TPS

I wonder what the futures market activity is like????

You are correct. I'd rather see them go for another DT (or LB) with R1 pick (gotta stop the run), then RT (OL in general) with R2 and R3.

He outright flattened a Houston DL on one of JP's scrambles.

Absolutely. Every Econ book I ever read is on the shelf. My favorite shelf is in chronological order, beginning with the "Wealth of Nations." It's unfortunate that Milton and Maynard never met--that would've been quite a debate. By the way, I own two books by Milton. The second is "Milton Friedman's Monetary Framework: a debate with his critics."

Something that might surprise some here, the first economics (related) book I read was "Free to Choose." The irony.... RIP M-1 Milton....

"iTPS" strikes again!

I wondered the same thing about IRAQ. We've spent $400 billion minimum to date (most of the expenditures have been hidden in additional appropriations). Is this investment worth it? Was invading Iraq worth spending hundreds of billions of $s on the so called war on terror? Or is the $865 thousand question more important?

Paraphrased: It looks like you are doomed! Doomed I say! Hahahahahaha....... First month of fiscal year 2007 Those spendthrift rebulicans will do you in....

What's the final tally for the House? In perusing the posts, and i haven't had time to read them all, I hadn't noticed any comments about Rahm Emanuel. He was really the driving force for the dems in this election, and had a lot to do with supporting (choosing) dem candidates that were center, not left. I have to say, I'm impressed with what he helped carry off.

I look at these results, and my conclusion is: America is so out of touch, so ignorant, that they (we) decide to elect the inept party to control the worse than inept party. would u agree?

Where I had choices, I voted 3rd party--with the exception of Spitzer. I voted green party on AG and Senator, and Libertarian for Comptroller.

What would you suggest in a Cab of equivalent cost ($15)?

You guys should know better, a late night post is from "inebriated tps." "Red, red wine....." At any rate, here's an example of the trend on this side of the pond (and certainly it doesn't apply to you chef, not yet...). habeas corpus Ps. That J. Lohr Cabernet with lamb chops first seared, brushed with dijon, then coated with bread crumbs and toasted medium rare... yummmm....

These guys defy everything negative about Buffalo. I stopped watching the game because I thought they played lazy and didn't care about this one. They are so friggin' cocky(good), they knew they could beat this team with a little effort in the 3rd period. Fortunately I saw the shootout.

lack of rights This is what bothers me most about you guys on the right: you so easily give up our rights to a republican administration. If this were a democratic administration that was taking us down this path, that is so very difficult to come back from, you'd be leading the charge. But because it's a the right that's breaking down the constitution, you guys are silent, or ambivalent. Don't you agree DC Monkey Jumper?

Again, there are two different issues: 1) their primary goal is to prop up the $; however, 2) increased government deficits means it takes more foreign investment to keep the $'s value up--again, depending upon what happens with the domestic savings and investment surplus/deficit. They are buyers of $ assets as long as three things happen: 1) the US has a trade deficit with them; 2) there is insufficient private foreign investment (from their country to the US); and three, they want to prevent their currency from depreciating against the $. How about as measured by CBO? Whatever. I don't have a problem admitting when i make a mistake. Unfortunately most people here are too egotistical to do that. Please point me to a post when you might have said that. That is revolutionary to me. Selective memory? NO. Age? yes. Now, to be clear, I have focused on personal tax cuts and personal tax revenues. I believe there are "marginal" effects from tax cuts directed at capital, but cuts in the personal income tax rates are not (explicitly) directed at capital. It doesn't matter now that we're both Keynesians.... A marginal factor, but a factor. Also, as I said, you get a twofold impact--lower taxable income, larger taxable cap gains . Nope. I agree with the agency theory crowd here.

It's not just Florida... More voting machine woes...

