southsider2k5

Well we saw the difference between the good and the great teams yesterday. The Hawks have an amazing ability to land a flurry on a team, but the true great teams aren't bothered by that. The Wings dug in and gave a solid 60 minutes, instead of a spectacular 20 followed by an OK 40. They have got to learn that if they really want to take that step into the very top of hockey, they have got to learn to keep that intensity for 60 minutes every night. As it looks now, they could win their first round playoff match up, but they would lose in 5 games at best to SJ or DET. Really that isn't a bad thing, as this team has made amazing progress, but they just aren't at the top of the league yet. I would put them into the second tier of teams right now.

QUOTE (MO2005 @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 08:19 AM) I would of parted our future for Miggy! That guy is a stud and at the cell would hit 50 hr's...You know what you are getting with Miggy, but you don't know what you are getting with Viciedo. We'll see We tried. Detroit trumped us with their offer.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 08:14 AM) I don't get that. I mean, its just a layer of skin - what, a quarter of an inch thick? THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID [/inevitable joke]

QUOTE (shipps @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 07:59 AM) I totally agree. We should move this to Slam. Hmm, maybe this got split out of the "Bad Advice" thread and we missed it...

This thread should be shared by the general public...

QUOTE (beck72 @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 07:08 AM) Rowand has one of those contracts that will be next to impossible to unload. It will be bad contract for bad contract if the Giants unload Aaron at this point.

BTW I think Buff is the missing logo guy...

Great period of action so far. You can tell the ice is pretty slow, but it is still fun to watch. 3-1 after one is a nice start.

Great physical response so far by the Hawks after getting their asses kicked all over the ice two days ago in Detroit. They aren't taking any s*** so far.

LET'S GO HAWKS!!! DE-TROIT SUCKS!!!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 08:41 PM) Yes I know. But my interperetation of your post was that the new place on the price curve dictated the increased volatility. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Volatility actually comes in highest on the down side versus the upside, but anyways... My big point was that elasticity didn't really change (because its the amount of people that will or won't buy a certian product per an increment of price change), but what happened was we had such a ginormous amount of price change, that the very small elasticity of gasoline affected many more people than it usually would have. For example, the theorhetical elasticity of gasoline that I read years ago was about 5, so for every 100% change in price, there would be about a 5% change in behavior. Well we had a 300 to 400% move, so we started to look at a 15-20% change in behavior, which actually could be seen in the changes of demand, I believe.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 03:28 PM) 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. Vol and elasticity are two completely different monsters.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 03:32 PM) Something a lot of people don't mention in this debate... part of the reason why our costs are so damn high is the prevalence of fully private health insurance AND private health care providers. It introduces all sorts of falsehoods and strange attractors into the economic equations. The usual economic equations are closer to two-sided, or liner in nature, which is also more true in at least some of those European nations (though I don't know them all, or any very well). This privatized triad we have going here is problematic, IMO. I don't really know the answer on this one. Its a huge puzzle. Not to mention all of the government regulations and the need/cost to protect oneself from lawsuits, which the government does not have to worry about. Much of the price differential for the private sector is because of the government. If the government gave the private sector the same free hand, their costs would drop dramatically.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) Other countries are able to come shockingly close to that goal while still spending a ton less than us on health care. France is of course the timeless example in that regard. Britain is closer to the rationing end of the scale, but even then, they still produce better overall results than our system does, at a cost significantly less than that of even France. So, as I ask everytime this debate comes up, where is all of the excess capacity at to treat all of these new patients, plus the patients who don't have to ration their health care under the Balta System?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 03:09 PM) I love this. Medicare/Medicaid have dramatically lower overhead costs than comparable private insurance plans. Social Security's overhead costs are remarkably minimal. The idea of fighting government waste by focusing on those programs...while not mentioning the DOD, that's exactly what you're talking about, and you don't even realize it. You're tolerating by far the largest chunk of the waste to focus on programs that because of the focus on waste wind up running as efficiently as anything in the private sector. Of course, I'd be happy to cut waste in Medicare. The easy way to do that is to make it so that everyone is served by it and there's no longer any question of whether or not treatment needs done, whether or not insurance will cover treatment, etc. You can dramatically cut overhead and waste by killing the paperwork related to those insurance questions. Oh, and the problem with those giant CEO salaries is that it's not the most effective way in terms of job creation or anything else to spend the government monies. $25 million can fund a hell of a lot of jobs, but instead it goes to pay a bonus to a guy who ran Merrill Lynch for 1 month. Etc. Hell the very act of taking someone's money for no interest, and holding on to it for a year only to give it back to them after making the taxpayer complete loads of paperwork is wasteful. They have remarkably lower costs because they reject everyone to start with and make them fight to earn their benefits. That is wasteful to me. How long does it take to get approved for any of those programs? Waste is having over 100 regulating agencies for all of the individual pieces of the financial sector that compete with each other, when we should have one. As for Medicare/cade, do you really think if we just said everyone could have every treatment, everytime that the waste would go away? You can't be that naive, right. You realize that with our medical system falling apart from being overburdened now, that all of the new people added in, plus no need to be effecient about what health care you seek would collapse the whole system. We would have health care rationing, and we would still have bureuocrats deciding who gets treatment and who does, except on a much grander scale, instead of smaller.

Live on NBC on New Years Day... Any predictions or other chatter?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) Cutting waste does not help you out of the economic mess. It can improve the budget situation long-term, but it is unrelated to getting out of the economic mess. To fix the economic mess, I'm willing to tolerate some measure of waste, because waste can do things like keep people employed (i.e. the automobile bailouts, continued DOD spending on weapons programs we don't need, etc.) So taking money that is wasted and putting in places where it could be useful doesn't help the economy? If waste doesn't matter then why is everyone raising s***fits about the automotive and bankers retreats? Why do people care about CEO salaries? Those all keep people employed as well, because that is money that is getting spent, using that logic. No offense but that is some scary logic you are using there. The fact that we have tolerated governmental waste at such a large rate, for such a long period of time is why we have such a bloated and ineffective government in the first place. There is no motivation to get things done right, except as far as keeping your job. And because it is nearly impossible to lose your overpaying government job, there really isn't much motivation. For example, you don't think it would be more beneficial to the general American economy to clean up waste in places like social security, welfare, medicare/cade etc, so that more people actually got what they were intended to get out of the program, instead of it going to an army of paper pushers.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) 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? 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) Cutting waste does absolutely nothing to help you out of the current economic mess. What?

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. 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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1230511007...3:c0.0104141:b0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7805481.stm

Happy Birthday ranger

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 11:26 AM) Holy s***, all this time you had me fooled into thinking you were a conservative. I can see why you wouldn't want to reveal your real identity on the board either. Its all a part of the master plan to stay incognito...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 31, 2008 -> 11:17 AM) You don't have a receipt? That's what you get for trying to have privacy and stuff. I'll always be Client #9 to her