NorthSideSox72

UE weekly claims number falls yet again, to 358,000, lowest since April 2008. 4 week moving average falls to 366,250, also the lowest since April '08. Here is an interesting scenario to consider. Let's say the economy continues to heal at a good pace during the next 6-8 months, hiring continues to do well, etc. One thing this will likely cause is for more of the people who have "dropped out" of the workforce to start looking for work again. If enough of them do that in a short period, the UE rates may actually stay the same or even go up again, even though the ecomony is actually more sound than it was. That may make it difficult on Obama, because that UE6 number is what the public is fed all the time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 08:40 AM) It's by Yves Smith (Susan Webber) can you give a quick summation of why it's completely nonsensical? Let's break it down... This is patently false. The author is trying to give a picture that the principal cram-downs and securitized loans are somehow not "bank money", but insstead is... your money? What? The principal owed on a mortgage is by no possible definition an asset of the borrower. It is either an asset of the bank, or an account payable item for the bank. How this author can say otherwise, in fact the opposite, with a straight face, is beyond me. And securitized loans? How is that anyone's money but the trading parties on the security? Whether they happen on securitized debt or not is, first of all, not directly related to the investment status of the loan recipient. The author is trying to characterize the people who securitized and bought/sold the debt are the people who also created the debt and hold the pegged asset. This is of course not the case. Now, I will say, there is one aspect of this that I understand and somewhat agree with - by aiding the prinicipals within loans that are part of MBS's or the like, they are ALSO helping the firms that traded those instruments. But I fail to see how that is a bad thing, as they were abused by the mortgagors as well, so why shouldn't they also benefit? This part is accurate, so I should not have characterized this writing as "100% nonsensical". It is only 80% nonsensical. We all knew, had to know, that since Fannie/Freddie caused part of the mess, their loans were going to end up taking part of this hit. Sort of has to be that way, unless you can think of an alternative. This is where the author really goes off the deep end. Insurers of what? If the author means companies like Allstate or State Farm, who happen to do financial investments as part of their portfolio, they I suppose it may effect them in some side manner. But they will already have traded out of any mortgage-related funds by now anyway. Pension funds and 401k's? Eh? I suppose if someone was putting their entire 401k in a Fannie or Freddie-based mortage debt fund - which very few people did even before and no one does now - then they might be effected. But this is not the theft of money as is being characterized, at all. This is the value of a mutual fund, one which made no sense to be in today anyway, being diminished. It is an investment loss. Same as if a company whose stock is somewhere in one of your mutual funds goes bankrupt. No one stole that money from you. Not really. First of all, if a loan is bundled into a security, the security has stipulations about the mortgages therein. First, if the mortgage defaults, you lose (in some form). Second, if the mortgage is SOLD - then it is typically either severed from the security because it is no longer the same underlier, or, the security specifies the involved risk of refinance. If the former, then this change has no effect on the holder of the MBS or other debt security. If the latter, then the risk was priced in at the time, and if that risk increased then tough s***, but the alternative is that you took on a bunch of defaults which is even worse. So really, this is not going to result in net material losses to these investors - it will result in an even play or may even protect them from some further losses.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 03:55 PM) He doesn't have the Marlins 29th. That would be the Indians. And most publications that had both Marinez and Martinez in the Marlins top 10, were from before last season. 2012 rankings would have dropped them significantly after both had down seasons, even if they remained with the Marlins. Either way, going by Sickels at the moment looking at "B" prospects: Marlins Yelich: B+ Ozuna: B Fernandez: B Realmuto: B- Dominguez: B- Rasmussen: B- James: B- Conley: B- White Sox Reed: B+ Molina B+ That's it. Both teams have 8 C+ prospects. Comparisons show that it isn't even close. Comparing BP's prospects rankings of both teams is just as damning. The Sox system is still among the worst. But they really have improved on the draft the last few years (though this seems entirely via scouting, and they still miss the money part of the picture), and the trades this offseason bolstered the system. I would personally now put them above a couple or three teams. The Marlins, for example, have gotten worse, while the Sox have gotten better. That all said, even if I am right, we are still talking about going from 30th to like 28th. Not exactly a "woohoo!" claim to make. But it is improvement.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 07:02 AM) 2. That $26 billion is actually $5 billion of bank money and the rest is your money. The mortgage principal writedowns are guaranteed to come almost entirely from securitized loans, which means from investors, which in turn means taxpayers via Fannie and Freddie, pension funds, insurers, and 401 (k)s. Refis of performing loans also reduce income to those very same investors. The above part is 100% nonsensical. It looks like it was written by a 19 year old philosophy major who recently started reading his first finance book.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 10:40 AM) Wasn't Saladino hurt early last year? Wrist injury? 2012 is big year for him. No doubt about 2012 being big. The transition to AA is always big, and tends to be the point we most often seperate the men from the boys.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 10:43 AM) Remember when Republicans were the only ones seeking to infringe upon all of our freedoms: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/f...a-sky-near-you/ I can't think of a single appropriate usage for this technology within borders other than to spy on American citizens. