gehringer_2

Which is why immigration reform might be a really good idea. But the unemployment is just picking up the trend that started long before the pandemic and probably was driven by so many years of near zero interest rates. The odd part really was why the economy stayed so inflation resistant before the pandemic despite low interest rates and falling unemploymnet - and I think that had to do with a period of uniquely high management leverage over workers and wages. The loss of unionization plus a psychology of weakness got baked into the psyche of the American worker and I think it overran reality by quite a bit. What the pandemic did was wake workers up to the fact the labor market is tight (because of those demographics) and they do have more normal leverage now. So now low unemployment is driving wage gains in a way we weren't seeing in say 2019 even though UE was already very low. As I've said before, personally I'm OK with a some wage inflation - the American worker needs it. Clearly the Fed can't let it turn into 1977, but I can only hope they don't overdo it.

and it's a least a little bit of a false comparison isn't it? A dual threat QB runs up big offensive AV stats, but it's a bit of zero sum game because it's only a function of his higher use rate. If he runs for 20yds, that's 20 yds one of his receivers or RBs doesn't add to his total. So I'm not that impressed is a dual threat QB can put up a huge AV because he's not necessarily adding that to his team total as opposed to subtracting it from other players totals if he were a more successfull passer. "Escapability" I do like, but being a QB that actually runs for a lot of yards is not the only way to get that. A guy who has a good sense of how and when to step up, or even one who is big and strong enough and has a good first step to fight off first contact (i.e.Rothlesburger type) can give you a lot of the same value without rushing for >500yrd.

Most recent ADP employment survey was above forecast - don't see the Fed backing off with the job market so tight. I don't think there is any historical precedent for a 3.4% unemployment rate to be sustainable/compatible with stable prices. The Fed won't stop pushing at least until unemployment stops going down further. EDIT: Initial UE claims came out this morning - up some from last month so maybe the trend has broken, but 211K is still a small number. Don't expect to see the Fed relent until there is a solid trend upward.

Ted's timing is exquistite. Where do you suppose Biden will be next week? Apparently on Ted's maps when you go south from San Diego you get to Arizona. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-03-08/president-biden-prime-ministers-san-diego

that he's a better qb or that the price is too high?

Yeah, that too. Nor much to hope for at this point beyond some better lottery luck.

Yes and no. There are a lot of critical variables but they are mostly not on the battlefield at this point, they are in Washington Paris, London and Berlin. The Ukrainians will go as far as US/EURO arm them to go. If the US had sent ATACM and started the Ukrainians training on F16s a year ago, the Russians would have already lost or maybe started WWIII. It can be argued that to have gone too fast would have sent Russia over the nuclear edge, it can be argued the Western powers are ultimately cynical and would just as soon see the Ukrainains bleed Russia out as far as possble by moving so incrementally. But Russia cannot win this based on any choices it makes. It will emerge with exactly whatever status NATO decides the end point is going to be. And granted, *that* is an open question.

Yzerman may have had to do what he did as a good GM, but for a team to fight its way right the edge of contention and then have management pull the plug has to be a big let down in the locker room. Add that to the talent loss, I'm not taking the over on any estimates of how many more they win the rest of the way.

Report of a large scale missile strike heading into Ukraine tonight. Probably a sign that Bakhmut has bogged down for Russian forces.

Yup - an "alternative minimum tax" equiv for corps and all individual income at one set of rates. With the reduction in the Corp tax rate, the argument that dividends and interest are seriously double taxed is no longer true. I guess I would leave a maybe 5% break on the long term/short term split, but that is all.

I wish you were right but I think his direct fundraising capabilities are stilll going to be pretty strong. But you may be right that the bigger swing won't be so much direct money but what FOX does. If Murdoch throws him overboard hard, or something actually comes out of the Dominion lawsuit that constrains Fox's ability to support him even if they wanted to, then I think he could end up seriously behind the eight-ball.

In the end the House will accept a tax increase (probably over the objections of the freedom caucus group) because they they know proposing cuts of their own is a loser and they can use a tax hike in the campaign against Biden, plus if part of the increase is corporate it will be manna for GOP PAC fundraising.

Doesn't benefit him? Really? For Trump, campaigning is one big gold plated expense paid ego massage junkett on other people's money. Hard to imagine what else he could be itching to spend his time doing instead.

FIFY

LOL - Which is why Biden just decided not to veto the DC crime bill and his next big PR push is going to be on the deficit. Very lefty....NOT.

You'd have to posit that Trump and the regular GOP candidate split the vote regionally instead of within states. If they split in within states clearly the GOP would have no hope, Dems could waltz to a win. But if Trump could actually win some states and Desantis (or whoever) some others, it could deny the Dems 270. I'd call that scenario conceivable, but pretty unlikely. But what about the whole Trump era ever seemed likely?

Well, she released a DNA test indicating there probably was an ancestor, but it pretty much undercut her own case because it showed the ancestor was *way* back there and objectively it was a stretch for her to claim any kind of status based on it. Her 'excuse' such as it is, is that she was going by what her own family had told her when she was young. Well, when you go into real life you probably should check that kind of thing before you try to use it to your advantage. That said, the comparison to Santos is still nonsensical. She may have bootstrapped herself into school, but once there her subsequent accomplishments have been real enough.

Long story in NYT today on a Chinese aerospace espionage case. If you haven't used up your NYT freebies for the month it's a good read, and of course a sad story for the people ground up in the friction between the two nations. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/magazine/china-spying-intellectual-property.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces-time-cutoff-30_impression_cut_3_filter_new_arm_5_1&alpha=0.05&block=more_in_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=782378144&impression_id=b4a5fa86-bdff-11ed-949b-5bd1d064119f&index=4&pgtype=Article&pool=more_in_pools%2Fmagazine&region=footer&req_id=451321468&surface=eos-more-in&variant=0_bandit-all-surfaces-time-cutoff-30_impression_cut_3_filter_new_arm_5_1

"It's time for everyone to be an ex-twitter employee!"

yeah - this one has been a real slugfest....

if he starts getting out ahead just a millisecond quicker those are going to be HRs to LF.

yeah - this too. Progs have no use for Bill Clinton's 80's vision of the Democratic party as the 'GOP Lite' and IDK if Hillary ever got past that with them. OTOH, a lot of the progressive wing if the Dem party is their women, and at least in my limited experience, I never met a Democratic woman voter who didn't love Hillary. Whatever kind of bad likeability vibes she sent the men, Dem woman were in her corner.

I'd rate that one a fail, and it's a really interesing suggestion if you have a little imagination - which is probably exactly the issue!

The key for Nevin is his power potential. They'll find him PA if turns out he can put the ball in the seats as well they are hoping.

For me it broke this way: Plenty of reasons in her long public history to believe she would not be a good leader and oppose her in the 2016 primaries. None-what-so-ever to have opposed her in the general once she had the nomination. And don't understimate the 'likeable' part. Presidencies are about leadership and people don't like to follow people they don't like. Hill's is sort of the inverse image of Reagan. I think many people voted for Reagan who did not particularly agree with him on policy but they trusted certain things in his character/judgment when it came to leadership (esp after Carter's fecklessness wrt leadership qualities), and to a large degree, they were right. Reagan left behind a legacy of a lot of bad ecnomic policy, but leadership wise his presdency was a great success. I think a lot of people stayed home who agreed with Hillary on policy, but felt low confidence/enthusisam in her leadership qualities, and a lot of that exactly because she was so easy to dislike.