NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) I don't think that we have found it anymore eleastic than before. The big difference is that we have only been this far along the price change chart one other time in our history. Not coincidentally we saw much the same effects the last time this happened was in the 1970s's which was the other time in our history that we saw major changes in the type of transportation we as American's used. So, the record volatility bred further record volatility? I guess that makes sense. Kind of analagous to what Balta said. I think we may not see that volatility go as far back down as it was a few years ago, though. That puts a lot more risk in the energy sector for end buyers as well as delivery sellers, but it works nicely for market makers. We need to get off oil, and soon.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 03:15 PM) Alberto Gonzalez doesn't understand why everyone thinks he did something wrong. He takes shots at pretty much everyone who might have said anything negative about him in that piece. In an inner circle full of awful picks, he may have been the worst. He truly is terrible.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) Cutting waste does absolutely nothing to help you out of the current economic mess. Intelligent spending or intelligent tax cuts yes, but the key is they need to be BIG. I could see a return to these spending levels in a couple years as a reasonable thing, but right now, a major infrastructure investment package taking advantage of the low interest rates and at the same time serving as a major economic stimulus is the only choic.e You want to talk long-term...yeah, then we might be able to come to some measure of an agreement. I'd say it was quite shameful that we failed to take advantage of the last economic expansion to pay off some of the federal government's debts, but then people would just discard my statement because of the man who made the decision to stay in debt then. And on the waste issue...this is constantly talked about, but the reality is...there are only a couple ways we're going to actually clean up waste in the government, because every administration comes in and tries to do it. Either we're going to have to make major cuts to the war department (and remember, spending on wars is not real spending, or at least that's how it's been treated the last 30 years) or we're going to have to perform a major overhaul in the health care sector (hopefully coming in a few months). It would be nice to have some measure of competence appear in government at a number of levels in terms of "reducing waste", but again, that's going to be an attack on the people currently making the decisions. There's a ton of useful, productive programs that simply get squeezed out because of the focus on "reducing waste." The reality winds up being that you can save small bits here and there by dropping things like abstinence-only education or various other projects, but the only real waste that will actually matter is the DOD and Health care. You are confusing what politicians refer to as "waste" with real "waste". Administrations come in, and don't do anything real to cut waste because its not politically expedient. They instead act tough, and just cut programs willy-nilly. And I wholeheartedly agree with you, that's useless. But you can, in fact, cut real waste so that the money goes to areas of the economy where it goes more good.

So, here is something for the minds here to ponder. A lesson from this year about oil. One thing we learned, seemingly, is that the demand for oil is much more elastic than most anyone thought, expert or otherwise. That being the case... 1. Why is that? Did it change recently, or was it always that elastic and we were all wrong? 2. What does that mean for oil and energy prices going forward?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 02:44 PM) I've pretty much accepted that the government is going to spend more in the next couple of years, it would've been the same for a McCain/Republican administration, for as much as those kinds of differences are exaggerated during the election cycle. Right now isn't what I'm so concerned about, I'm concerned with how we got here and our long-term strategy from here on. That is what I am most concerned about. I am afraid we are short-terming ourselves into a very bad place.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) For a personal set of incomes, that is true. The reality with the government though is that it doesn't work like that. When the governments revenues go down and the government borrows more, the additional government spending can also work as a stimulus to pull the economy back out of the down times that it's gotten itself in to. An economic downturn is the case where treating the government's spending like you would your own bank account is a bad thing, because of the feedbacks. If the government right now does not take on significantly increased amounts of debt, then there's going to be nothing left to keep the economy from collapsing completely. That's the logic behind the stimulus package we'll hopefully be passing in a couple weeks. I strongly disagree. People feel that government spending has to go up now because the danger of that debt is something that hasn't come home to roost yet. The risk you take on is big, people just don't see it in front of them. But if you look at the projections for CURRENT spending levels, in 10 years the interest on our debt is going to be a pretty big chunk of the budget. That is a dangerous spiral that you cannot easily escape, and I fear that spiral more than I fear the current economy going into depression. Ironically, you need less debt now to give you the flexibility to take on more in situations like this one. We just can't at this point without huge risk. I guess this all depends on whether or not you feel we've reached the point of too much debt risk yet. I feel we have, especially when you look at other financial and energy risks hanging over us. Others may not feel that way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 02:39 PM) Well, the other argument I can make is that it'd be dramatically more dangerous to not take on additional debt and just let the economy spiral its way completely down the liquidity trap. Certainly this is the issue - the economy is stalling, and needs huge attention. But you need to attack this is a smart way - by prioritizing spending, cutting waste, and making sure your grants and tax breaks are targeted in a way that makes sense. By the way, I am not saying that right now is the time to pay down debt either - as you say, the economy needs money. I am saying, we need to do better with the spending levels where they are already at. And we also need to be better at collecting due revenues, and finding REAL waste to cut.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 02:39 PM) I see, but i would probably ok with that if our deficit was something like half the size it is now. That's what I was saying, partially. If we already have crushing debt levels (which we are approaching), AND we know we are going to have to add even more with these projected deficits as is, then adding more debt is a really bad idea.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 02:36 PM) I'm referring to the federal debt also. Right now is perhaps the best time in decades for the federal government to be going in to debt to spend money, for a huge number of reasons, the lack of interest being just the first. No, no, no. When your debt is already overwhelming your budget with interest such that you can't dent the principal - which is the case here - then taking on MORE debt is dangerous and stupid even if it can be had for very low rates. It just puts you in a far larger hole later.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 02:35 PM) Are you talking about individual debt? I was talking about the federal deficit. He was trying to draw the parallel I think, but it doesn't work in any case.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 02:30 PM) On the debt part, right now in particular, I disagree. Just look at the bond markets. Right now, the U.S. can basically take out debt without having to pay interest just because it's the only thing people have confidence in. It makes no sense to try to cut down on debt when you can take on debt for free. Only true if you are starting from a reasonable baseline, which we are not. If you are already in heavy debt, even if debt is cheap, taking on more doesn't make any sense. Its more to pay off later, much later. We are already in far too big a hole to play that game, trying to accelerate out of debt with more debt. That's incredibly dangerous.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 01:39 PM) By the way, who was the brilliant GM who ever authorized giving L. Vizcaino $4 million per season? I mean, he was the BACK end of our bullpen, the garbage guy for a majority of 2005...although he had a very good run with the Brewers before those sliders wore down his fastball into the low 90's/upper 80's. There was a time when Viz was a passable middle/long reliever.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 01:34 PM) You forgot the Barack Obama factor in the attendance and merchandising, lol. Well, that's a pretty extensive/good list of reasons not to fret. This is not the late 1980's, and Ivan Calderon is not our best player anymore. Young kids growing up with the World Series title in the back of their minds will start to identify more with the Sox if their allegiance wasn't already formed a childbirth. All things considered, KW is going to be in a much more flexible position than he would be had he kept Cabrera, Swisher, Crede, Uribe, Griffey and Vazquez. With all of those players returning, would we be again favored to win the AL Central? I don't really think so. Obviously, there's so much love out there for Cabs, Crede, Uribe and Griffey that it might be until February before they find teams, and I wouldn't be surprised if they (some) didn't even received guaranteed major league contracts. We won last year with pitching, surprise offensive performances from Ramirez/Quentin and a lot of smoke and mirrors. Just think of the Cubs as another big Ponzi scheme (contracts for Soriano, Harden, Ramirez, Lee, Zambrano, Dempster, etc.) that will collapse/implode on itself at some point in the near future. I miss Ivan. Actually, if we trade Dye, we could use an Ivan-like player in 2009.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) Oil ripping today, up around $43, from the low 30's at one point a few days ago. Might make a 25% spread to bottom on the day. Looks like Russia is saying they will stop supplying Ukraine with gas.

