Cerbaho-WG

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Apr 29, 2006 -> 07:21 PM) I don't care what anybody says. As far as World Series homeruns go, Joe Carters' homer to me, was the greatest homerun in a World Series ever. To hit one in a game 7, in the bottom of the 9th, to win a World Series is every kids dream and the perfect timing. As far as the Whitesox homerun, I would consider Blums to be huge. The guy barely gets an at-bat for about 3 weeks and to hit one in your ONLY AB in the playoffs (yet alone the W.S.) in the longest W.S game in history was simply amazing. As already stated, it was Game 6, and Mazeroski hit one in Game 7 in his home park. I'd imagine just about every field would be full of fans if that happened.

I've got to read some books about free trade and make a dent in my paper, but I thought I'd post this to anyone interested. Some key points: Consumption up 511% from last quarter Private investment down 58% from last quarter Exports nearly doubled (!) I'll be happy to argue some economic data and how the 5% growth rate is consumption fueled, which isn't good at all, but I'm off to get lost in economic papers.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 03:11 PM) Shell has been working on the "In situ conversion" method you cite for 2 decades thus far. It's been a lot of talk, but it's certainly not workable on a wide scale at least yet. It has not even gone through large scale testing to see how the equipment will hold up. At this point, the estimates for profitability of oil shale say that the price must consistently stay above $70-$95 a barrel (Rand corp, 2005). If Shell gets that to work, then wonderful. But thus far it's still totally unproven in terms of applicability on a large scale. I think you're underestimating it. My dad works for one of the world's largest industrial gases suppliers, Air Liquide, and there isn't much doubt in his mind that it works.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 09:44 AM) And while Canadian Oil Shale does have a ton of oil in it, it's not an easy process to extract it. The stuff is incredibly polluting, first of all, because you're using energy to do the work the earth does in turning oil shale into oil. It's also a gigantic operation, on the scale of some of the largest mining operations on earth already, and that's for only a few million BPD. It's also vastly more expensive than the Saudi LSC that we've been so addicted to, to the point that it's only become profitable in the last few years. So yes, it's there, but if you want it to completely supply America's demand for oil, well first of all we're going to never see snow again, but secondly, it's going to take an absolutely massive investment in infrastructure in order to pull enough out. On the scale of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars, and probably a lot of time too. We just aren't anywhere close to being able to use that as our primary fuel source yet. You're wrong on so many levels here. Extracting oil from the sands is unbelievably easy, and shale is only a bit more difficult (pumping extremely hot nitrogen into the shale, melting the tar, and pushing it towards the surface). Of course it isn't as cheap as sweet crude, but nothing is. And a few million BPD? Are you f***ing crazy? Conservative estimates say that there are trillions of barrels of oil (yes, trillions), and BPD could be easily increased by, oh I don't know, investing more capital in the region which is bound to happen. As for costs, do you honestly believe that oil companies are going to pass this opportunity up because it's going to cost more than sweet crude? If anything, oil companies would be jumping at the opportunity, as they are (http://ww2.scripps.com/cgi-bin/archives/denver.pl?DBLIST=rm05&DOCNUM=20000). And you severely, once again, overestimate the amount of infrastructure needed to make oil shale extraction feasible. It's not going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars to have the appropriate tools. That's just fanatical and completely asinine. I don't at all advocate the mass extraction of Canadian shale, but instead of ANWR, shale just makes too much sense.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 09:12 AM) FOund this on YouTube for those who havent seen ti yet... Delmon Young w/ Play-by-Play That pitch was clearly a ball, dumb f***ing ump deserved it.

Caption from the article: U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle of Pittsburgh, center, addresses a rally with post cards for President Bush to plead for aid for Darfur. Wait, what, when did I go to Washington in the past week? I've got 10 bux that fairly soon, most major European countries donate their share after being smeared in the media.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 01:12 PM) Actually the caribou have increased dramatically since the pipeline was built. As for an extra million barrels of oil a day.... who needs that? Yeah, for a paltry 215 days. The amount of oil that could be recovered from ANWR would be so negligible on oil and gas prices that it'd be a complete waste. If you want massive amount of oil, it's in our own backyard in the form of Candaian oil sand and shale, anyways. But, wait, a few days ago everyone hopped aboard the alternative fuels bandwagon and now is up for drilling in ANWR. SHOCKING.

