TPS

I thought the play calling was excellent! Screens and draws, what a concept... And I am in the Jackson as #1 camp, but they make a great 1-2 punch.

I think 4-4 in the first half of the season would be a good outcome. They will definitely be a better team in the second half, and I can see them finish it 6-2.

Agree with your assessment. It will take the first half of the season for them to find their way. Hopefully Edwards will be around for the second half...

I think the Bills made a conscsious decision to change the direction of the team, which is evident with their draft--they realized their O-line needed to be more mobile and tougher. The next epiphany will be that the cover2 can't get you to the playoffs unless you have Pro Bowl caliber players at a couple of key positions.

They start with Roscoe Parrish running the "wildcat."

On the bright side, from the looks of things, Special TEams ought to be excellent again, and could possibly win a game or two.

Dude, simple joke about our long-standing disagreement over supply-side. Not disagreeing with your point--of course it's a truism that as incomes rise in a progressive system, so do revenues; and the reverse is also true. However, my point was that higher average income will also add to the greater swing in revenues--there are more wealthy people in California than Alabama. Btw, the egg was golden, not the goose.

So you are saying high income tax rates generate higher revenues. So if you cut income tax rates that will generate lower revenues? To add to the story, the (blue) states with higher income tax rates also tend to have higher income per capita, so ASSUMING states are hit equally by the downturn, blue states experience greater falls in revenues at all income levels (of course, those with higher incomes will pay more). I believe the wealthier states also tend to have higher sales taxes, which adds a triple whammy. I don't think one can really assume that states were hit equally though. Not all states experienced the housing bubble. California's economy got hit much harder than (say) Alabama's.

I posted on this article yesterday. I have always thought the Bills brass under appreciated the use of screens and draws. Maybe this explains why they didn't run them often enough. Even if they are unsuccessful, those plays put DEs on the "defensive." I hope the Turk takes advantage...

I knew someone would comeback with this... Here's something from a former regulator: William Black A snippet:

Yeah, it's consumers' fault because they forced the banks to give them loans to buy those houses... Lenders would never lie; lending institutions would never fudge income numbers; Moody's and S&P would never provide AAA ratings falsely; banks would self-regulate; and on... But let's make it simple and blame the consumers...

Interesting point made by Brown (off the front page). I'm a big believer in using the draws and screens to keep DEs honest, and always wondered why the Bills didn't utilize them very often. Brown provides a reason--interior of OL was not athletic enough. We'll see if it actually happens.

It's obvious for those on the other side who knew this all along. I suppose Hedd is trying to educate the sycophants, which by definition is impossible.

It's good to see that you understand that inflation will only come about when banks start making loans to those who purchase goods, services, property, etc. I do not doubt that there will be some inflation when times are better--Hell, we've averaged about 3-4% inflation for about the past 30 years. If that is what you mean by inflation, then I can't disagree. However, inflationary pressures will not arise until the economy rebounds enough to create resource constraints--mainly labor (wages costs) and raw materials, because prices are set by firms, not the money supply. (I think) One area where we disagree is how the FED will react when times are better. If inflation starts to go above the FED's target, they will raise interest rates to dampen loan demand--this is how the FED has always tried to regulate the economy, via interest rates. The debate: will the FED raise its inflation target above 2-3% and allow the economy to grow with slightly higher inflation? Probably a little (5% target?), but not to what people fear. Another area where we disagree: yes, the FED has monetized some of the debt, but I argue it CAN DO SO when resources are slack. We disagree on this because we disagree on our definition of inflation. I believe inflation is caused by real factors; that is, competition and demand for real resources. When unemployment is high, factory utilization is low, and private sector demand is low, the FED can finance government spending without an impact on inflation. Of course, as the economy recovers and moves toward full employment it would be inflationary (but then it won't need to do it). As for the dollar's declining international status, I wrote about this five years ago. The current situation is simply more fuel for its long term decline as internation reserve currency. Btw, a very bold prediction by Buffett: "the dollar will be worth less 10-20 years from now..." Wow!

