Rotoworld: Seymour wants new deal from Raiders (Report)

[shmessy]

please provide an example of an "industry" that produces wealth for individuals and that would cease to exist or shrink dramatically if "everybody made intelligent financial decisions."

My industry.

I'm a CFP.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

My industry.

I'm a CFP.

but, aren't your clients making an intelligent decision in managing their money by hiring you?

 

[TrueBeliever]

Hmm... I figured he would sweat out a year there and then go somewhere else as a UFA. Course I suppose he's worried about getting injured.

 

[shmessy]

but, aren't your cleints making an intelligent decision in managing their money by hiring you?

Damn straight!

However, they can't (or don't have the time to) do it on their own (as in Do-It-Yourself Appendix Removal Kits??) That's what I thought the premise of your question was. If not, never mind.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Damn straight!

However, they can't do it on their own. That's what I thought the premise of your question was. If not, never mind.

but intelligence in this case, then, is a relative term. for example, I consider myself quite intelligent and have a fancy MBA, but seek advice to do what I can't do as well for myself, though I will acknowledge that my standards for one who would try to advise me are very high

how an example of about another industry that would go away if everyone made intelligent decisions?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm not implying that there is anything immoral about becoming a millionare. What I'm saying is that this country has something called a GDP. That's what we produce. At this time, there is a small number that have a rediculous ammount of stuff, and a very large number that have nothing. Then there is the class in the middle that is rapidly shrinking. If everyone was smart with their money, it would cause a massive redistribution of wealth. That is something I am entirely for, and I think the world would be a better place if people were all smart with their money. I would love to be wrong in this case... if you can prove me wrong, I would be eternally greatful.

I would also say that MOST millionaires were born to high-middle class or higher class families in the first place.

yes, every country has a GDP whether measured in absolute or PPP terms; yes, there is uneven distribution of wealth and yes the middle class is shrinking. granted. but, how would wealth be massively redistributed if "everyone was smart with their money?" and, how do you define being "smart with money?" investment decisions? spending decisions? and, in either case, how would that "smartness" result in wealth distribution?

 

[NEGoldenAge]

please provide an example of an "industry" that produces wealth for individuals and that would cease to exist or shrink dramatically if "everybody made intelligent financial decisions."

your statement "the wealth of a people is a function of production/person working" is jumbled; wealth can certainly be a function of production but is not necessarily a function of an individual person working.

Your statement "you can not have more than you actually produce," is prescriptive, not descriptive.

Your statement "sound investments are still reliant on what is actually produced" is not true; they are reliant on the efficiency with which that production occurs, on the competitiveness of what is produced and on the price a reasonable market will pay for it.

i have no idea what your statement beginning "Perhaps, in time..." means or could mean.

With everyone making sound financial decisions, most facets of the entertainment business would plummet. Scratch tickets and most other gambling institutions would suffer greatly. Cigarette makers would cease to exist. Restaurant sales would PLUMMET. Alcholohol purchases would decline, and many luxury items would probably fall by the wayside. On the reverse side, many industries would skyrocket.

I tried to keep it very simple without going into the countless factors that influence production, but for that to improve production to a level to make EVERYBODY millionaires, it would take a helluva lot more than simple "responsible management" by individuals.

When I said "in time", I was speaking of a lot of factors, with the mos timportant being the development of technology. A dramatic change in culture could also hasten us to a time where we can produce enough for EVERYBODY to be "wealthy", but that time is not now.

When I said "you" can't reap more than you produce, I was speaking of "you" as a people. I know from experience that any individual in our society can apply themselves and make a very comfortable living. However, if everybody was to be smart with their money, the distribution of wealth, and the the industries which really on revenue from the average man would drastically change.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

yes, every country has a GDP whether measured in absolute or PPP terms; yes, there is uneven distribution of wealth and yes the middle class is shrinking. granted. but, how would wealth be massively redistributed if "everyone was smart with their money?" and, how do you define being "smart with money?" investment decisions? spending decisions? and, in either case, how would that "smartness" result in wealth distribution?

Smart with money means exactly that. It includes lifestyle choices and investment choices.