I'm moving to Spring in two months.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 02:07 PM) In older forms, or more specifically when ethanol is made from corn, you'd have been 100% right. But there are new methods of producing ethanol coming on line which have the potential to turn that around. Brazil, for example, uses ethanol as the majority of it's fuel right now, and they produce it from sugar cane, which is roughly 7 times as efficient as producing it from corn. Furthermore, refinements in the processing of corn have actually made that form more efficient as well, such that the energy gap in using corn-based ethanol is either shrinking or completely gone. The real key for the U.S. though is going to be to get the process correct using a crop other than corn, like that switchgrass the Pres. mentionned in his SOTU address, which can grow on very dry land and hopefully be refined into ethanol. And the amount of corn needed for that amount of ethanol would be enormous and wouldn't leave any corn for regular consumption. Ethanol isn't the answer, and the reason why Brazil can use sugracane for ethanol fuel is because the demand for automobiles is incredibly small compared to America's.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 10:47 PM) I'm expecting the Coors train to crash through the stadium and a bunch of cheerleaders to pop out. START A LOVE TRAIN, LOVE TRAIN God I hate Coors.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 10:38 PM) How is that relevant? It isn't Boone Logan or me, or you, or some 80 year old grandpa sitting around smoking a cornbob pipe and typing away on Soxtalk tonight. It's Boone Logan or Tracy--who outside of one meaningless spring training, is the better pitcher than Logan. The same Sean Tracey who has walked 13 batters in 12.1 IP in AAA?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 01:26 PM) AP. Now this article is just damn fun. So wait...the way to control gas prices is through the use of alternative fuels like ethanol. So in order to accomplish this goal, we're going to stop requiring refiners to use ethanol. Seriously, I wonder if the person who wrote that article realized what they had just written. Ethanol will never work, it's just too inefficient and there's not enough of it to go around. The alternative, MTBE, is known to be an animal carcinogen, so yeah.

YES! BA! Pablo CS, but shrug.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 23, 2006 -> 10:57 PM) Back in the 70's Brazil made a big push to eliminate the need for oil. They required automakers and the like to start shifting over to renewable fuels and now they are totally oil independent. They actually produce more oil domestically than they need. We need to get on that this very instant. About the only thing I dislike more than hearing people complain about gas prices is that we get most of our oil from parts of the world that are really bad neighborhoods. Their demand for oil and automobiles is also ridiculously small compared to the US. Hell, just look at Rio de Janiero, EVERYONE lives there, so there's no real need to commute. Plus, they've been using biodiesel on a really small scale (from sugarcane), which is the only way biodiesel can be feasible.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 08:38 PM) I agree. But have you read up on th Air traffic controllers union lately. Our buddy Slick Willy gave them collective bargaing rights. JACKASS. Watch how they rape the taxpayer. lol unions are bad lol price floors lol Seriously, do you even bother backing up any of your arguments or do you just spout simpleton one liners to appease the people who agree with your views? As for the OP, Rahm Emmanuel has the idea about right. The problem is that you'd need some pretty big subsidies like the EU is doing to spur alternative fuel research (like 11 billion euros to fund the ITER fusion power plant research). But that would never fly here because a lot of people would b**** and moan about how their tax dollars are spent on a super fancy toy that makes plasma reactions. God forbid it's a start that's more feasible than hydrogen power (fusion more likely than fuel cells, makes my head spin, too). As for the tax debate, you can debate back and forth for ages about whether taxes spur whatever kind of growth from the government, but there's no way in hell you can finance anything with such low tax rates. Especially cutting taxes from the upper echelon of the tax bracket. I'm not advocating 33% tax rates like you see in Scandanavia, but an increase is needed, as well as some f***ing responsibility from both sides of the aisle to curb spending, especially military spending.

