bmags

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 10:32 AM) https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/...low-can-you-go/ Most economists place the rate in the range of 5 to 5.5 percent, though some estimates go as high as 6 percent. The Congressional Budget Office‘s latest projections have it at 5.5 percent. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy_14424.htm Many estimates suggest that the long-run normal level of the unemployment rate--the level that the unemployment rate would be expected to converge to in the next 5 to 6 years in the absence of shocks to the economy--is in a range between 4.5 and 6 percent. https://www.npr.org/2013/01/03/168508910/wh...t-number-really NARIMAN BEHRAVESH: Well, full employment is defined as basically everybody who's looking for a job or is looking to be employed is, in fact, employed. INSKEEP: The first time I ever heard of this concept - when I was a teenager, maybe -people talked about full employment as being about a 5 percent unemployment rate. They didn't think of the zero percent unemployment rate. They said 5 percent. http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/02/news/econo...ment/index.html Some experts believe it's starting to get too hot. The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 4.3% in May, according to Labor Department numbers published Friday. It's the lowest level since 2001. That's why some experts think the U.S. economy is at, or getting close to, something called "full employment," which means employers can't find many more available and qualified workers for open jobs. If youd like more I can gladly pull them. But its not really a controversial statement. The problem with these is some consideration needs to be given to the employment/population ratio. Unemployment can be at 5% or below 5% but still have slack if the prime age employment groups which there was up until recently, then it doesn't mean you are at full employment. There is a floor to the unemployment rate, it's just not an isolated number.

I just don't think it's a wise decision. It's certainly a price that is worth Machado's 2018 value. But it's not the right value for the white sox.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 10:21 AM) If you take the benefit of the tax cut just like the wealthy it is absolutely a double standard to b**** about the fact that the wealthy are being helped. No, you're not getting the same degree of a benefit, but you are getting one relative to your income. Oh, so if I am mayor of soxtalk and I take out a 1 billion dollar loan and I give 900 million to myself and the other 99.95 million to my friend brett05 for always supporting me, but then give you and all other posters $1000 and know that the rising debt payments that will raise costs and be inequitably distributed, you can't say this is bad policy because I gave you $1000? I can think something is bad even if it benefits me. I think the zoning policy around me is bad, but it certainly contributes to inflating the equity i have in my house. Should I take out a home equity loan and give it to a family to move there? Maybe that would be a good idea. I could also just try and cobble together a working majority to change how zoning policy is done so it is more fairly distributed.

Perhaps this could lead to more donations to charity, but they didn't structure the bill to even encourage that.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 10:10 AM) I agree to an extent. By my problem is the double standard here - people complaining about how this tax cut screws the poor while they do nothing. If you want to pay more in taxes, go for it. Take the tax cut you're going to get and give it back to the government. Nothing is stopping you. What do you mean they do nothing? One thing they are doing is trying to change the political structure to help the poor instead of undermine it. Politics is doing something. You know what doesn't do anything? Fishing for hypocrisy on a message board. Hmm...yes this bill is bad, but have you ever passed a homeless person on the street without giving money? Well then you can't complain, you are a hypocrite!

When people explain some of the backstory again to me in the prequels, I think it sounds interesting. But then when I watch them I just can't, to say the dialogue is bad is an injustice. But they look just awful. Honestly they look like a sega video game half the time. When people said TLJ looked like the prequels, I was like "no no, go watch the prequels again". I realize some groudning to the prequels backlash is expected, but I'm honestly always surprised how bad they are.

Exactly. Let's perform an exercise. Assume Adam Eaton came off a 6 war season and was healthy, but the Nats now want to trade him to make room for Robles (hypothetical since obvi they have room now). Who are the teams that would go after eaton? What are their farms now? In 2 years, you may have the White Sox, Pads and Braves in that position but for this and next year it's brutal. Right now you have to basically hope that the Astros, Yanks and Dodgers want your guy but they are stacked.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 09:20 AM) She has really pulled left on most issues. I will take it, but I worry that she is just doing it to get some hype and then be elected president and immediately start compromising on everything. The best way to avoid compromising is to give the best senate/house you can. Though I do think Obama is fairly conservative, I honestly don't think much could have changed in ACA with that ahole Lieberman and Nelson pulling things in terrible directions.