Whoever is making huge money off the habits specific to people who tend to make poor financial decisions would lose money Those industries wouldn't be buying machines, property, parts, toilet paper... you name it. It an unimaginabely huge equation that is really hard to manage, monitor and affect. My basic and limited understanding of the economy doesn't really allow me to completely understand a fraction of all the mechanisms invovled, but some basic principles will always hold true.... every person owns a piece of the GDP, it's just a matter of how much Either way, at the end of the day, sound money decisions form everyone would redistribute wealth, and have a massive affect on many facets of the economy.

I am sincere when I say this. If anyone can convince me that the oposite is true, I would be eternally greatful.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

With everyone making sound financial decisions, most facets of the entertainment business would plummet. Scratch tickets and most other gambling institutions would suffer greatly. Cigarette makers would cease to exist. Restaurant sales would PLUMMET. Alcholohol purchases would decline, and many luxury items would probably fall by the wayside. On the reverse side, many industries would skyrocket.

I tried to keep it very simple without going into the countless factors that influence production, but for that to improve production to a level to make EVERYBODY millionaires, it would take a helluva lot more than simple "responsible management" by individuals.

When I said "in time", I was speaking of a lot of factors, with the mos timportant being the development of technology. A dramatic change in culture could also hasten us to a time where we can produce enough for EVERYBODY to be "wealthy", but that time is not now.

When I said "you" can't reap more than you produce, I was speaking of "you" as a people. I know from experience that any individual in our society can apply themselves and make a very comfortable living. However, if everybody was to be smart with their money, the distribution of wealth, and the the industries which really on revenue from the average man would drastically change.

Way, way, OT, if some want to ignore this.

don't worry about keeping things "simple" for me; i can usually keep up.

what you seem to be arguing in your first paragraph is that if people made different lifestyle choices, they would entertain or drug themselves differently (nicotine and alcohol being the drug examples you provide and restaurants and gambling being the entertainment examples); but that is a judgment you are making that is primarily a function of your own preferences and not necessarily of intelligence. Using the word "intelligent" there is misplaced; what you are saying is that they would entertain and drug themselves differently than you would or do entertain and drug yourself, not necessarily more intelligently (even many smokers fall at the end of the Bell Curve where they experience minimal ill effects while many daily joggers have high cholesterol and drop dead of heart attacks as they run). that has nothing to do with an "intelligent financial decision." or, is there some implied norm of a sufficient or excessive quantity of entertainment or substance use in your position?

Here's my point: If you're arguing that some industries would go away if people made different lifestyle decisions, well that is tautological and not in the least bit interesting as a statement; of course they would go away, but they would be replaced. How would the industries that might replace them as a result of that shift in decision making be more or less productive than the tobacco, alcohol, gambling or restaurant industries that now thrive on the current decisions being made? What does that have to do with making everyone wealthy or wealthier and reducing poverty?

the economics behind your statement about increasing production to the point of making everyone millionaires ignores some pretty basic dynamics of supply and demand as...oh i won't even try. so, if you were just trying to keep things simple there, please do get a little more "complicated" and less "simple" so I can understand what you are trying to say. since this is evidently the premise for the rest of your arguments, i have no idea what the rest of what you write is supposed to mean.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Way, way, OT, if some want to ignore this.

don't worry about keeping things "simple" for me; i can usually keep up.

what you seem to be arguing in your first paragraph is that if people made different lifestyle choices, they would entertain or drug themselves differently (nicotine and alcohol being the drug examples you provide and restaurants and gambling being the entertainment examples); but that is a judgment you are making that is primarily a function of your own preferences and not necessarily of intelligence. Using the word "intelligent" there is misplaced; what you are saying is that they would entertain and drug themselves differently than you would or do entertain and drug yourself, not necessarily more intelligently (even many smokers fall at the end of the Bell Curve where they experience minimal ill effects while many daily joggers have high cholesterol and drop dead of heart attacks as they run). that has nothing to do with an "intelligent financial decision." or, is there some implied norm of a sufficient or excessive quantity of entertainment or substance use in your position?

