Guy Chamberlin

This guy really nails the disconnect and the troubling underlying issue. Taking the partisan reaction for granted, is there anything he says that is categorically incorrect? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CceQISThDYQ

My kids love Pokemon Go. I think it's stupid. So I spend my time arguing with strangers on Huskerboard. That makes me smrter.

Nebraska has been underperforming for years. So prognosticators have gotten used to it. One of these days that "sleeper" tag is gonna work.

I still think Tommy shown the exact same promise and liabilities every year, regardless of coach or system.

It's a huge issue. I'd love to keep more jobs and taxes in America, but to address this would require federal government regulation and anti-free market policies of the highest order, as long as you're down with that precedent. U.S. employers also complain that Americans simply aren't willing to take the kind of jobs we ship overseas, which is why they rely on immigrants to fill the positions. Right now we're the victims of our own success and it will require some major shifts in cultural attitude -- moreso perhaps than public policy -- to turn things around. first, I think we need to understand the magnitude of the labor shifts, which I think are exaggerated. Second, we need to talk about how we can make keeping jobs in depressed American areas, cities or rural, as attractive as moving them overseas. Third, we need to seriously consider how we can efficiently and fairly redistribute the fruits of globalization and its increased productivity, especially for those who are termed "short term losers" as their functions are moved to lower cost regions. Along with the exodus to cheap overseas labor, the big shift in the last half-century (probably more) is that Americans believe their upwardly mobile offspring must go to college, after which they are entitled to the high paying jobs that come with college education. That investment into college no longer adds up. Not like it did when you wanted to escape the family legacy of working for the same farm or factory. We need to get rid of the stigma against trade school and service jobs. Maybe by pointing out that electricians, plumbers and furniture makers make far more than unemployed lawyers, without those crippling college loans to pay off.

I predict many similar threads in the future.

It's a huge issue. I'd love to keep more jobs and taxes in America, but to address this would require federal government regulation and anti-free market policies of the highest order, as long as you're down with that precedent. U.S. employers also complain that Americans simply aren't willing to take the kind of jobs we ship overseas, which is why they rely on immigrants to fill the positions. Right now we're the victims of our own success and it will require some major shifts in cultural attitude -- moreso perhaps than public policy -- to turn things around.

Judge Trump simply by the man's own words. It's hilarious. I don't know about "everyone" but please don't assume what kind of nationalism I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of the stupid, short-sighted, politically motivated nationalism. The world is full of cautionary tales, and we had one in Britain merely a week ago. Again, I'm waiting for a Trump supporter -- or anyone else -- to give me the rough year or era when America was Great, so we could review the specifics and aim to go back there. (careful, it's a trap) If you're going to damn every argument to hyperbole and straw man arguments, there will never be any ability to have quality discussions about Trump. I'm doing the exact opposite. No hyperbole. No straw men. If we truly want to make America Great Again, let's cite the specifics of what made us great, how we lost it and how to get it back. i.e. let's take the hyperbole and straw men away from Trump and take an honest look at what he's got. (watch out, it's still a trap!)

Judge Trump simply by the man's own words. It's hilarious. I don't know about "everyone" but please don't assume what kind of nationalism I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of the stupid, short-sighted, politically motivated nationalism. The world is full of cautionary tales, and we had one in Britain merely a week ago. Again, I'm waiting for a Trump supporter -- or anyone else -- to give me the rough year or era when America was Great, so we could review the specifics and aim to go back there. (careful, it's a trap)

Thus the reason Trump has grown in popularity. There are many many people in this country that don't want globalization, that want Americans to come first. wow, all that from making America first. This is really a silly, silly post. Nationalism is not short sighted, or any of the other things you try hard to equate to it. EDIT: That is the one thing I can agree with Trump on, but because he is a total buffoon he won't get my vote. Agree with CM here. "America First" can have a whole lot of meanings and unintended consequences. Lots of Americans benefit from globalization as both sellers and consumers. Isolationism and nationalism can and usually does hurt the nation you want to protect. And if the nation is America and you champion freedom, you're gonna have to give consumers the freedom to decide. When patriotism couldn't get Americans to buy Chevys over Hondas, Detroit finally started making better cars -- about 30 years late, but still. Made In the USA had to mean something more than mere nationalism. Nationalism can be extremely short-sighted. Building a 2,000 mile border wall rather than investing in American infrastructure is one good example. And companies like Trump's have found you simply can't put America First when staffing your hotels, casinos, restaurants, roofing crews and farm labor. You will happily hire the same immigrants you're using for divisive political purposes.