It's not innocuous. Asia certainly financed a large part of the US budget deficit. I hope you're not confusing the deficit with the debt? IN an era when private domestic savings is inadequate, a budget deficit must be funded from external savings. That's what the twin deficit explains. Yes, you weren't talking about the official flows, which, as I pointed out have been the most important in supporting the $ over the past 3-4 years. By not focusing on it, you miss the most important part of the story. Only if you provide your definition of a "surplus" before hand.... Let me simplify the Twin deficit relationship for you: assume domestic savings = domestic investment (S-I=0), then NX = (T - G) This relationship implies that any budget deficit has to be financed by the foreign sector. When the government budget deficit went from surplus to deficit, it required an increase in foreign savings. In the worst years, 2003 and 2004, private foreign investments were insufficient to supply the gap. The CBs of Asia supplied the additional funds, buying US assets. In 2003, the budget deficit was -$415b and foreign CBs bought $225b in treasuries. In 2004, the budget deficit was -$428b and foreign CBs bought $305b in t-bills. In 2005, the budget deficit was -$360b and for CBs bought $156b in t-bills. So, yes, a decrease in the budget deficit reduces the need for foreign savings, just as an increase in deficits increases the need. The argument most experts have made about the possible collapse of the dollar is that we need to reduce the need to borrow from the foreign sector, which can be done by either increasing private savings or reducing the budget deficit. There is also the additional worry that foreign CBs will diversify their holdings and sell off $ assets. You won't believe me, so read some WSJ articles on this. Last, the CBs of China and Japan purchase US Assets if foreign private investors aren't purchasing enough to keep their exchange rates up. The CBs pick up the slack when private funds to the US slow, as they did from 2003-2005. Got me here; I did misinterpret this one. Based on expenditures growing by 3% using 2001 as base: insufficient revenues were responsible for 2/3 of the deficit in 2002, half of the deficit in 2003, and about 44% in 2004. And that is the point--the deficits were a consequence of an increase in spending and a cut in revenues. Congratulations! You are now officially Keynesian! This is the first time you've ever mentioned "the short term hit in revenues" which creates a ______? Keynesian theory states that if you cut personal taxes without cutting govt spending, it stimulates economic growth in the short run by increasing disposable income and consumption. The impact is increased deficits in the short run. You pursue this policy whenever the economy is in need of a stimulus. As the economy grows, and tax rates aren't changed, revenues of course increase. Assuming no change in taxes or other government policies, deficts always decline during growth (more people working and paying taxes) and increase in recessions (fewer people working and paying taxes). So, yes, we are now in complete agreement!!! Very easy when you include the other part of what happened--a bubble in stock prices. Did investors not sell stocks during the bubble? The options are just an additional influence, especially when you consider a nice little chunk of income has now been transferred to capital gains--less income taxes paid; more capital gains paid.

Pot calling kettle black. Are you reading what I wrote without bias? Your first sentence is almost exactly what I said earlier. Their primary goal is to keep their currencies low relative to the dollar; they do that by purchasing dollar assets; a lot of which are treasuries, but not all. The People's Bank of China (PBC) does not hold dollars in a vault--only despots do. They have billions of dollars held in various other types of deposits, including US bank deposits. First, I'd be willing to bet you dinner at my/your favorite restaurant if the US government runs a surplus next year. Second, you are conflating two issues: 1) the US trade deficit with China; and 2) the twin deficit relationship. 1. As long as the US runs a CAB deficit with China, AND China continues to maintain its peg to the $, then the PBC will accumulate dollar assets to offset the pressures on the yuan/$ exchange. Those assets could be treasuries, other bonds (public/private), or dollar deposits held at US banks (or even the generic "euro $" market). 2. As long as the US government runs a deficit AND there is insufficient domestic savings (S - I), then the savings has to be supplied by the foreign sector. It could be in the form of foreign private investors purchasing US assets or foreign CBs purchasing US assets. Given that US private savings has been in deficit, any change in the US government's budget will require more or less foreign savings. As the US budget deficit has come down, that reduces the need for foreign savings. If the budget is in surplus next year, C&J could certainly continue to buy treasuries, since we still have to fund the $8 + trillion in government debt that rolls over. Was there a point to that question? You say that the deficits were caused by excessive spending. I gave you the spending changes--which were indeed excessive (greater than the 3%, so those numbers would be even more supportive of your argument), but the deficits were larger than the change in spending. The only explanation is that revenues also fell. I focused on the years the tax cuts were made. Is your claim that tax cuts from 2001/02 caused increase revenues in 2006 and 2007? That's the problem with S-Side theory, always changing the theory to fit the facts. And if the theory is that changes today have an impact 5-10 years from now, that theory is essentially unverifiable, which is why it's more like a religion... Sorry, was it too difficult to figure out that the first 4 numbers were gdp growth in his first term? Well, there you go again....did I say it was the driver of the bubble? Read what I wrote! I said a bubble in prices AND the movement toward stock options replacing income as compensation was the cause of the increased capital gains tax revenue---NOT THE CAUSE OF THE BUBBLE.

