max power

QUOTE (JoshPR @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 05:58 PM) Are you guys kidding me??? Fighting and insulting one and another cause of a stupid baseball player? Really??? Some of you need to chiill out and get a life, mark is no longer with the sox, so face it the world ain't gonna end, there will be other favorites sooner than later, you tip you're cap to mark he was always classy in his 12 solid seasons, but he's gone and no insult is gonna make that change. GROW UP ^^^

I'm moving to seattle as soon as possible. I was there for a week this summer. Portland wouldn't be bad either, but I have family in seattle.

Seems like both teams traded surpluses they had. I like this trade for both teams.

I'd consider slicing my penis up at the deli in a meat slicer and eating all the pieces before rooting for brett farve.

I would root for the farve led bears to fail. There is no one else in football I dislike more.

Then again, knowing something is going to happen apparently doesn't mean its fully priced into the market. Look at this mornings news. 15 euro zone countries were put on credit watch. This should come as a surprise to no one. And yet fundamentalists will claim it moved the market. The timing of the move and announcement certainly suggest it did.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 10:28 PM) Definitely. I'm just not sure if Rios was a better player than Milledge in 2011. Oh.

Rios has a much better upside than milledge.

At your first thought, I found myself wondering the same thing. I'm assume you made a typo should/shouldn't. To your second point I fully understood what you were getting at. I traded forex for about five years before moving into other markets so I have some familiarity with currency markets. My argument is - to stick with the analogy - that you knew he had a habit of doing that with the chips already. Or at the very least, you knew he was the type to pull such a move.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 07:49 PM) Until someone can give me a scenario where a team has quickly and successfully rebuilt after a complete tear down, I am considering it to be in the realm of BigFoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Cubs World Series titles. It going to be even harder to do now with the new cba. Well, not for the sox. They would be hard pressed to do it either way.

QUOTE (klaus kinski @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 11:25 AM) It's what got him in I know this is a joke, but being dead is what got him in. I guess I feel the need to say it because I truly hated listening to him, and sometimes, due to work, I had no choice.

Food for thought regarding the 7.7 trillion - - - Some have explained it as a way for the banks to return to normalcy. The argument is that banks would no longer move funds between each other due to overwhelming concerns at the time. So the Fed stepped in and dealt with each bank separately to encourage trust. The claim is that the fed basically functioned act as an intermediary.The 'loans' were paid back very quickly, so the debt was merely a short term liquidity solution. Not sure how much truth there is to that, but it contrasts sharply with the situation going on in the eurozone. These countries are incurring real debt, also in the trillions, that will take decades (in some cases) to pay off.

A new chair (for sitting).

Perhaps they were disappointed with Jordan's effort to change his approach. I am not going to second guess this decision with the knowledge I have.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 2, 2011 -> 08:33 AM) Those two are polar opposites in terms of effect on currency value and assessed risk levels. One uses real money, the other creates new money. Adding money to the supply is accretive, it absolutely has an effect on the fair value of the currency - but of course no makret correction occurred because no one knew about it. Not in terms of the market's perception. Whether money is added or created money can be added, that would be viewed as negative to the currencies' value. That's all I've been saying. No one knew about it, and now its back to how it was before they knew about it.

I didn't see either of those games to be honest. I am impressed that they stuck to a running game and took the W against the ravens.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 11:33 PM) Not sure what has gotten into Marshawn the last 5 weeks but dude is an absolute beast right now. He had a ton of attempts in two of those weeks. Not an impressive avg.

It doesn't really change what I said if they are physically holding it or have the known power to create it (which I also mentioned).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 09:21 PM) Wow, you guys have a problem with that? I can complain about the fact that the fed did not extract a pound of flesh from those banks, firing and bankrupting their execs, but I have no problem with the fed doing that. That is literally its most important job and the fact that the ECB won't do that is why Europe is facing a continent wide bank run. The action the fed took seemed appropriate and timely. I have a problem with the fed and especially the banks trying to hide all of the information about it until a court forced them to release the documents. The heads of those banks lied to their shareholders by omitting loan details.

I would think that the Fed holds trillions of dollars for situations like this, just as the Bank of Japan does for example. The money that the Bank of Japan holds is not in circulation, until they try to manipulate their currency. The major players (granted not the entire public) are aware that the fed is holding trillions, or the power to create trillions, and that is already priced into the value of the dollar, just as it is priced into the value of the Yen. With that in mind, the fact that trillions were loaned out, and are now repaid, doesn't really change the current value or future outlook. That's how I see it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 02:38 PM) It is still absolutely a big story. The fact that the Fed can even do something this big without approval is scary as hell. And here is a really simple question... where does this money come from? I mean, when they need a quick injection of a few billion, they can do things like bond sales and repos, or cash swaps... but $7.77T? You can't squeeze that much out of the market that quickly, it just isn't possible. Which means what they really did was raid the Fed balance sheet. And what that further means is, there is a LOT more currency in circulation than people think. Or at least there was. Even if it all came back and zeroed out the balance sheet for that loan, the money was still "created", before it was destroyed. The fact alone that the Fed could even do that should, and likely will, have a significant negative effect on the value of the US Dollar. It was an emergency measure. The money came from the Federal Reserve, yes. You answered your own question. That currency is not in circulation, as almost all of the loans have already been repaid. So there almost certainly won't be an effect on the market like you suggested.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 02:06 PM) That could be as well. The big thing is because of the independent nature of the organization, they do not need any authorization to do this. It doesn't mean they didn't get it, but they don't have to do so,. That's why its not that big of a story I suppose. However, because lawmakers did not have all of the information about the true magnitude of the bailout, they made decisions based on what they knew that are likely far different from what they would have done. The banks on the other hand, are obligated to share this information with their shareholders. And they won't be punished because they are so fragile.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) Or you can reverse the last situation, that this was the Fed's idea and that the Obama admin. agreed or was at least aware. I don't know that it makes any difference but it's a possible scenario. It was in dec of 2008. "The secrecy extended even to members of President George W. Bush’s administration who managed TARP. Top aides to Paulson weren’t privy to Fed lending details during the creation of the program that provided crisis funding to more than 700 banks, say two former senior Treasury officials who requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak. " http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/s...-in-income.html

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 01:31 PM) And another thing... I am not seeing this reported anywhere else in the major outlets yet. How did Slate manage to break this? They didn't. Bloomberg did. The size of it is mentioned in the bloomberg article as well as 7.77 trillion. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/s...-in-income.html

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 1, 2011 -> 10:11 AM) Amazing to me that no one seemed interested in Martinez. I wonder if there is something known about him within the industry that we just aren't aware of... I am sure that there is a wealth of knowledge about him that this forum has no idea about.