Balta1701

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 2, 2008 -> 03:08 PM) The same Wassermann who's gone 8 innings without allowing a run? Clearly he doesn't belong in our bullpen.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Aug 2, 2008 -> 09:44 AM) every year you read somewhere "X player was put on waivers" and "X player was pulled back from waivers", is this an official release on MLB.com? Or is it leaked info? I have also read that there are many players that are put on waivers that you never hear about It's basically always leaked. Most teams will try to put anyone out there that they think has a remote shot of getting through just in case a spectacular trade offer comes along. I think we tried to see if Buehrle and Garland could pass through in 05, for example. But it's always leaked, that info is never officially published.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Aug 2, 2008 -> 01:49 PM) Again their minor league instruction is great. Everyone learns how to play Twins type baseball. They learn how to hit, to run, to play solid defense and to play smart baseball. We seem to draft football players, who we challenge to crush the ball as far as humanly possible. I think a lot of people would riot if the Sox started spending their #1 picks on low ceiling singles hitters like the Twins sort of have done lately.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 07:44 PM) gas is $10 a gallon in Europe. good luck convincing the US public that is the way to go. Good luck keeping it from going there on its own if we don't majorly cut back on usage, globally.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 08:27 PM) Either you're missing te point on purpose or you just don't understand. I'm not sure which. I'm afraid I don't see what I'm missing. The point I'm trying to make is that appropriate regulation combined with appropriate taxation, as we've seen in the cases of both California and Europe, can easily make dents on the order of 25-50% in electricity demand and beyond that are a key step towards pushing towards a carbon-free economy. None of the reduced consumption in California happens if the state government doesn't step in and mandate various switches, nor does it happen if the state government doesn't totally rework the way energy producers are paid (where they don't make more money by selling more electricity as they do everywhere else). His response to that was that if you raise taxes, and thus raise energy prices by raising the tax on those items...businesses will go elsewhere. I responded yeah...that would make sense, except now that shipping costs are suddenly going through the roof because oil prices are rising, that's no longer as great of a decision. And having higher oil prices for decades due to taxation has clearly not stunted European growth...the area with the vastly more expensive energy has simply adapted, while this country's businesses planned on cheap oil up to infinity and now it's largest industries are taking $15 billion a quarter hits because of it.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 08:21 PM) I found slight concern when I realized the last former #1 overall pick to patrol CF for the White Sox also wore 17. Then I realized that said player also grew up in North Dakota and that's as big of a reason as any as to why he sucks. GRIFFEY Travis HGHafner also grew up in North Dakota.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 07:38 PM) Tonight is step one in proving my (hopeful) theory that KG Jr simply didnt care in Cincy that displeasure with the overall team's prospects hurt his play such is the way with superstars. JR had a 12 game hitting streak and an OPS of 1.072 or so since the all star break coming in to tonight. Dude's hot.

QUOTE (Winning Ugly @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 07:15 PM) It's been 3 years since my last post here. At least the Sox had a good year that year...

I think Joel Peralta's ERA has gone up since we last faced him.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 05:00 PM) You just said it, ENERGy was more expensive. They were not suddenly charged x-millions of dollars because they didn't use 10% renewable energy or something like that. And the energy was higher for everyone. Go ahead, raises taxes here. See how fast it takes for businesses to pick up and go somewhere else. And regardless of of differing views on that, it is still a good thing that you posted. More people should be doing that. Yup, they could just move overseas, because shipping costs are...right.....that whole oil thing....

I think I just heard KW laughing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox15 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 05:34 PM) I hate Vazquez. He feels the same about you.