First, what is your definition of money? Given that definition, explain how money is created? The formal defintion is M1 which is essentially demand deposits plus cash in circulation (outside of the banking system). How does the FED create money given this definition? Does the FED give money to you (being a member of the public)? With respect to hyper-inflations, I suggest you go back and read in more detail what happened. It occurs when governments print money to finance deficits when resources are scarce. In the cases you cited, the countries did not have any excess productive capacity. As governments spend (and the central banks supplied the currency) in these cases, they increase demand in an economy that is at full capacity. Yes, in this case, government deficit spending financed by "printing money" leads to inflation. However, if there is excess capacity, then firms can expand output of goods and services, as demand is increased by government spending, even if the money used by government is simply printed. Thought experiment: in the current recessionary environment, if the government printed $20,000 and gave it to you to buy a car from GM, would that cause inflation? That is, would/could GM raise prices in this case?

The tournament I am in is at Rothland--it's a very mediocre course. If you want to play in Akron, you'd probably enjoy Ivy Ridge more than Arrowhead, but A-head will have better deals in Sept. If you can get Diamond Hawk on a weekend for the price you stated, that's a good deal. It's also a very challenging course. If you don't mind crossing the border and want the best public experience in the area, then try Lochness Links (used to be called Hunter's Pointe) in Welland 20 minutes from Peace Bridge. On a Saturday I doubt you'd really have trouble crossing.

Would love to meet you and others. I'll have to check the tailgate site to find out where Danny's is... I did meet a few people when I attended the Bills-Chargers game--10 years ago?!?--in San Diego. In fact, I was just wondering what's up or what happened to Lamb? Does he still haunt this place? Is that punk Gavin coming? (just kidding GiVB if you still read this board).

M, Maybe we need to discuss in more detail what is meant by inflation? It is measured by changes in the price of various goods and services captured by an index like the CPI (or PPI). Within the index some prices are increasing and some are decreasing. Therefore, to explain "inflation" one needs to explain why each individual price is changing. Would you agree with this?

Correct. However, people (like Magox) have been repeating the mantra that the Fed has been printing money which will cause inflation. The Fed has been increasing reserves to the banking system, and reserves are part of the monetary base--the graphs that Magox linked to. The reserves are simply an electronic credit to the banks. Just as the Fed can giveth reserves, so can it taketh. As long as there are excess resources (i.e. high unemployment), there will be no inflation, no matter how many electronic chits the Fed gives to the banking system...

Why, if the FED has been "printing (so much) money" over the past year, are prices stable or in fact falling?

Unfortunately I have to play in a fundraiser that day, and it's not at a very good course....

Harvest Hills would probably be your best bet, but might be difficult to get a sat. tee time--actually all of them will be equally difficult getting tee times. If ivy ridge is an option, you might as well throw in Arrowhead which is nearby. http://www.arrowheadgolfclub.net/ Best greens in WNY imo. Just thought of another, diamond hawk near the airport. http://www.diamondhawkgolf.com/ This is a really nice course but the last time I played it took 5+ hours, so I stay away now. You can't go wrong with any of those course, and Arrowhead may be the easiest to get a tee time.

I agree somewhat on the point you make about revenues, but not about expenditures. Yes capital gains revenues helped, but weren't necessarily the key driving factor for revenues; otherwise why were personal revenues their highest in 2000 when the market fell that year? As for expenditures, people support democrats because they want to see less spending on defense and more on social; and it's the opposite for repubs. Clinton cut spending, which was focused on defense--duh! Nothing though really refutes Bartlett's main point: ersatz conservatives have been hypocrits when it comes to criticizing Obama's economics while giving Bush2 a free pass. As for the Bush2\Clinton comparison, the most telling number is the growth rate difference. One would be hard-pressed to find another administration with 8 years of performance that poor...

Boy, we're so lucky that the feldster is on the board. Maybe he can work similar miracles as he did for AIG's board...

Pretty cool place recently opened under Embassy Suites. The Avant