WeathersGettinWorse: two shakes of a lamb's ass, gentlemen WeathersGettinWorse: pitch two **Online Host** Pujol_Junkie has hit the ball out of New Busch Stadium. **Online Host** Meanwhile, on a bridge - Elijah_Price: whistle whistle whistle, just enjoyin' a brisk spring day on my hoveround... **Online Host** plunk Elijah_Price: AAAAAH **Online Host** Elijah_Price has fallen into the water and become electrocuted/drowned/blown up. ArroyoFlush: s*** now we've lost Griffey again! Ah well, there's always the first couple of weeks of next year! Oh, Dugout.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 14, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) BTW. Before you quip about me getting everything I know from CNBC, know that Im starting my last year of a Bachelors in Business Administration. So while I do glean a lot of info from people who have forgotten more about economics in 5 minutes then both of us put together would ever know, I do have a pretty good deal of formal training in this area. See, I knew we could be civil! As for what college I go to (if you're interested), I go to IU Bloomington. Here's the econ department's website: http://www.indiana.edu/~econweb I'm looking forward to having my mind blown apart by Georg von Fusternberg, a former chief for the IMF, for International Trade when I return from Germany in 07.

KW needs to convince Loria that Florida can actually lower their payroll and get Reggie Abercrombie for $20. Then tell Bowden that you have a five-tool outfielder and all you want is Ryan Church. Damn, I'm a genius.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 10:44 PM) Mr Economics major do you even know what the f*** you're reading?!?!?!?! Mr. Mankiw's spot on with his assessment but he's talking about capital investment in business not the individual and their savings rate. In fact the fact that the consumer is spending so much is a big reason why the economy is still growing while we wait for the next cycle of business capital investment to begin. Wanna laugh some more? If wages are falling as you suggest then why has personal income risen in all but 5 months since the summer of 2003? Its probably been on the rise for longer than that but I couldnt find the stats. http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/dpi.htm Or how about average hourly earnings? They've risen every month but a couple during Bush's presidency. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutp...t_view=net_1mth But I thought household earnings were falling?! OOPS Try again Mr Economics major. As for GDP growth, consensus estimates for 1st quarter GDP Growth are between 4-5%. Once again those "pro business hacks" on CNBC. The 1.8% growth rate last quarter was pretty much dismissed as a blip. Secondly, rising interest rates dont have nearly as much to do with the federal spending as they do with the Fed's desire to rein in economic growth and prevent inflation. When you hear Ben Bernanke mention federal spending as a major reason why the fed funds rate goes up you let me know. I wont hold my breath. But you probably think he's little more than a "pro-business hack" anyhow. I also find it funny that you think businesses should be responsible for social welfare. As an economics major you of all people should know that companies are responsible to one group of people .......the shareholders..... outsourcing jobs not only drives their costs down but keeps the cost of finished goods in America low and by extension, inflation. You want American workers to make TV sets and the like and make 20 bucks an hour doing so then be prepared to pay 3-4 times more for your stuff then. You do that and you'll forget about the plight of the factory worker and start complaining about how much everything costs all of a sudden. I don't know where you are studying economics or how far along you are but you should probably study harder. You do understand that capital, even in Mankiw's example is represented in unbelievably broad terms? There are many facets to capital accumulation and spending, and it's not limited to merely "real" goods. The problem with your interpretation of investment is that you're thinking strictly in a microeconomic sense. if I was arguing in strictly micro terms, I wouldn't even be arguing with you. But the matter of fact is that we're talking economy wide, in a macro sense. And while you say that I'm talking about personal savings, you misinterpreted me yet again. National savings, which was what I was quoting encompasses both private savings, savings from households, and public savings, the balance of the government. So to say that the savings rate has nothing to do with the interest rate, aggregate demand or GDP is flat out ignorant. As for your next two links, look up the median values, never use averages. Come on, you should know better than that. The reason why you should avoid mode wages is because it doesn't take in to account the growing wealth disparity. If you're making 20 bucks, I'm making 10 bucks, and someone else is making 3 bucks, the mode is 11. Say that money is redistributed and you're making 30 bucks, me two and someone else one, you have the same mean. While this is obviously an extreme example, many labor thinktanks (most notably the EPI) have shown this is the case. I'll dig up a link tomorrow, it is 2:30 AM here. I just took a gander over to CNN Money and did read that there is some projected GDP growth of 5%, but I'll have to check why my source was projecting a paltry 1.6%. I think that the estimates come out 4/28. TD Bank says 3%, but I wouldn't be surprised to see somewhere within the 3-4% range. I'd really surprised if it was 1-2% again. The Fed alone doesn't peg the interest rate, and neither does fiscal policy. The Fed can manipulate the interest rate much easier than fiscal policy, but they just can't keep it at an arbitrairily low rate. I've seen a good amount of reports that interest rates are going to have to be forced up in May because of fiscal policy. As for companies looking out for social welfare, look into what other countries write into their laws. I know for example that Germany's Bürgergesetzbuch states that while the main goal of a company is to maximize profit, it also has to account for other variables like environment, labor laws, etc. Remember that in the US, companies are actually considered people due to the 14th Amendment, which is a huge joke. As for the ad hominem, I would expect nothing else from you, NUKE. If you want to have an intelligent discussion, shoot, but otherwise, keep getting your information from TV (you know they won't lie, ever. Ever ever.).

