southsider2k5

It doesn't matter. If they don't spend it, they lose it.

Hey Red, I made you an offer. And to anyone else, I am willing to deal from my OFs for SP's and RP's.

http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2194918

The one nice thing to come out of this, it is now obvious that the Bears are going to be aggresive and spend some money this off season.

Welcome to the board And other than MLB radio there is no way to get baseball on the internet anymore.

The example is based on the exact same tickets that I have gotten every year.

jealous

Once again the Caps jump in front of the s***tiest organization contest between Chicago and Washington.

Ditto. That 4th quarter was a travesty. I have seen better officiating in youth basketball.

Sad thing was he had two hits in their intersquad game the other day.

The basic tenet of it is my original post of this thread. I did add a little bit to it when I emailed the team. I added the 2000 comparison and a wage inflation figure.

For all who are interested... It has been about 48 hours since I emailed my letter to the Sox, and there has been no answer. Glad to see they care about their fans enough to make any attempt to reply.

Damn. I don't know that I ever remember a team having this many injuries to its top players, that were all so serious.

I don't have any of my old text books with me to give you the actual Calculus calculations that go into the mulitplier as I am working. I will see if I can find them later.

Government ineffeciency is the single biggest problem I have with the tax system. For simplicities sake I didn't even get into foreign, let alone any wage competition. Yes there is always incentive to go with cheaper labor. But the question is what are you giving up with that cheaper labor. American auto workers still exsist because they do enough better at quality to make up for their cost. Quality vs Cost is the central decesion on where to build something at. Something you probably see a lot more than I ever will where you live. With the 10 hammers vs one, it gets into not just net profit, but profit margin. In any business you have fixed costs no matter what. But will you make more selling 10 hammers for a small profit, or selling one hammer for a large profit, becomes the question there. That has to do with supply and demand determining optimal price points.

Can I fire Kenny Williams in this game? If so then

Happy 27th dude!!! Power to the ex-ESPNers!!! :cheers

It doesn't stop at the 27th level, and that is using $100 as an example. When you start adding zeros and make it billions instead of hundreds, it works better. There are ineffeciencies that don't get factored in, but in theory it works. There is still a pretty big disagreement amongst economists on how well it works, and if the real life things affect it enough to not make it worth while. Personally I believe against government waste, and if you factor in controling government spending it does work better than the government spending the same amount of money. But in real life it is murky at best.

OK guys here is the deal. Who here is willing to pay 10-15 times more for your everyday products that are made overseas? Also who here is willing to give away half the money in their 401K's? That is the wage differencial that companies are looking at. Are you willing to pay $1000 for a VCR? If that is the case then by all means we will save American jobs, but as long as people want cheap consumable good, it can't be done both ways. Are we willing to lose all our retirement money as we see stock prices plummet to bring them in line with higher wages, and lesser profits from people buying less because ordinary things cost multiple times more than they used to. Is anyone out there making these sacrifices? I want to here it.

RIP George and John

The productivity is what loses out. If you give the government $100 and a private company $100 it both gets spent. But the private sector gets more productivity out of it. The government would get a hammer for its $100, but the private sector would go down to lowes and get 10 hammers for the same price. More productivity, that is the key difference. More people are employed because you need to make 10 hammers instead of one, etc. Does that make sense?

OK the multiplier affect.... Say that someone gets $100 in a tax cut. According to the national savings average they will go out and spend 98% of that. So that $98 goes onto the next person as income. They pay their 20% in taxes leaving them roughly $80. Once again assuming savings rate the spend $78. The third person recieves that $78 as income. They pay about $18 in taxes (I am doing some rounding to make is easier) This keeps repeating and breaking down through the economy until the money is negligable. The math gets funky, (some calculus functions I don't have at hand) but added up the $100 ends up returning more in revenue than it would have as government spending, assuming the 10-12% waste factor. It also contributes a small amount to national savings (usually invested into stocks or bonds) and ends up being a much larger amount GDP because you add up all of the levels of income to get that number(ie the $100+98+78+...). Does that make any sense?

*in steps resident economist* The biggest difference in private sector spending versus government spending is the ineffeciency of government. That is why tax cuts are more effecient to sparking an economy than more government spending (or higher taxes) Government waste is estimated at 10-12% of its budget. In other words of all of the taxes you pay only about 88-90% goes to actual use. This is because the government doesn't have any profit motivation like the private sector does. If the gov loses money, it doesn't matter. If a private company loses money it goes bankrupt. This has led to so much waste and duplicity in government that never gets fixed because they don't have any motivation to do so. If you guys want me to expound on the multiplier affect and money acceleration I can.

about 9500 IIRC. It is very small.

Good luck on that one. Media coverage is only going to get more intense.