13 game hit streak for Jr.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 08:33 AM) you guys do realize that Stevens is actually in a competitive primary right now? With about 4 weeks going to the election, Stevens's support has softened quite a bit since the indictment, but he's still holding a huge post-indictment polling lead.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 04:00 PM) Because now the 'punishment' part of that is coming in from market factors (high costs). Saving money IS the reward, but like someoil exploration, it just wasn't worth it, for a while. now it is worth it, and a few, like what you posted, are showing the way. So, if I then point out that in Europe, one of the reasons these sorts of things were done years ago in Europe is that energy was vastly more expensive there due to the fact that higher taxes were placed on energy, and those things haven't been done here because energy was much less expensive...does that not suggest that using the government as an instrument to force people to conserve or to develop alternate energy technology through taxed-based disincentives works quite well?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 02:01 PM) If each company starts out with X costs, they must place profit on top. So increase costs across the board and you will increase retail prices. Look at taxes right now, areas of the country with higher taxes have higher pump prices. I don't see how they would not pass any new taxes on to the consumer. So why is it that the oil companies get to decide then how much profit they will make? Where exactly is it determined that Exxon's profits are going to be $11.25 billion every quarter? And why have those profits been going up at such an incredible rate over the past 8 years? Why exactly is it that in 1999 Exxon's quarterly profits were on the order of $1.5 billion and now they're up by a factor of 7? If it's the case that each company starts with x costs and takes a constant amount of profit on top of that, then how have yearly profits gone up so much faster than the rate of inflation if they haven't increased the amount they earn per barrel of oil?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 03:01 PM) It's amazing what positive reenforcement (awards)can accomplish, instead of negative punishment (taxes). I think passing laws mandating things like you can't waste light from lampposts or you face fines appears to have been effective negative punishment as well. But here's the kicker...if positive reinforcement were all it took, then why haven't businesses interested in cutting their own energy demands made some of the obvious changes years ago? Things like factories installing heat recovery systems which are all over the place in Europe but hardly exist here in the U.S., or improving the efficiency of their own appliances, etc.? The reward should be saving money on energy costs.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 12:44 PM) Excellent point regarding taxing after the fact. To add, it basically is a tax on consumers because the oil companies will just pass it on, they always do. So we have yet another Robin Hood government program. Actually, I'm not sure this is how it would work. Hypothetically, if there is a certain amount of oil being produced in the world, then the price of oil should be such that the demand for oil responds to the supply. In other words, if oil companies simply tried to raise their prices to recoup their income, then that should either drive demand down or it should drive business to whichever oil company doesn't choose to increase their prices. The only way that a windfall tax could be passed on in that measure is if all the oil companies get together and decide that they need to make that money back up so they all raise their prices dramatically in the hopes that their price increases will make the money back before demand responds. This of course is monopolistic and illegal. If the market actually works, then the price of a gallon of gasoline should be set only by the amount of gasoline available and the demand for it. If the price is too high, then stockpiles will build up. If too low, then stockpiles will go down. You shouldn't simply be able to raise the price of an item like that because you feel like it. It's for this same reason that the gas tax holiday idea fails...if the price is being set by the balance of supply and demand, then the price will stay constant regardless of which side is taking the profits.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 12:34 PM) OK Let's talk about it! With record annual deficits and a record federal deficit, shouldn't a windfall profits tax be used to pay down the national debt? Perhaps when we have paid off or at least paid down the debt we could look at politicians buying votes with "free money". It isn't free when we are simultaniously borrowing money to fund the government. It's a lot more fun and it wins a lot more votes to give people checks! Woo-hoo! To be honest, both sides have energy related proposals that are pretty darn bad. Cutting the gas tax is an awful idea, it robs the treasury of funds at a time when that same money is needed to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure (although, if enough bridges collapse, that is one way of cutting oil consumption). Meanwhile, that $1000 check/windfall tax plan is just as silly. Yes, people are hurting because of energy costs. But people are adapting. The simplest solution is to drive less. If you're going to take the questionable step of a windfall tax, then use it to fund something useful, like for example, build a crapload of solar energy plants or windmills. There's only 1 case where distributing checks to low income people is a decent idea, and that's as part of what you do after setting up a legit carbon tax system. A part of that tax does hit the lowest of the low income workers especially hard, but if you take about 5-10% of the revenue generated by the carbon tax, you can use that to offset the tax paid by everyone with incomes around the poverty line. If you're giving people rebates in that case, that one I can live with because at the same time you're still taking a huge chunk out of our energy usage by increasing the cost of high carbon energy.

One more energy piece. If you're interested in energy issues at all I think this is an excellent piece, must-read level. You want to cut this country's carbon emissions drastically, or cut its energy use drastically, or hell, meet Al Gore's goal with room to spare? Here's the outline, and it's really not that hard, as this state has proven. I'll excerpt about 1/2, covering the argument for why it would be so amazingly easy for this country to use less electricity than it currently does and how much money it would save. The policy prescriptions are in the article.

France, which gets a large majority of its electricity from nuclear power, has suffered a rash of nuclear related accidents in recent weeks.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 01:01 PM) Are you guys going to re-sign me again when they buy my option out? We will offer you salary arbitration. You're not walking without us getting picks.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 11:46 AM) You would be surprised how often that happens though, I mean people who stick around after hours and start ranting in front of the camera etc. with nobody else on the floor. There was a classic example back in 2005 of the Dems holding a hearing on the Iraq debacle in a windowless basement room reminiscent of the office I'm in as a grad student. Quite classic. At one point someone accidentally turned off the lights. At another someone knocked over one of the flags. At least they let the Republicans use the normal room.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 10:43 AM) And see, there is a key there - the loan dependency is a definite issue, but I actually think the belt tightening on loans will be a good thing in the long run. People get loans on too many things, and run up credit card bills for too many others. If it gets harder to do that, there will be an ugly interim adjustment period, but then people will simply not be able to stretch as far, and that's actually good. The banks and their lobbyists will do everything, and I mean EVERYTHING in their power to prevent any new restrictions from appearing on their lending of credit at usurious interest rates to people who shouldn't be taking out such big loans.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2008 -> 09:07 AM) People today are totally dependant on the banks loaning money today. Typically people have car loans, student loans, mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans etc. That didn't happen in the 30's. The banking sector collapse reverberated through the economy big time back then, even when most people did not need the banks like they do today. Banking liquidity has a much larger affect on today's world. I was trying to imagine a couple months ago when the Bear bailout happened what it would be like if one of the really big banks, something bigger than IMB, wound up in the hands of the FDIC. Think Bankone, Citibank, BofA, etc., the ones that people use for everything. It's hard for me to fathom the disruption. Hell, just imagine if the company that held 1/3 of the credit cards in your wallet suddenly said it wouldn't take it any more, and on top of that you had a bank account with them so you couldn't write a check and you couldn't get cash out of an ATM until you got your FDIC check and cashed it?