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 10:47 AM) This belongs in the "Obamanation" thread as a great example of some terrible policies from this WH. "SPEED LIMITE ENFORCED BY PREDATOR DRONE MISSILES" While I agree there are serious dangers here, I disagree that the only use would be for spying. Unmanned drones can and would envelop, for example, commercial airflight of unmanned aircraft. Cargo planes, for example. All sorts of other uses as well. And before anyone get apopleptic about this, I am right there with you about the potential dangers. But your assumption about this being ONLY for spying are narrow and inaccurate. Also worth noting, it says the FAA needs to come up with rules - that would be subject to review, public scrutiny, and congressional approval.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 10:17 AM) I was there, buddy. My earliest Sox memories are in late 40's. Also familiar with Sox history well before that. Still, our GM has waaay too many bad acquisitions/trades on his resume', one of which is the Peavy deal, which is who this thread is about. I don't think anyone would disagree that the past 3 seasons have been disappointments, and that at least part of the blame falls on KW. Nor would anyone disagree that KW has made some bad deals - the Hudson trade and the Rios acquisition being (IMO) front and center. The Peavy deal, while certainly KW's doing, I don't get angry at him about because what happened wasn't predictable. Same with Dunn. KW should have been allowed to step down when he offered. He's had some bad years. And I'm guessing that 2012-2013 will dictate his fate.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Feb 4, 2012 -> 12:51 AM) "Bell: Saladino is a very good prospect, will start 2012 in Birmingham" Uh, no. He's not. I've seen him play and talking to scouts, he's barely an average prospect right now. Funny, every report I've ever seen keeps saying more and more good things about him. And people are rating him pretty highly, certainly more than "barely above average". You are the first person I've seen say otherwise. No one is saying he's an A+ guy, or a future all-star, but he's got a lot of value. In any case, AA is always a big test, so this year will likely tell us a lot.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 09:18 AM) So where are the posts challenging any of you on this? When you or SS posts some global warming piece, very rarely, if ever, do I see anyone challenging the veracity of the GW or CC concept. I may pop in here to ask some questions because I legitimately do find the topic fascinating, and I don't really believe the ALARMIST! viewpoint is very fruitful, but it's not like the folks among us on the right are in here debating whether these concepts exist. This is mostly true, but there are actually a few people who have posted in here before who really don't think AGW exists.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) The WSJ seems to me, anyways, to be challenging just exactly what to do about the problem. Again, to me, this is a legitimate question. Well, in truth, WSJ has published some editorial pieces that were way more far-fetched and shallow than just challenging what to do about the problem (though they have published those as well). The one in particular that sparked this new discussion was a joke. But there is definitely good discussion to be had about what to do, no doubt about that. And I think it is healthy to continue to hear reasoned arguments of why some part of climate change may not be AGW, as well.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 09:08 AM) There's absolutely good discussion to be held over policy response to a major issue, but this is distinctly different from the complete denial of the simple existence of the issue. GOP politicians and pundits do not hesitate to call the entire concept of AGW a "hoax." The entire point of the WSJ and Daily Mail articles is to deny the very existence of a global warming problem. And those people are clearly morons, preying on an ignorant public. But yet again, you are attempting to say that because some responses to AGW are garbage, that must mean ALL of them are. I disagree.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 08:54 AM) I'm channeling my inner MrG. Spot on.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 08:25 AM) Great. Now can you give me some evidence to back this up? What level of system can we understand well and what level of system complexity does our understanding/ability to isolate key variables fail? You are being intentionally obtuse here. You know damn well that global climate is a system so huge, and effecte by so many things, that you can really only look at the few biggest influences, and study for a general effect.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 05:00 PM) Tbe White Sox haven't historically been tbe gold standard in regards to winning. Thank God for the Cubs or they would be in the photo for the poster child of the opposite. KW won a WS so having a bad decade is wrong. It is time though to put to rest that stringing together 82 to 88 win seasons and not making tbe playoffs the way the divisions are now set up is a success. KW is making excuses now.Read the quote at the bottom of ss2k5s posts then read his quotes at the end of last season patting himself on the back for building teams that spend time during the season in first place. Its time KW leave. I don't disagree with any of this. The bolded was my whole point (along with the 2 division wins), and the rest... isn't really related to what I was saying, but I agree with it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 08:05 AM) Sure, Obama hates the unemployed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 08:07 AM) No, but they typically find that within error, between 75% and 125% of the observed warming can be explained by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and there are zero mechanisms which have stood up to scrutiny other than CO2 emissions which could explain the observed temperature rise. You'll note that I write 125% of the observed warming and I keep doing this...for a reason. It is just as likely that the CO2 warming effect has been damped out by other effects (the solar minimum in the last 5 years, chinese air pollution, the buffering capacity of the ocean), which could be overcome in short order. And you don't get to focus on the low side, the 75%, and say that the remainder is somehow unexplained, without having to note the chance that the emitted CO2 already ought to be doing more than it is. