StrangeSox

From Brad Delong: As I understand it, Stephanie’s hope is that the U.S. government can borrow and spend and that investors will always value U.S. government debt so highly as a safe store of value that, even without high inflation, the real interest rate on the debt will be on balance lower than the real growth rate of the American economy. If so, then the issuing of debt by the U.S. government is a very profitable business indeed: it makes something—safe nominal assets—that investors love and are willing to pay for through the nose, and we can finance whatever we want our government to spend on from the profits of this very profitable debt-issuing business. If not, then while it is certainly true that the U.S. government cannot be forced into bankruptcy or “run out of money”, it would be imprudent not to take steps now to guard against the possibility of monetary and financial disruption—not now, not five years from now, but thirty or fifty years from now—when we can no longer refinance our debt on easy terms but instead need to retire our outstanding government debt via high taxes or very rapid rates of money creation. As I have said, repeatedly, austerity now—and probably for the next five years—is counterproductive. But it is not the case that austerity is always and everywhere unneeded. I think that encapsulates my view pretty well. Right now, bond rates are incredibly low (negative in NPV) and we have huge unemployment/insufficient demand problems. Trying to 'solve' a potential future deficit problem in the midst of a weak recovery and a weak international economic structure is absurd. But, eventually, bond rates will rise and carrying substantial debt burdens will cause issues. You can't borrow infinitely forever, but you can work to grow your way out of these problems and balance your budgets when you're in a strong position to do so.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 7, 2013 -> 11:20 AM) Not really sure how you view that as backtracking. Yeah, guns are very deadly but, thanks to modern medical advances, the chances of surviving some gun shot wounds is increased. I guess in a strictly technical sense medical advances made guns "less deadly" in the same way that penicillin made bacterial infections "less deadly."

I'm not interested in some dumb technical discussion over what guns are the "best" for any given scenario. But I wouldn't place good odds in someone surviving 5 shots to the head and neck at very close range from a .22, let alone a .38.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 7, 2013 -> 10:31 AM) Mom of the year. How did she miss on the 6th? It's actually pretty remarkable that she hit him 5/6 times. In an adrenaline-filled situation like that, a lot of people would struggle to hit the broad side of a barn from a few feet away.

It's not that he survived getting shot 5 times. It's that he survived getting shot in the head and neck five times and was able to walk out of the house and drive for a bit. Massive brain trauma, a severed spinal cord, a destroyed trachea or a severed carotid artery can't be covered up by some PCP or meth.

wtf how did he survive that?

Yeah, f*** courts of law and due process.

Reminds me of this case: http://www.ocweekly.com/2012-04-26/news/ja...aidl-gang-rape/

Republicans are already setting up the "default wouldn't be so bad" rhetoric: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01...bad.php?ref=fpb

Diablo Canyon was built pretty much on a fault line. Anything that comes near a critical structure, even a mounting bracket, usually has to be seismically engineered at a nuke plant. The requirements (basically, peak accelerations you have to account for) vary by region throughout the country.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 5, 2013 -> 11:29 AM) Of course it is. Who said otherwise? I was just pointing out that it is a benefit cut for FUTURE benefits, as opposed to taking cash out of the economy NOW. When politicians, the media, and special interest groups like Pete Peterson and the rest of the deficit scolds talk about it, it's an "adjustment" or a "technical fix." They get to advocate cuts without actually calling them what they are.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2013 -> 11:57 AM) You're stretching the definition of "Future" a lot. That'd be a benefit cut starting next year (as well as a middle class tax increase btw, since tax brackets are also linked to the CPI). When I think of "Future" in terms of retirement programs, I think of the kinds of 20-30 year projections that suggest problems down the road, in the future. Not "12 months from now" when the economy is still struggling to absorb this year's spending cuts. (Oh, and just to note...this is on top of the fact that the retirement age is increasing by 2 years this decade as well, so there's already a benefit cut happening as we speak). it's a very marginal cut in the next few years, which is why it's silly to even bring up in relation to a short-term deficit deal (not what nss did). it's damaging due to compounding interest over time.

that could be the difference between a critical third down or not.

cool post, bro

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 02:44 PM) In Medicareland, it gets more complicated, but that sort of long-term slowing of growth should be the mindset. Obamacare purports to do this. Is it worthwhile to wait and see if it will actually work and if the CBO health care growth estimates are accurate? Because if it does and they're somewhat overstated, a whole lot of our future deficit problems go away. Get people back to work, and bend the health care cost curve. That's where our deficit problems lie.

The "more realistic CPI" is a Social Security benefits cut. Call it what it is.

"A good majority of Bears fans make excuses for him" what, precisely, are you basing this on?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 01:54 PM) 192 targets to Marshall in a season! (That number is just nuts) To be fair, his other options were in and out of the lineup (Bennett, Alshon, Forte), and another one was Devin Hester (who also was injured). He was just throwing to the one guy in the lineup worth a s***. The Bears' offense, on the whole, was just a huge clusterf***. I can't recall a game all season where the running game looked good. Can anyone else?? (Serious question). The offense sucked ass, and Jay Cutler was a big part of that. One thing I won't complain about was his throwing to one of the most talented receivers in the game. As little as he targeted the TE's, it was too much. How many interceptions were passes that were targeted at Marshall?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 01:46 PM) certainly a mixed bag there. Nowhere near all of Chicago. So, a mixed bag then? Not all Bears fans making excuses for Cutler, but at least a "mixed bag's" worth of Bears fans making asinine attacks on Cutler for tearing his MCL but being too weak/a p****/not tough etc. to play through the pain? Because earlier you seemed to be implying that a good majority of Bears fans are always making excuses for Cutler and never criticizing him.

Disagreeing with your framing isn't manipulating words. It's not excepting you choosing the rhetoric defining the discussion.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 01:22 PM) It wasn't one guy. It was pretty much all of Chicago. can you resurrect the appropriate NFL thread? he was getting ripped plenty on this board for it. edit: here, dick, go read pages and pages of pointless arguments over this: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...0460&st=960

keeping people from starving or being homeless is productive! But if you're going to build a whole bunch of infrastructure, it's going to cost a lot more to employ 10,000 unemployed people plus the additional already-employed companies to design and build said infrastructure than it would to simply mail out 10,000 unemployment checks. So that means you need to expand spending overall or cut something somewhere else. One is good policy in this type of recession, the other isn't.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 01:05 PM) Fans know far more about football than Terry Bradshaw or Boomer Esiason. Especially about what it takes to play QB. Most major-network sports analysis boils down to "they just need to [play their sport] better"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 01:17 PM) Keeping your own money isn't spending either. read closer.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 01:17 PM) I'm not talking about new spending. I am talking about redirecting current spending. That is the middle ground. No, cutting safety net programs and not expanding fiscal policy during a certain type of recession is not ~the middle ground~