Oil ripping today, up around $43, from the low 30's at one point a few days ago. Might make a 25% spread to bottom on the day.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 01:15 PM) southsideirish posted them yesterday. Translation/paraphrasing: "How could you not let him serve in the Senate? He's black. If you don't let him serve in the Senate, you're racist, it means you don't want blacks in the Senate." Followed by some not-so-subtle symbolism: I mean, damn, I'm all for having a black person in the Senate and everything, but how about focusing on the fact that Burris is actually qualified to serve in the position first? Not focusing on his race, that completely misses the point of racial equality. It's Jesse Jackson-speak. Wow. That's some stupid s***.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 11:57 AM) I just see a red x.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 01:12 PM) The funny part is that GRod knew this would happen, which is exactly why he picked the person he picked. It was yet another middle finger to those coming after him. I think you give him too much credit. IMO, the pick was simply the fact that Burris is an old buddy of his, and none of the rest of the semi-qualified buddies he has left (few) were willing to take the appointment (few of that few).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 12:49 PM) There still were a lot more empty seats in late August/ early September of this year than I'm sure the White Sox would have liked. I think maybe if the economy wasn't so bad, you would be dead on, but its something that could easily bring this team back to the mid 90's/early 2000s where even winning didn't guarantee good seats weren't available. They will be fine this season win or lose. But if they lose and they go with what they have now, I see a huge dropoff especially if a lot of people are correct and the economic situation is even worse a year from now. At least they are set up for that possibility with all the money coming off their books. They won't have to be pawning stuff off for pennies on the dollar or paying parts of contracts to unload guys. The economy will defintely play a role. Although, who knows what the economy will look like in the summer of 2010. And I'm not saying that if they have a lousy 2009 that 2010 will be some huge attendance year. I'm sure it would drop off. I just don't think it will drop off as much as some people are saying, certainly not relative to other teams.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 01:03 PM) Bobby Rush's comments are pretty embarrassing. A lot of times I defend what I think are unfair accusations of someone playing the race card, but holy s***, Rush basically unzipped his pants, put the race card on his cock, and slapped it across everyone's foreheads. I like how he conveniently chose the word "lynched" in his next statement. What did he say?

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 12:43 PM) I just could not imagine a civil war within the US like that. Well, it did happen 140 years ago. But now? No. Things would have to get far, far, far worse before that would have even a chance of occurring.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) IMO a lot of that was caused by prancing around like our s*** didn't stink and acting like the boss of the world since we were the world's only superpower, as if that status would be maintained indefinitely by default (that's the abridged explanation). All of that is really expensive. We really need to be serious about cutting down on our debt, it really leaves us in a position of weakness. Cutting down our debt, getting off oil, and taking a less invasive approach to foreign policy would all greatly benefit the security of this country.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) I'm not hating the return for Vaz but it couldve been more Posts like this drive me batty. How could you POSSIBLY know this? Know what market was out there for him? And if it could have been more, why on earth would they have not done that? It makes absolutely no sense. I could understand saying that the return is not enough, so you keep him. But to say they could have done better is ridiculous. QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) With Vaz we should have let him get to the offseason and try to trade him on the laurels of his stats alone. This is exactly what happened. So what is the complaint?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 12:31 PM) Yeah, I've heard about this guy before. I don't know about the breakup of the U.S. but I'll say this much, our ridiculous federal deficit and borrowing silly amounts of money from China really concerns me, and there are no mainstream politicians that appear to be taking that seriously. Some of his points are definitely salient - the US is showing major cracks. But I see a zero percent chance of the breakup of the US in any sort of near term.

Wow. I'm gonna go with... not gonna happen.