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent trying to come up with any other mechanism that would explain the current warming, and tens of millions more have been spent trying to see if there is any geologic evidence of climate change that isn't linked strongly to CO2. In every case, CO2 keeps winning. That's what I keep saying to you. You keep asserting that the warming is established but the mechanism isn't...but you can't give me another mechanism that I can't shoot down with data. Without that, holding out "Skepticism" is effectively unfounded. You can keep testing stuff if you have a good idea, no one disagrees with that, but without evidence for the skepticism, you're in the boat of relying solely on "But there are error bounds on here, look at the low side, if that side is right then things might not be tremendously horrible". The bolded is where you have a huge logic flaw in your argument. If I don't have a specific competing theory, that does NOT make skepticism unfounded. One can be skeptical for good reasons that are not necessarily an alternative theory. My reason for skepticism - and mine, again, is only very mild - is the simple reality that the complexity of the system you are studying can't be grasped as completely as you seem to think. And I know CO2 keeps winning. As I have said over and over again, I feel that the science here has been so strong to indicate the relationship and the causality, that for me, it is enough to overwhelm the skepticism and say "yes, AGW exists, and is responsible for some large portion of climate change as studied". That does not mean I think other arguments are invalid.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 08:10 AM) Yeah, but MN and CO will award delegates based on those results so they're at least reportable. MO is fundamentally differennt. Obviously MO is a different case, theirs was 100% useless. CO and MN will re-caucus at the precinct level, then at the state level, later. After Super Tuesday. Since they re-caucus, I am pretty sure this initial straw poll - which is what it was - doesn't really mean much. Just an indicator, really.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 08:02 AM) Why Does Colorado not count for anything? NO delegates are awarded. None. Same for MN, and MO (but for different reasons). All three contests were non-binding. All three states actually make their binding selections at a later date.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 07:49 AM) was that the one where he spent 3 minutes trying to offer the person a job? Why are you feeding the troll... again? He is obviously trying to get a reaction. It is obvious to him and everyone else what that quote meant.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 07:46 AM) Really surprised by his Solid Colorado win, Mittens won that state in 2008 even when it was pretty clear McCain was on a path to victory. Santorum was in CO before the FL primary was even over. He saturated there, while Romney and Gingrich barely showed up - because it doesn't count for anything.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 07:49 AM) Fine. You continue to insist that there are valid arguments that somehow the current temperature shift is not anthropogenic. Give me 1. Well SS just showed you one interesting aspect along these lines... not 100% of climatological scientists agree on the topic. 90% is not 100%. Do 100% of all peer-reviewed scienfitic papers find that 100% of the net global warming is caused by humanity? Every one of them? Of course not. This means that there are true experts in the field (not talking about the screaming ostriches here) who feel that there may ALSO be other factors at play. And this only makes sense, really, because you cannot possibly control for everything in your study when you are talking about something as complex as the earth's climate. You can identify correlations... and you can show individual causal links, like say, between CO2 presence and warming of the atmosphere, or between certain polluting sources and atmospheric CO2 levels... but you can't possibly explore every link and every cause and effect. It simply isn't possible. What you CAN do, is show that over decades of peer-reviewed scientific studies, demonstrating not only the raw data but the statistically-tested probabilities of causal relationships in the main factors at play, that there is a very high probability that some of climate change occurring is caused by humanity. You can even say a large chunk of it is so. And you will have 95% confidence in it. I am in total agreement with this, by the way - the science has spoken decisively ENOUGH on this topic that it has convinced me that AGW exists, and represents some significant part of the shifting climate. That is NOT the same thing as saying there is no valid other side, as you two keep pointing at. You are characterizing as fact, something that by its very nature, cannot be fact.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 07:42 PM) Interesting examination of how right-wing climate denial myths start and propagate, and another refutation of the "equal time for both 'sides'" idea. How the 'wind farms increase climate change' myth was born University of Illinois wind farm researcher responds to how his paper was reported in the media and on the internet They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must. Your argument here continues to miss the point. Equal time isn't about liars and panic-driving like we see here. When I say both sides should be heard, I mean that both sides should express their views on how much of climate change is anthropogenic. And more importantly, show the valid arguments on both sides about that extent, and what to do (and not do) about it. What you do here, again, is show an example of some idiots at work, who happen to be on one side, as a way of characterizing the entire side of the argument being empty. If someone did the same by pointing out the idiots on YOUR side, you would be all up in arms about it.

Beyond the Sixth Game

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Feb 5, 2012 -> 12:25 AM) Ended up watching The Grey since that was all that worked with our time frame. I really enjoyed it. After I saw you talking about this, and knowing you are an avid hunter, thought you might like this.

I can't believe people are dissecting this argument about 50's vs 00's. The main point seemed obvious - the idea that KW needs to make up for a bad DECADE is ridiculous on its face. His decade of baseball resulted in a championship and either 1 or 2 more division wins, depending on how you slice it up, no to mention only one season worse than 4 games under .500. He's had either the best decade for the Sox in 50-60 years, or 90 years. Take whichever you'd like. Point is, KW has had 2-3 bad seasons and some bad trades, not a bad decade.