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 03:28 PM) What is your defenition of "short run"? I believe the last recession ended in 2002 and the economy has been expanding ever since and tax revenue's have also gone up even despite the tax cuts so there goes your stupid argument about "pissing it away". Being the "socially conscious" lefty that you are you should be outraged that evil corporations exploit migrant labor at a fraction of the minimum wage but I guess in your frenzy to stop immigration reform you guys forgot all about that. I dont know what it takes to get it through your thick skull that these people are violating the law by being here. You say try thinking? You should take your own advice. Additionally, I know it really burns your ass but this isin't Soviet Russia and the government has no say so as to where corporations locate their factories or how they run their businesses. Those jobs are outsourced because the cost of labor is becomming prohibitively high, as an economics major you should know this, and to stay competitive and increase shareholder value companies must seek to lower costs. Oh really? Mind explaining the robust 1.8% growth rate we had for the fourth quarter of 2005? Or how we've had negative savings for the last 11 months? http://www.diamonds.net/news/newsitem.asp?num=14659 Now since you probably have no clue about this, savings is GDP - consumption - government spending which is the same as investment. So, S=I, simple enough, yes? So, as Americans save less, we invest less, and thus we retard our future economic growth. Now do you understand how we're pissing it away? Let's go further, and I'm ripping this right from N. Gregory Mankiw's textbook, the same person who was the chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors: "Thus, one way to raise future productivity is to invest more current resources in the production of capital." "Nonetheless, because capital accumulation affects productivity so clearly and directly, many economists interpret these date as showing that high investment leads to more rapid economic growth." Onto your second point that tax revenues have risen since the tax cuts have been implemented, it's a shame that government spending in a non-recessionary period has vastly overshadowed any revenue that the government has collected (I believe that military expenditures in Iraq weren't even calculated in the FY budget). This is DIRECTLY CORRELATED to my previous point. When countries spend mindlessly, it directly affects society's savings rate. To be more specific, it shifts supply back which raises interest rates (which the Fed can no longer suppress) and limits loanable funds. This is no clearer than the present economic situation, and why Rick Rubin preaches that budgets need to be balanced. Oddly enough, here's the forecast for the Q1 GDP: 1.64%. Pathetic. Care to explain how we're becoming more prosperous, though? QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 03:28 PM) Being the "socially conscious" lefty that you are you should be outraged that evil corporations exploit migrant labor at a fraction of the minimum wage but I guess in your frenzy to stop immigration reform you guys forgot all about that. I dont know what it takes to get it through your thick skull that these people are violating the law by being here. You say try thinking? You should take your own advice. Additionally, I know it really burns your ass but this isin't Soviet Russia and the government has no say so as to where corporations locate their factories or how they run their businesses. Those jobs are outsourced because the cost of labor is becomming prohibitively high, as an economics major you should know this, and to stay competitive and increase shareholder value companies must seek to lower costs. Last time I checked, the industrial sector rarely hires illegal immigrants. The agricultural sector sure, but that's much more individual than the industrial sector. As for your quip about how I should know about profit maximization, well no s***. You have to balance profit maximization with actually providing social welfare, though. As the US outsources jobs, mostly manufacturing, workers lose jobs, and in too often the case, end up finding jobs in other sectors that take time to provide training and usually pay less. This is why the median wage of the US is falling, and as more households have less earnings, they can't consume or invest as much as they did before. But of course, you'd have to trade this off with the higher costs of certain domestic products, which is why there's no real consensus on whether outsourcing can positively or negatively affect the economy. I've got a small hunch that says it's negative, though (just look at NAFTA).