Gillibrand is a hot name for more than the fact that she's a woman. She is a very popular senator from one of the most populous states in the country and has led on a lot of issues.

Anyway I'm not sure why people aren't more glad that we don't have to make this choice for a rental. Also, to yellich - the market this year has been really terrible toward sellers. So sniff around, but we just need to wait. I don't see it getting much better for sellers next year, as what made it so special for the white sox was striking when all the top teams also had the top farms. Their arms race last year depleted that with the white sox getting the most gains. This is what happens when the main buyers are the Giants, Angels and Dbacks, three teams with terrible farms.

While Wofford on offense was pretty good, lotta dumb shots but spread the floor like crazy and moved the ball around, on defense it was really confusing why they were giving North Carolina such fits. Anyway makes me feel even better about a Mizzou win over Stephen F Austin where they played an incredible game we were able to eek out despite not playing that well. Missouri has a big weakness with ball handling, and they've had to play the top 3 teams in terms of forcing turnovers (WVU-L, St. Johns-W, SFA-W), going 2-1 and frankly should have beaten WVU. After Illinois, they get to ease up on that with the exception of Arkansas.

Hmm. I don't think so. I would give away Giolito Robert or Hanson before I'd give away Kopech and I'd give away Giolito Robert or Hanson before I'd give away Moncada so I would take two elite talents any day over 3 very good ones.

And wofford with the big upset

Wofford up 11 in second half against UNC at chapel hill

My favorite part is you being upset that you will lose on a couple five stars and probably now offer and flip recruits that were the top of the class for other schools.

It's over folks https://twitter.com/DanClarkSports/status/943591957992894464 #Orioles aren’t going to trade Machado - weren’t happy with the offers. Now they just need to address the horrendous rotation, strengthen the outfield, add some left-handed bats into the lineup, and replace Zach Britton...

I would bet that if he makes a list it will be on mlb pipeline but I think he's off BA/Fangraphs/Law.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 09:47 AM) I think what you just outlined is backwards, actually. Revenue actually is sort of shooting upwards - the deficit has dropped dramatically since the 2009 near collapse. It has not yet balanced expenses, in part because some of the 2001/2003 tax cuts were kept on the books during the Obama administration. When revenue is shooting up and the economy is healthy is the time that monetary policy is becoming more strict - the federal reserve is raising interest rates already to slow down the economic expansion. Ideally speaking, you'd want fiscal policy by the government to do the same thing as monetary policy - when the fed tries to keep things under control by raising rates, they are going to fight against any effort to expand the economy done via fiscal policy. When the fed is dropping rates to prop up the economy - that's the time you want expansionary fiscal policy also, that's the time you want to be adding to the debt to do things. Right now, a handful of industries will get their tax cuts and spend money, and a handful more will invest in bitcoin or stock buybacks. But as that money makes its way out into the economy, the Fed will raise rates more rapidly to keep it from turning into inflation - thus hurting other industries. Yes, I am more in favor of keynesian model, but the George W. Bush explanation of giving back surplus back to tax payers is a more understandable argument than a deficit tax cut when unemployment is at 4%. The key to to your response is the bolded however. We aren't in a surplus, and they aren't giving the "surplus" amount back. They are doing a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit cut.

oh he absolutely did. One of the groups had a way better offer for the city of Miami but MLB clearly thought Jeter's ...star power could be a bigger asset.

We are on a message board, so that answers that question

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 09:23 AM) There is going to be so many people running. 10-15 probably. Yeah, years like this open up "odder" positions like Mayors and Reps that otherwise would wait until they get in more of a national position.

I don't think they'll get less at the deadline. Probably get the same amount if not more.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 19, 2017 -> 07:25 PM) If, because of Trump, the economy is so great, everyone is making a ton, check your 401ks, why do corporations and the wealthy need a tax cut? I'll sit down and listen for my answer. I would qualify this. If it was a different situation and the economy was so great that revenue was shooting up and we had a surplus, I think there is a more understandable case to make a tax cut. But, if the economy is so great and everyone is making a ton, why do corporations and the wealthy need a deficit-funded tax cut?

Biden was everything Hillary Clinton was except affable.

Honestly this is best case scenario. We didn't trade anything, we made our intention known, and if being with another team did matter to sign long-term, no other team is getting the chance.