Balta1701

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2011 -> 02:09 PM) To me, your line of reasoning boils down to subsidies (or lack thereof) not actually affecting their profitability at all. If the subsidies are there, prices will drop and their profits will stay at x%. If subsidies disappear, they'll simply raise prices to a level to maintain profits of x%. Which, as I am trying to say, only happens in the case of a monopoly, where there is no risk of anyone coming in and undercutting your chosen profit percentage.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 17, 2011 -> 02:05 PM) $45 is absurd though. I understand it sucks when joe johnson and rudy gay get the max, but i'd argue that the true superstars in the nba could probably make that themselves and deserve it. That's the real problem though. There are 4-5 guys in the league who are probably worth >$30 million a year to their teams, but there are 30 teams after those guys. If you let the teams bid openly, then those people will wind up making $50 million a year in NYC, LA, and maybe Chicago. If Instead, you limit the max deal, then every team winds up having the ability to sign guys to max contracts, and you wind up with the situation we have now, where 5-6 top guys are clearly underpaid relative to what they bring to a franchise, while the next tier is ridiculously overpaid as those teams try to compete with the top 5-6 guys.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ May 17, 2011 -> 02:00 PM) There may be a hard cap, but the chances of it being $45 mil are basically zero. You know how many teams have a payroll below $45 mil right now? The answer is one: the Sacramento Kings at $44 mil. They are the only team under $52 mil in salary and 22 of them are above $64 mil. That's just WAY too huge a dropoff to be practical. The NBA would clearly have to offer another version of the Allan Houston rule or something like a league-wide 30% salary drop to make that happen. Frankly, with some of the contracts owners handed out last year, I wouldn't be surprised if they were expecting something like that.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 17, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) That will happen, but in the mean time, it's not helping people. The only real solution to that problem is a highly regulated oil market or even a mandated oil price, and that has the exact same problems. The real issue isn't the oil markets, its the casino-based financial system itself.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 17, 2011 -> 02:00 PM) The CEO of Exxon said this isn't a supply/demand issue...he outright said that a barrel of oil *should* be between 60-70$ based on stock/supply/demand and availability. He said this in response to a question about whether speculators are the cause. While he never outright said it was speculators, you can do the math yourself: Q: Are speculators influencing the cost of oil? A: If you said: 'If I had access to the next marketable barrel, what would it cost? When we look at it, it's going to be somewhere in the $60 to $70 range. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/12/...E74B4NQ20110512 If oil speculators are buying oil at $100 a barrel that should be sold for $70 a barrel, then the response is going to be a glut of oil being put into storage as consumers cut back, and eventually things will have to swing the other way, to prices well below $70, to remove that excess. Speculators can drive bubbles but since production prices are so low compared to the price per barrel, they can't drive changes in the amount produced.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2011 -> 01:58 PM) I've been using my Weber charcoal grill as a smoker the last month. I got some "skinny" pork loins that smoked up in about 3 hours, and a 6.5 boston butt that took me about 12 hours. Both were absolutely fantastic. I've got my whole system down now so keeping a constant 250-275 is a matter of checking the vents and occasionally stirring the coals/wood chips. I found a"dry" rub for the pork loins that is a perfect mixture of sweet and hot - Brown sugar, sugar, salt, onion salt, garlic powder, dry mustard, thyme, spanish paprika, cayenne, cumin, and red pepper flake. After 12 hours of smoking, the sugars caramelize just right and the smoke and heat from the red pepper and cayenne penetrate all the way through the meat. Anyone else have experience smoking? I read somewhere that after 4 hours or so the meat stops taking in smoke. I can't really tell if that's true or not. 1. Can you give the details on how you set up your Weber for smoking/how you get the temp right? I attempted that last year but things still got too hot and I overcooked the ribs I was trying. 2. There's no reason why meat would stop taking up smoke as long as it doesn't completely crust over. That might well happen on a lot of meats after 4 hours.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ May 17, 2011 -> 01:54 PM) If the NBA is set on getting a hard cap of $45 million we aren't going to be seeing any NBA games next year. Remember, the owners in this league have already broken the Union once. They have every reason to expect that the Union won't be able to endure a strike again.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2011 -> 01:54 PM) Wow, there will be a strike before that happens. Technically the NBA does the lockout thing just like the NFL. But yes, there is going to be a long lockout next year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2011 -> 01:49 PM) -Price point doesn't matter. Again, cost structure doesn't care where the costs come from, or at what price point they come in at. If you change costs, you change final price, and you change production. None of the political party lines matter here. This introduction to high school economics we are talking about here. These aren't rules which are negotiable based on your party. Hypothetical situation. It costs $30 to bring a barrel of oil out of the ground and take it to a refinery in New Orleans. Oil prices are $98/barrel. If I offer the person who owns the production site an additional $10 per barrel, will the producer add extra production? If that producer does, then he's a fool, because that means he has been neglecting to produce every drop he can at the $68/barrel profit. Or, he's been acting as a monopoly and keeping supply off of the market in the hopes of fixing prices. Alternative scenario. It costs $105 to bring a barrel out of the ground. The price on the market is $98. In this case, if you offered an increase of $10 a barrel in subsidies, yes, you should get extra production, because then you'd bring on to line additional oil sold at a profit. However, in this case, there is very little oil anywhere in the world that actually costs $100 to bring out of the ground. Even the Canadian tar sands are typically profitable at a level of $40 (Canadian).

