Balta1701

Fatty.

QUOTE (sunofgold @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:54 AM) He could be our DF ...designated fielder. Just another one of Selig's changes for baseball. Franklin Gutierrez put up a .534 OPS in about 1/2 of a season playing CF for the Mariners this year, and still wound up with ~0 bWAR and 1.1 fWAR. Just sayin'.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:49 AM) I guess I don't have a concept of left wing "reality". The Phillips Curve = left wing reality. Right.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:42 AM) Have you missed the record commodities prices? The record energy prices of that last year? And clearly this is happening because the economy has reached full capacity, full employment, and is simply incapable of producing the goods and services that the economy demands. As such, we're going to expect a significant cycle of wage increases if the Federal Reserve doesn't raise interest rates. After all, banks are lending out money like crazy right now, the investment market is as hot as it can be, and you can't find an unemployed person anywhere. Either that or you don't have any concept of the inflation-unemployment tradeoff.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:37 AM) Your assumption of it excluding housing is not true. Fine. Care to show me something which shows true, demand >> supply driven inflation taking off? Especially the evidence for the large spiraling wage increases.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:30 AM) Missing his point though. For one, he never said anything was great about the economy. Didn't even hint at it. That was entirely made up by you. For another thing, what he is really getting at is, what is the Fed's role in this? Should they be narrowly focused on monetary policy (inflation, currency balance risk, etc.), or should they also use monetary policy as a tool to shape the broader economy? And I know, that you know, that is what he meant. You are being intentionally obtuse. You can't possibly be as obtuse as you're being here...should the Fed be narrowly focused on monetary policy? You're literally asking whether the Fed should ignore 1/2 of the law. Remember, the guy with that quote was justifying his vote against additional monetary stimulus measures, in this case the "Twist".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:26 AM) Except that data is highly manipulated by housing prices... And when you exclude those, the numbers still remain well below trend.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:24 AM) Yeah, 'cause that's exactly what he is saying. Inflation has been running below the Fed's 2-3% long term goal for at least a year now and has been below that goal on average since 2008. It has done wonders for job growth.

Different topic...Emphasis mine. Well, at least the people on the Federal Reserve Board think things are spectacular right now.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:16 AM) All the more reason for Obama to step up to the plate and start acting like an executive. He has every ability to set deadlines and expectations for finalization of rules, etc. He can cut off discussion with the other parties. He has a golden opportunity that he is Bill Buckner-ing. The overbearing socialist is trying to destroy Wall Street!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:11 AM) And the rules are not just up in the air because of lobbyists - the federal agencies are fighting internally and with each other, Congress is bullying the agencies on things they know nothing about, the industry is hemming and hawing on various individual pieces of the legislation and pending rules... it is all the above, not just one part of it. And this is where Obama can absolutely decide to be an actual executive, and make things happen. And none of those things are happening because of intense lobbying efforts. Why I'm sure that the Congress knows exactly what its doing in slowing down things it knows nothing about, and is not just listening to the guy with the checkbook.

Zounds.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 08:36 AM) First I want to point out that, as I said before, the regulatory uncertainty issue isn't broad-based... it is narrow to a few specific industries. But those industries (finance and health care for example) are big ones. But this article makes some pretty ridiculous leaps. For example, one of the claims they make as to why regulatory uncertainty isn't an issue, is to point to how environmental regulations haven't had a negative effect on employment. This completely misses the point. They are using a study of overall employment effect of REGULATIONS - which is to say, ones actually written and solidified - and comparing to to a situation where the regulations are still very much up in the air. That is an important disconnect. I do agree with some of it though. I agree that the primary reason for lack of hiring is demand-side weakness, plain and simple. Not enough new customers. But customers won't buy if they aren't employed. One of the ways to get out of that cycle is getting new customers overseas, which hits and the argument I've been making all along: we need to get out in front on things. But there's another leap you're missing...if business investment by these sorts of companies is happening at or above the levels that we've seen in previous recessions, then the Evil Demycrat regulation boogeyman simply isn't the problem. Yes, new health care and finance regulations have been passed. The Finance regulations have of course been completely gutted and kept completely up in the air by the finance industry lobby, which makes any argument that somehow the fact that the regulations are "up in the air" is the cause of a lack of investment by that industry just seem nonsensical....because they could make things clear by stopping the lobbying efforts against them. And Health Care has continued adding jobs at the same pace its been doing since 2003.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 09:32 AM) Or a team that got destroyed by the injury bug. But yeah, I see your point. I see, then I assume the Bears down season in 2009 after Urlacher went down in game 1 gets excused from Lovie/Angelo's record too. After all, he's more valuable to the Bears than anyone the Packers lost (including Finley and Grant).

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 07:11 AM) It must suck for the rest of baseball to know that so many World Series are already locked up in the next few years between Guillen and Francona. Roy Halladay's going to be pissed. He might come out and throw a no hitter today or something like that.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 08:03 AM) I think people are expecting too much out of Axelrod, Lindsay, Santiago, Marinez, Stewart, and Martinez. Seriously, some of those guys are complete crap right now. If we wind up with 1 starter and 1 bullpen guy/bench guy out of that list, we're in decent shape.

And yet, Gonzalez felt the need to lead with Francona today.

Go Aberdeen!

Very unlikely.

The chickens need to lift more.

Really, you think walker can handle the chicken?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 09:22 PM) Well, the whole point is not who has worked with more young players. It's who has managed to actually be successful with more young players... There is more evidence of that in TB than in Cleveland. There is something to be said for knowing how to deal with a young player who comes up and doesn't live up to the hype immediately too, and that has been seen more in Cleveland and Chicago than Tampa.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 09:21 PM) Alomar may prove to be a better manager than Martinez none of us know. What we do know is that Alomar would be the comfortable pick for this organization. I think they need something more than "comfortable" at this point in time even if that comes with more risk. Congrats, this makes sense.

Probably. I'd recommend hiring Ozzie Guillen.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 09:12 PM) Indeed they did, but I think it's been more of the culture in TB than in Cleveland. I don't know enough about Sandy or Martinez to really make the most informed decision, but just going off of what we do know, I just like what Martinez brings to the party a bit more. I dunno, cleve ands been in a selling mode since 07, and they've been trying to bring people along te whole time, Marte, Cabrera, Carmona, Choo, Santana, LaPorta, Perez, Masterson, probably 5 other guys I'm forgetting. The difference is that they haven't had a successful core in the way the rays have, and the reasons why are worth considering too.