It's a lock: Republicans will retain control of both houses.

Tell me how he has influenced Bush's foreign policy? Do you think Kerry will have a chance in Hell in 2008? I'd give rosie o'donnell a better chance.... The last major party candidate I voted for was Clinton in the 1996 pres election. However, I have voted for dems/reps over the years who appear to have some independence.

No. Is it a problem? Should I give a **** about kerry when he doesn't matter a hill of beans to the current US policy? The right obviously cares about him, because there's nothing positive you can claim about this current regime. They suspend habeas corpus, but air america folding is big news. They support torture but gay marriage is a bigger issue. They've turned government into one big pork barrel of enrichment for themselves, but Bill Clinton couldn't sell tickets to his birthday bash. DC Monkey Jumper may be "contemptuous" of me, but we agree on one thing: the majority of Americans are stupid. You'll go out there and continue to vote for people who steal you blind. It's true, you get the government you deserve...

While I don't disagree with your sentiments, I'm not sure WNY politicians are any different from politicians in Texas or across the US. They are the Papparazi (sp) of photo ops...

China has pegged its currency to the $ (however, its made some recent changes--pegging to a basket of currencies and allowing very small annual changes in the Yuan/$ rate). The US runs a $200 billion plus trade deficit with China. That creates an excess supply of dollars relative to Yuan on FX markets, which would cause the dollar to fall against the yuan. However, China's CB steps in and buys the dollars (it's a little more complicated than this, but the process and effect is the same). Since they keep their currency pegged to the dollar, they offset the excess supply caused by the trade deficit by increasing demand for $s--as you know, when S=D, there's no tendency for the price to change. How do you think China's CB has accumulated $1 trillion? It doesn't go straight to the Japanese government. However, the same thing occurs with Japan: We run an $80 billion deficit with Japan. Japan's CB has intervened to prop up the $ by buying $s with yen, especially in 2004 when the $ almost fell below 100 yen. The reason Japan and China (and other countries) do this is because they pursue "export-led" growth strategies. by keeping the $ relatively strong, it makes imported goods cheaper. A fall in the dollar against the yen and yuan would make their goods more expensive. I'm surprised you don't know this. I'm starting to find out how little you do know... It's called the "Twin deficits." The relationship is: NX = (S -I) + (T - G) The current account deficit = the value of the net surplus/deficit in domestic private savings + Public savings (total government deficit/surplus). When the right hand side is negative, then the left hand side is negative. If there's insufficient savings domestically to fund domestic investment and government spending, then we borrow from the international sector. The current account deficit's mirrow is the capital account surplus--an $800 billion deficit on goods and services is offset by an $800 billion inflow of foreign savings. So, yes, there is a relationship between trade deficits and budget deficits; however, it's not always direct because of the third variable net domestic saving surplus/deficit. Here's a nice little primer for you: Twin deficits As you rightly point out, the deficit is the difference between revenues and expenditures. From the BEA web site (billions of $s--note also, that the difference between expenditures and total revenues = change in the deficit): From 2001 to 2002: G increased by $150, revenues fell by - $166 (personal taxes fell by $-160); change in deficit= -$316. From 2002 to 2003: G increased by $170, revenues increased by $24 (personal tax revenues fell by - $56); change in deficit = - $146. From 2003 to 2004: G increased by $133, revenues increased by $125 (personal taxes up by +$26); change in deficit = - $8. So you are wrong again. Even if expenditures had grown by 3%, there still would be deficits because of the drop (or slow growth) in revenues from 2001 to 2003. Certainly when the economy finally turned around revenues picked up again in 2004 and 2005. Real GDP growth for the 8 years under clinton (BEA): 2.7 4.0 2.5 3.7 4.5 4.2 4.5 3.7 As for the last point, that's why I said it was a combination of the options and bubble in prices.

And I have tee shirts that have as much time in hot zones as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Limbaugh, et al...