Wow. We have so many examples from over the centuries of companies not self-regulating because they don't care and don't have to. It was only in my lifetime that companies were told they could not poison the rivers used by people and wildlife downstream, or render the air we all share dangerous to breathe. They argued that it would be too costly to fix and make it hard for them to compete, and their fellow industrialists had zero motivation to self-regulate. Citizen consumers hardly had the resources to fight them. If you don't remember how grim and unhealthy major American cities were in the 1960s and '70s, it's been a stunning reversal, led by activists, driven by government regulation and now accepted as the status quo by people who conveniently forget how we got here. Inviting in outside and competitive companies has hardly stopped collusion, and again, the industry generally comes running to the government to arbitrate. The pharmaceutical companies, for one, hate being regulated but rely heavily on the government to step in when both domestic and international competitors threaten their patents. Pretty much every industry with intellectual property issues isn't keen on self-regulation because --- surprise! -- you can't trust your competitors. And consumers are too busy and uninformed to initiate action, though they are an incredibly powerful force when the stakes are explained to them. I'm almost certain you're cherry-picking on the OSHA issue and missing the larger point, but I'll have to look into that. Honestly not sure what planet you guys have been living on.

Wasn't newby's production ahead of where Ameer (and maybe Rex) were at similar points in their careers? Point being, if he'd been developed and utilized like those two were, maybe he would have been more productive this year. We miss Ron Brown. Burkhead looked ready to take over from Helu. Ameer looked ready to take over from Burkhead. I was never excited about seeing Newby get more carries, based on what he showed under both coaches. He may surprise us this season, or simply join dozens of previous Husker running backs who were merely competent.

I totally agree about teaching young people useful information. We could be doing so much more than babysitting. But again, it's not like you have to choose. Sensible taxation and incentives can coexist nicely with more pragmatic education. I wouldn't pretend more government is the answer to everything in the same way I'd never assume unregulated free markets would fix everything. This is the classic false dichotomy.

Right. It would be up to shareholders to protest, but shareholders' interests don't necessarily align with healthy, longterm economic growth. That's part of the problem, too. And why Warren Buffett has managed to stay ahead of the curve. Actually, new young innovative competition has been kicking ass for years, now. The Silicon Valley ethic is engineering driven, libertarian leaning and a self-policing meritocracy. They are calling the shots, not suffering from imposed limitations. And yeah, C level execs can add exponential value. But the exponent used to be 100 instead of 1,000 and the huge flow up money up to a tiny percent of the population has had unfortunate repercussions. And the C level execs who drag companies into the ground and/or commit overt crimes never seem to get punished, and that is a disheartening model for the hard-working, under-compensated and jail-prone population.

A disparity in income doesn't necessarily mean the tide isn't rising for all. From a quality of life and sol perspective, the gap between rich and poor is smaller than ever. That simply isn't true. The disparity is clear, as are the consequences. The diminishing security and lifestyle of the American middle class is a pretty big thing according to everyone running for political office. Lots of other well-researched articles if you don't care for the one I provided.

What I feel Yeah. That, too.

The real culprit -- along with the related exodus of manufacturing jobs -- is the huge wage inequity between upper management and workers. It's been growing for 35 years and some say it's easily traced to the supply side revolution of the Reagan years. Turns out that rising tide didn't raise all ships at sea. It just made management believe that its new and exponentially higher compensation was business as usual. Catering to the short term whims of stockholders didn't help, either. That's where the middle class got spanked. The hard-working America we yearn for included executives who lived quite nicely at 100x their employees' compensation, rather than 1000x. http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-inequality-continued-its-35-year-rise-in-2015/

Right. Which apparently isn't synonymous with 300 yards rushing per game. And includes a decent bit of passing.

Well....uhm....the graphic would also support the theory that you don't need to run the ball 300 yards per game to win at a high level.

Well part of free market enterprise is having a labor force that freely chooses not to live like they do in Vietnam. For better or worse. But mostly better. I also come from farm family, and like most family businesses minors are still allowed to do a sh#t ton of work without government intervention. It can certainly build character, but it can also encourage young people to find jobs where they never, ever have to do that again. There's another level to this that leans towards exploitation. An unfettered Open Market has little motivation to self-correct because they have all the leverage. It's never quite as simple as believing a Nice Company will then step in to lure employees away with better pay and benefits. And yet another level that shows the exploited labor underclass comes with a lot of hidden costs to the company and to society at large and the free market mantra rarely addresses this. Again, there were eras where America operated much closer to the model you prefer, but it really wasn't that Great.

1. The most furvant people who are opposing open labor markets and freedom of movement are liberal labor advocates. The casino owners mostly love immigrarion, though maybe they have personal life issues with it. 2. The ice flow argument is just nonsense. That's not at all what a move to open market capitalism means. It actually means ever that the economy would be more productive (and we can discuss how to share that productivity), which means less ice flows. Because, recall, it wasn't capitalist societies, but rather communal, barter based civilizations who have been required to use "thin the herd" tactics, such as the true ice flow Inuits and the "one child" rules in China. 3. Social security relies on a vibrant market. The government is a chief investors in American stock markets as a result. And that's problematic on a number of levels. For as much as the politicians moan about rampant capitalism and bubbles, they have to institute policies that cause those very things in order to balance their books. I agree with a lot of this, but in terms of 1) I'm talking about one specific casino owner who is making a lot of hay with the issue. 2) We already have tons of Open Market Capitalism and clearly millions of people profit nicely from it. Government regulations (the good ones at least) protect the young, the old, the environment and the vulnerable because pure free market capitalists make more money when allowed to pollute, hire children and require workers to shop at the Company Store. It's a nice aphorism, but a rising tide doesn't necessarily raise all ships at sea. Don't get stuck on having to choose between Open Market Capitalism and Big Government because you don't have, too. Neither is perfect, both have bureaucratic inefficiencies, and both really depend on each other. They generally provide a decent system of checks and balances and some would argue that's exactly what makes America great. 3) Agree. But it's also true that Capitalists don't want Big Government to get out of Big Business, because they get a lot of perks from it. Definitely a tricky balancing act. But a visit to life before banking regulations and Social Security is pretty illuminating. I think a lot of free marketers would come rushing back to the 21st Century and all that comes with it.