Here's my point: If you're arguing that some industries would go away if people made different lifestyle decisions, well that is tautological and not in the least bit interesting as a statement; of course they would go away, but they would be replaced. How would the industries that might replace them as a result of that shift in decision making be more or less productive than the tobacco, alcohol, gambling or restaurant industries that now thrive on the current decisions being made? What does that have to do with making everyone wealthy or wealthier and reducing poverty?

the economics behind your statement about increasing production to the point of making everyone millionaires ignores some pretty basic dynamics of supply and demand as...oh i won't even try. so, if you were just trying to keep things simple there, please do get a little more "complicated" and less "simple" so I can understand what you are trying to say. since this is evidently the premise for the rest of your arguments, i have no idea what the rest of what you write is supposed to mean.

I'm no economist, not even a novice, really. I can't be anything but simple in my analysis, so I can not follow much deeper. I am simply clinging to the simple premise that a people can not have more than their actual GDP. It's something I learned literally in economics 101, 18 years ago. If you can point me to resource or concept that proves this concept wrong, I would love to learn.

I never said that the economy would suffer if people were smart with money, I said it would change. It's a poor financial decision to buy scratch tickets. it's a poor financial decsion to buy cigarettes. Beying smart with money would literally change the lifestyles of many people. Some industries would suffer, and some would start to flourish, and new industries would be created. I think that would be a signinificant boone to the enonomy in the long term. Regarless of which industries are affected, if people are smarter with their money, more will come back to them instead of going to others.

When I speak of technology and producing enough to make everybody "millionaires", I don't mean millionaires literally. If people continue to advance long enough, without being wiped out by some cataclysm (self-inflicted or not), we will reach a level of technology where we have almost complete mastry over matter, and could provide plenty for all. Imagine the cultural implications when there is no need.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Well, I thought I'd comment on the original post.

Where is this "strong sense" coming from? Did he talk to Seymour? Did he talk to his agent? He doesn't claim to have. In fact, I haven't heard anyone cite any sources or even explicitly claim that they have sources about what Seymour may or may not do.

Of course, since this is a message board, many will just assume that this is all true and run with it. Just like ESPN does all the time...

 

[shmessy]

how an example of about another industry that would go away if everyone made intelligent decisions?

Repo Man?

EPA Administrator?

Nicotene Patch Manufacturer?

Divorce Lawyer?

Prison Warden?

State Lottery Worker?

.......in the end, BB would lose his job too, because there wouldn't be Bozos like Rex Ryan and Al Davis to school. The world needs and should appreciate the Marty Morningwegs and the Dan Snyders.

 

[SVN]

according to this
Herald report vaguely cites financial issues between Seymour and Patriots | ProFootballTalk.com

its some financial hangup between the pats and seymour

 

[JoeSixPat]

I wonder if a compromise in which they agree not to franchise Seymour could be worked out.

Normally no team would be stupid enough to trade a #1 pick for a 1 year rental but it would seem that the Raiders
might fall into that category.

Seymour's position is understandable to me - he doesn't want to be in a situation where the Raiders of all teams Tag him. A long term deal now would be the best situation for him but an understanding that he would be a free agent next season would be a decent compromise.

The Raiders could go along with that if only to save face, as the alternative is admitting that no good players want to be anywhere near Cable, Davis and the Raiders.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I didn't say no millionaires, I said very few. The bottom line, is that there is only so much to go around, and it is ultimatley based on what we produce. If everybody made intelligent financial decisions, there would be many industries that would cease to exist, many more would shrink dramatically, and many different idustries would start to boom. Yes, everybody might be very well off, but few would rise to the rediculous heights that many rise to now. Ultimately, the wealth of a people is a function of production/person working. You can not have more than you actually produce, and sound investments are still reliant on what is actually produced. Perhaps, in time, when technology and efficiency of resources reach a point where we produce enough to make everybody millionaires, we can acheive this, but that is still some way off.

The rich build their empires on the backs of the poor.

Your so wrong its almost a waste of time to try to talk to you. Your brain is so throughly been laundered.