The AP just ran with a ridiculously detailed accounting of the raid, the decision, and even the equipment involved.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 17, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) Are those the only two options you know of? In this case, yes. That is the reality of the 9% unemployment we're dealing with after the 2008 crash. You cut back on spending, you lose jobs. If you cut back on government spending in boom times, you lose jobs. The difference now is that the economy after 2008 is not in a position to replace those job losses. Furthermore, a significant chunk of the deficit problem anyway is due to the fact that people lost jobs and suddenly stopped being taxpayers. If you take actions that cut more jobs, you get much less bang for your buck because you simply move those people onto the unemployment rolls and Medicaid, and they stop paying taxes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2011 -> 01:36 PM) Ugh. -2008 wasn't caused by a an over-supply. It was caused by a drop in demand. Those are two very different things. -Final sale price affects amount produced. It's called profit motive. If you costs go up, whether it is due to supplies costing more, or the government cutting off your subsidies, production goes down. The source of the cost increase doesn't matter. I taught that very lesson in the first six weeks of high school economics. 1. A drop in demand = too much supply. Same exact problem. More oil was being supplied than there was demand for, and prices plummeted. 2. Ok, I understand completely where your flaw is right now. You're somehow under the impression that production prices for oil are similar to the per barrel cost. This is fundamentally untrue. There is little to no oil anywhere that is produced and shipped for $100/barrel. This is not a commodity where the high price is reflecting increased cost of production, it is reflecting only the scarcity of the item. Furthermore, virtually all of the production subsidies we offer are on oil that is produced at well less than $100/barrel cost, meaning that it is all oil that would be produced anyway without the subsidies. We're not subsidizing companies to produce extremely hard to get oil here, we're subsidizing them to produce oil that would be very profitable for them to produce anyway.

Really, now you're talking about his behind?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:59 PM) So your solution is to dismantle the team and go with a Rose/Howard combo surrounded by scrubs? Not in the least. I'm just responding to your post.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) Do you really think every poor person who isn't near public transit lives on a farm? 82% of the total U.S. population lives in urban areas.