I forgot about 2008 and 2009. I think I'll just keep on forgetting 2009.

Absolutely 100% completely and totally untrue. That is all. No, CM Husker is pretty much spot on, there. And since we're in the Brexit thread, it's really handy to note how voters there went for the populist and nationalist rhetoric, then woke up to find out they'd voted against their own self interest. The facts had always been there for the taking, but they chose to ignore them. Winners & Losers indeed. I was mostly referring to his interpretation of Trump, saying he wants big government, when it's in fact the complete opposite. He's the only candidate in favor of a true capitalism. I think he'd honestly do the right thing and cut social security, but it would be a highly unpopular thing to say. Yeah, the funny thing about these successful businessmen who claim to hate the federal government is how often they accept government subsidies, profit from government contracts, take advantage of government funded R&D, petition the government for trade protection and come crying to the Justice Department to take anti-trust action against their competitors. While hiding their money on Caribbean islands, f'ing over the American labor force, and generally using their big government influence to create private profit at taxpayer risk. Oh yeah, and hiring low paid immigrants to run their gaudy hotels and casinos, then decrying the flow of immigrants as a threat to all that is America. True capitalism would put your mother on an ice flow and your kids on the assembly line, so let's not over-romanticize its glory. And cutting Social Security would be unpopular only because it's so incredibly stupid. Holy sh*t... So incentivizing people to achieve, create wealth, and create opportunities for others to earn money to feed their families is a bad thing? And continuing to take people's hard earned money when they're likely never to see it again (aka ponzi scheme) is a good thing? If this truly is a growing sentiment in America, we're all screwed... Social Security and Incentivized Wealth Creation are not at odds with each other, but nice try. Now just imagine if Bush had managed to privatize Social Security as he wanted to do in 2007. All those nest eggs pouring into a stock market already wildly overvalued and about to collapse in capitalisms very own multi trillion dollar Ponzi scheme. All that Capital literally vanishing overnight. Even without that scenario, hard working people lost trillions of dollars they will never see again in the global credit meltdown that wasn't exactly capitalisms finest hour. And your issue is with Social Security? Work hard. Invest how you want. But take a little comfort in social security because that's what it's there for. And quite frankly, private industry benefits from social security for reasons I shouldn't have to explain to you.

Absolutely 100% completely and totally untrue. That is all. No, CM Husker is pretty much spot on, there. And since we're in the Brexit thread, it's really handy to note how voters there went for the populist and nationalist rhetoric, then woke up to find out they'd voted against their own self interest. The facts had always been there for the taking, but they chose to ignore them. Winners & Losers indeed. I was mostly referring to his interpretation of Trump, saying he wants big government, when it's in fact the complete opposite. He's the only candidate in favor of a true capitalism. I think he'd honestly do the right thing and cut social security, but it would be a highly unpopular thing to say. Yeah, the funny thing about these successful businessmen who claim to hate the federal government is how often they accept government subsidies, profit from government contracts, take advantage of government funded R&D, petition the government for trade protection and come crying to the Justice Department to take anti-trust action against their competitors. While hiding their money on Caribbean islands, f'ing over the American labor force, and generally using their big government influence to create private profit at taxpayer risk. Oh yeah, and hiring low paid immigrants to run their gaudy hotels and casinos, then decrying the flow of immigrants as a threat to all that is America. True capitalism would put your mother on an ice flow and your kids on the assembly line, so let's not over-romanticize its glory. And cutting Social Security would be unpopular only because it's so incredibly stupid.

2005, 2007, 2008 and 2015 are the only years I can think of where we were even over 50% passing, and still nowhere close to an air raid or anything of the sort. Interestingly enough, even some of our mediocre rushing years would have been at the top of the curve, and the worst years still in the Top 20. Riley's pass-happy year still averaged 180 yards rushing a game (higher than OU's 20 year average) Both Beck and Watson maintained 240 - 250 yards rushing a game in their balanced offenses, which would top this list. Solich's "bad" years were 235 - 265 yards rushing a game. His good years would seem to cover Callahan's anemic years, leaving the 1996 and 1997 teams to pile on more rushing gravy. I'm not convinced the 223.1 figure for Nebraska is accurate, and Georgia Tech's 235 average seems pretty modest for a rushing leader.