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 12, 2006 -> 04:32 PM) Those are not "simpelton stereotypes" as you put it but facts. But if you insist on experts on economics I invite you to watch CNBC ( I know you might hurt your eyes with all that capitalism flashing across your screen but it's worthwhile ) and listen to what the most respected minds in the business world have to say about it. You may now go back to your regularly scheduled Karl Marx worship. As you tout FEE to back up your opinions. Try CATO, you'd love them economically considering they're all for free market operations and sucking off corporations at any turn. I appreciate the invitation to watch the pro-business hacks over at CNBC to get your vast wealth of economical knowldege, but I'm doing this thing called getting a degree in Economics instead. I love your ignorance with the little Karl Marx quip, too. Who knew that subscribing to Keynesian economic theory and focusing on labor laws made you a socialist?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 12, 2006 -> 07:17 PM) Expelling 12 million criminals who are a burden to our social services and contribute FAR less than they take is the only appropriate measure to take. Let's try thinking here: -Illegal immigrants are taking many jobs that people don't want and getting paid ridiculously low wages to do so -To mobilize the unemployed to take these jobs, you'd probably have to double the wage at least. You'd have to expect an agricultural job to pay 12+ up. Because this isn't a service based job, the higher the wage, the lower the employment level. You'd experience a real high spike of unemployment in the short-run and a lot less quanity supplied. Again, you'd have to raise wages substantially to compensate for this. If you're going to b**** that they're not paying taxes and what not, the amount is amazingly small. Maybe if you wanted to increase tax revenue, you could, I don't know, stop pissing it away to spur short run consumption via tax cuts. I'm failing why to see Republicans are getting all huffy about this. They'll protect corporations at any cost to maximize profit and advocate outsourcing jobs to East Asia where wages are lower, but when they have lower wages sitting right in front of them, they just want to boot them out.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 9, 2006 -> 06:03 PM) I have never set foot on French soil and I really have no desire to go there either. I dont see how that precludes me from commenting on their failing economic system and the French people's selfish resistance to change. Id rather sit back and watch the spoiled brats and islamic immigrants tear the place apart. Maybe then a politician who recognizes the problem and has the guts to effect change will take over and they will take genuine steps forward. Because you're not an economist, have no clue of any aspect of labor law, have no clue about right-to-work laws, and are genuinely ignorant of anything French unless you can pin a simpleton stereotype on it. I'm in no way saying that I am qualified in any of the aforemention areas, but to tout American capitalism and labor law is quite funny considering how atrocious our labor laws are. Countdown to someone posting a perfectly competitive labor market with a price floor. I'd love to tear that stupid argument apart again.

If onyl Zell Miller would carpet bag his ass to Pennsylvania and run.

Mack breaks his bat, out.