The one thing that 2k5 is assuming with that entire statement of course is that the oil industry behaves as a monopoly which can set its own prices. If however, there is competition between providers, then everything 2k5 is saying is wrong. Basic supply and demand tells you why. There is a fixed supply of oil coming out of the ground. The amount of supply changes slightly over time, but it has essentially been constant since 2006 (hi peak oil). In an actual competitive system, the price of that oil would be fixed by the demand for it. If the price moved too high, then, although demand for oil is inelastic (doesn't change much with price), we'd see oil supply build up as people bought less. The most recent example where this happened in large scale was 2008, where prices dropped to 40% of what they are now due to an overabundance of supply. If prices are set competitively, then the price at the pump is set entirely by the price that is needed to balance consumption and production. No where in that equation do subsidies show up. If one company attempts to raise prices in response to subsidy cutoffs, then I can corner the oil market by starting another company with venture capital and selling gas at a lower price while still making money. The price should be determined entirely by supply and demand. The only way this breaks down is if the oil industry is operating as a legal monopoly. In that case, every provider is setting their price in agreement with others in the industry, and as such they can all decide to raise their prices simultaneously without having to worry about another provider undercutting the price. This is of course patently illegal. However, its the basis for 2k5's entire position. The only way that subsidies could possibly effect production is in the event that they made it profitable to produce oil that was not profitable without that. However, right now, profitability is not what is limiting oil production; lack of additional oil to produce is. The profit margins on every barrel of oil coming out of the ground right now are enormous. All that the subsidies are doing is adding to that profit margin, translating directly to profit.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2011 -> 10:36 AM) Which benefits by far mostly people in cities, which means half of the country gets left out. How many of the poor own farms?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:53 PM) What makes you think this team is built for a one year run like the 2005 Sox? I don't get that impression at all. In fact, with the youth on this team it seems that it's built to be a powerhouse for years to come. I'm at least a little concerned about that and have been all year...because of the 2007-2008 Hornets. They peaked at 56 wins, with a whole lot of people thinking they had all the world in upside. I know I thought they'd be the class of the West for years. Then guys started getting hurt. Then they blew their MLE on a horrible contract for James Posey. Then Paul got hurt. If everyone stays healthy the Bulls are in great shape. But this is the first season Deng's ever been healthy the whole year, Noah still missed half the year, Boozer missed 1/3 of the year, both Noah and Boozer have spent their careers constantly hurt... And then there's one player who's one knee roll away from ending it all.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 17, 2011 -> 10:14 AM) Y'all keep saying pyramid in regards to SS, but our entire budget is a pyramid. $14 trillion and climbing debt. As we increase the debt, we are counting on more people to pay taxes, to shoulder the debt. It is always someone else paying the taxes, in this case, someone not even born. Which would you prefer to leave people of future generations, no debt and no jobs, or debt but a solid job market?

I don't want to live on this planet any more.

Link

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 17, 2011 -> 10:06 AM) I'll just put it this way, there's never been a contract of $10 million plus for an unproven 19 year old where there was considerable doubt about what impact he'd have in the majors...Contreras was expected to be a star right away, and Chapman was considered "major league ready" in the minds of many scouts after seeing him in the World Baseball Classic. It was largely based on "projectability," but the raw talent was there. Considering the amount of money given to him is like 3-4 entire June FA drafts for the organization, it's an interesting risk considering we almost never go over slot in the draft itself, yet we "went over slot" in the millions of dollars in an open bidding process with every team in the majors involved. "Considerable doubt?" Your not exactly making a strong take here. Aroldis Chapman started off with considerable doubt about whether he'd be a starter or stay healthy. Jose Contreras got $30 million from the Yankees based basically on 1 game a few years beforehand, and if there wasn't considerable doubt, there should have been. Can I also throw people signed from Japan into this boat in terms of considerable doubt?

QUOTE (Lillian @ May 17, 2011 -> 09:57 AM) I'm sorry, I should have put it in teal. I thought the sarcasm was obvious. My point was that if Ozzie talked about him the way most of us do, and the way some of us seem to think Ozzie should, it couldn't do much for the guy's confidence. I don't think the problem is as much confidence as it is that people want Pierre on the bench, or at least dropped in the order, and a statement of support from Ozzie is the exact opposite. Ozzie doesn't exactly have a long record of statements of support for veterans followed up by benching them (the opposite of course is true for rookies).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 17, 2011 -> 09:51 AM) You keep making arguments up. I am not saying anyone gets removed from the system. When I say "elective", I mean from certain choices, and its obligatory money inbound. Then we're back on the first problem...the fact that if you allow everyone to take money out of the pyramid and make choices about where to invest it, you need $20 trillion or so extra to maintain benefits for people currently in the system. And no, raising the cap doesn't get you that; it only covers the gap between current scheduled inputs and current scheduled benefits. You need to raise the cap, then add in an extra dollar beyond that to cover every dollar you allow people to "Choose" what they do with it. And be honest...let's hypothetically say that we first allow people to start "choosing" or investing in T-bills. Do you really think there won't be an enormous lobby to allow people to expand those choices? Do you really think that it'll be many years before we hit a bull stock market and people are angry over why they're stuck "Choosing" to put their money in treasuries?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 17, 2011 -> 09:46 AM) How many players in Latin America have been signed to a guaranteed MLB contract (I won't even add "signed at age 19 or higher to their first contract"), received $10+ million dollars, and didn't (or hadn't yet) achieved a starting role in the 3rd year of their playing career? In this situation, it's basically like we "drafted" something between an advanced high school player and a seasoned SEC collegiate player and gave him one of the biggest signing bonuses in the history of the draft. It's an unusual contract and certainly "big" by most definitions. I've had really bad luck googling stuff like this today. Anyway, Jose Contreras and Aroldis Chapman blew past Viciedo's contract.