structure or system, left or right. theres also a collective action problem...

most of the fortune 500 paid zero taxes or got subsidies. they can write off what doesnt work.... ie no risk remember the bank bailouts?

he looks like a clone of leon lett. a 3 tech dt makes most sense.

:worthy:

when the wealthy class no longer takes risk in debt, you can kiss this country good-bye! bain- capital is a good micro example of this...

yes, one man one vote. but again, even this could change, based on a vote. companies have to be fluid and flexible depending on the market they are in. this is why reps or workers councils would make more sense in certain situations, because people are ignorant on tons of issues, on the top and on the bottom.... democracy is not " one thing "

no, the dictator here steals unpaid labor. and the state protects that theft. because when labor wants their work value back, they would kick him off the land for unpaid labor. but the state doesnt allow that. the option here is work for an autocratic system/boss, get exploited, or die. hierarchy is not production, its simple telling others what to do, because you can tell others what to do. ie, a dictator or for lack of a better term, !@#$! capitalism has nothing to do with actual economic activity but rather the distribution of income, ie power.... in other words, its just politcs morphed into friedman math jargon to make it look smart....

well, it would depend. first you might vote on what harder work is and vote if it should be paid more. some votes might be on whether or not the expansion should stop. its their risk, and they may feel resources are being spread to thin. this might take a consensus vote instead of a simple majority. and this would even change as companies get bigger, they may have to elect reps to make these decisions. the average worker in a huge multi-national is way different than a company with 20-50 people. germany is known for their worker councils. heres where it gets novel for dc tom- they could even vote on whether or not they want capital in the form of interest to enter their company but at a finite rate, say 3-10%... like i said, it just depends on what the want in their autonomy as a collective group. each situation is different. but overall, like i said before, the decisions should be made based in proportion to how they affect others. ie democracy/or representative democracy.

he seems like the wanny type dt. long, tall, quick and powerful. leon lett, jimmie jones like... his san jose tape is unreal. ( yes i know its a small school) i wonder if he can make it as our 5th dt? especially with troup and his back problems.... i think heard and carrington are locked in as our backup dts! :worthy:

jarron gilbert seems like a wanny type dt. long, tall and quick with great movement and power... if he is decent in the preseason, he might beat out edwards and dotson

x acres worth is ( 100,000) Z capital is worth ( 20,000) y workers are 10 people x +z = 120,000 y(10) workers produce 100 bushels of wheat worth 10,000 dollars in one day. 60 for y( 6 per worker), 40 for owner of land. the added value of labor in the 20 bushels of profit going to the owner will outvalue very quickly the original 120,000. that value of 20 bushels in profit is going back to the owner when he didnt work for it. labor did. this is obvious in that if the workers owned the farm and they worked, they would keep it. once the 20 bushels of wheat from non labor outvalues that original land and capital machinery, then workers are not getting paid for their full labor. this permission is not a productive act, and will allow someone to not have to work ever again for the rest of their life. this is non labor income. and the surplus value created can never be gained back in this system. this is why labor takes the larger risk. its not a priori, its empirical. its basic math , lol in that type of association, profits should be democratically voted on. its a collaborative effort and should be voted on that way. this is after all business cost was allocated. obviously if you worked longer hours, you would get more. this does not mean people would make the same. some jobs are subjectively harder than others, subjectively being the operative word here....

"Unlike labour, whose "ownership" cannot be separated from the productive activities being done, capital and land can be rewarded without their owners actually doing anything productive at all. For all its amazing mathematics, the neo-classical solution fails simply because it is not only irrelevant to reality, it is not relevant ethically." To see why, let us consider the case of land and labour (capital is more complex and will be discussed in the next two sections). Marginal productivity theory can show, given enough assumptions, that five acres of land can produce 100 bushels of wheat with the labour of ten men and that the contribution of land and labour are, respectively, 40 and 60 bushels each. In other words, that each worker receives a wage representing 6 bushels of wheat while the landlord receives an income of 40 bushels. As socialist David Schweickart notes, "we have derived both the contribution of labour and the contribution of land from purely technical considerations. We have made no assumptions about ownership, competition, or any other social or political relationship. No covert assumptions about capitalism have been smuggled into the analysis." [After Capitalism, p. 29] "As the examples of the capitalist and co-operative farms shows, the "contribution" of land and capital can be rewarded without their owners doing anything at all. So what does it mean, "capital's share"? After all, no one has ever given money to a machine or land. That money goes to the owner, not the technology or resource used. When "land" gets its "reward" it involves money going to the landowner not fertiliser being spread on the land. Equally, if the land and the capital were owned by the labourers then "capital" and "land" would receive nothing despite both being used in the productive process and, consequently, having "aided" production. Which shows the fallacy of the idea that profits, interest and rent represent a form of "contribution" to the productive process by land and capital which needs rewarded. They only get a "reward" when they hire labour to work them, i.e. they give permission for others to use the property in question in return for telling them what to do and keeping the product of their labour." --anarchist faq a hundred bushels of wheat produced by X acres of land being worked by Y workers using Z worth of capital.