The population of the Globe is now about 6 Billion. And 3 billion, of which you are one, live an advanced lifestyle beyond the imaginings of royalty of 300 years ago, when the World population was a few hundred million, total.

You poor sod, Emperors would give all they had, to live as long, or as well, as you have the average expectancy of doing. You can and do have command of and own devices, they could only dream of.

You can and do have the ability to travel half way around the World on a moments notice, and use a minor amount of your income to do so. You don't suffer from lots of routine diseases, parasites, or filthy, fouled air, water, and food.

And your choices of that food is much more diverse than any King had. Do you have a whim to eat a Banana, from South America, a Pomegranate from Persia or a Pineapple from Hawaii, a Lobster from Maine, or a beefsteak from Nebraska? You can, and think nothing of it. Could Queen Elizabeth of England in 1500 do so? Don't be ridiculous.

Do you worry if you trip and fall and scrape a knee, or catch a cold? Don't be ridiculous; but if Napoleon had done so, he would probably die from infection.

So Where did all that "Wealth" that you and the other 3 billion have, come from? Ponder that, and consider that for a while. Is it really a ZERO Sum game, that you can only prosper by taking it from someone else? So where did it all come from?

Perhaps the political drivel that you have absorbed, that everyone is being ripped off by an "system" that provided that to you, is all evil. After all there are still 3 billion that don't have what you have; yet. But they are getting it pretty quickly. And it seems to be being created out of thin air, as there was nobody but a few hundred million mostly poor souls, a few centuries ago, to steal it from, or a single Billion at the end of WWII.

Only a set of anal cavities trying to accrue power and wealth for themselves, (without working), can protect you. And that you need to empower them and pay them a pretty penny, and make them rich to "protect you" from all the "wealth" you have.

Or are those just the very cloacal cavities of the worst sort, that they advise you to avoid?

 

[patriotscpfc]

8 pages = too much effort to read every post.

Why would you want to spend more than a year in Oakland.

One year and then come back Richard

 

[shmessy]

Your so wrong its almost a waste of time to try to talk to you. Your brain is so throughly been laundered.

The population of the Globe is now about 6 Billion. And 3 billion, of which you are one, live an advanced lifestyle beyond the imaginings of royalty of 300 years ago, when the World population was a few hundred million, total.

You poor sod, Emperors would give all they had, to live as long, or as well, as you have the average expectancy of doing. You can and do have command of and own devices, they could only dream of.

You can and do have the ability to travel half way around the World on a moments notice, and use a minor amount of your income to do so. You don't suffer from lots of routine diseases, parasites, or filthy, fouled air, water, and food.

And your choices of that food is much more diverse than any King had. Do you have a whim to eat a Banana, from South America, a Pomegranate from Persia or a Pineapple from Hawaii, a Lobster from Maine, or a beefsteak from Nebraska? You can, and think nothing of it. Could Queen Elizabeth of England in 1500 do so? Don't be ridiculous.

Do you worry if you trip and fall and scrape a knee, or catch a cold? Don't be ridiculous; but if Napoleon had done so, he would probably die from infection.

So Where did all that "Wealth" that you and the other 3 billion have, come from? Ponder that, and consider that for a while. Is it really a ZERO Sum game, that you can only prosper by taking it from someone else? So where did it all come from?

Perhaps the political drivel that you have absorbed, that everyone is being ripped off by an "system" that provided that to you, is all evil. After all there are still 3 billion that don't have what you have; yet. But they are getting it pretty quickly. And it seems to be being created out of thin air, as there was nobody but a few hundred million mostly poor souls, a few centuries ago, to steal it from, or a single Billion at the end of WWII.

Only a set of anal cavities trying to accrue power and wealth for themselves, (without working), can protect you. And that you need to empower them and pay them a pretty penny, and make them rich to "protect you" from all the "wealth" you have.

Or are those just the very cloacal cavities of the worst sort, that they advise you to avoid?

Oh man, I've seen this before!!! Where's it from, again?

 

[farn]

Yeah... being rich rocks. Even the "poor" in my village are rich. WHAT ? Only one car instead of two ? Cable instead of Dish ? Nice.