Jump to content

Sawbonz

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    15570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by Sawbonz

  1. 9 minutes ago, runthebone said:

    Now that Sark has made himself unhireable elsewhere, the usual step is to fire every non-PK coach.  The problem in these situations is that good coaches don't want to join a sinking ship.

     

    Maybe he can get a cow-calf deal

    • Haha 1
  2. 7 minutes ago, westexhorn said:

    Here's the thing.  I think if Sark was purely OC, he could do it.  But problem is, he needs a functional OL that can actually get some run game going.  He needs a good back and a true #1 WR.  Player personnel evaluation is THE job of the HC and he failed that this off season.

    Here's what I would do in the off season:

    1. Transfers for OL, change evaluation approach to "big humans"

    2. Fix RB room (will that be Cooper?)

    3. Off season need to be even more physical

    4. Take all the money from Wingo and Moore and PAY CAM COLEMAN.  Need to have that one true WR#1.

    5.  Fix DB coaches.

    6.  Get rid of Banks (because he's clearly not doing his job on the special team front while Sark is devoted to play calling during the games)

     

    While everything was going to shit he was honed in on the next offensive series. A 4th down conversion, a 4th down free play, busted coverage TD and recovered OSK later and offensive play calling didn’t matter 

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  3. 6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Every coach in the world looks miserable on the sideline when they are losing

    He looked like he would rather be anywhere but on that sideline. That’s not how most coaches look

  4. 10 hours ago, Handcruser said:

    We’re just not a very well coached team. I don’t know what all of the problems are or why, but massive changes are needed.

    Banks needs to be gone
    Akina and Orphy probably too
    Flood needs to go
    Scott too
    And the WR coach
    Need an OC
    Millwee can go too

    So we need-
    A new OC/QB coach
    A new OL coach
    A new TE coach
    A new RB coach
    A new safeties coach
    A new CB coach

    We’re going to have to go hard in the portal-
    OL
    RB
    WR
    DB
    Edge

    What a mess.

    And OUs kicker should be a longhorn. Fuck banks for that as well. 
     

    also this team is 3 amazing Niblett plays from having losses to UK and MSU

     

    and fucking Florida lost again. They’ve beaten us, Miss St and something called LIU

  5. 1 minute ago, Guadaloopy said:

    The last 10 minutes of game clock have truly sucked, but y’all are ridiculous wanting to bail on Sark after back-to-back CFP appearances and a disappointing season from a a young team.  

    Never change Surly.

    Now let’s go have some fun beating on an old rival next week and then piss in the aggy punch bowl.   
     

     

    Sark has shown us his ceiling. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    No, because that makes it not capitalism anymore.
    What you are saying is like calling a car-jacking “unrestrained capitalism”  because the gun used to commit the crime was privately owned. 

    I see you are talking in terms of a Utopia. 
     

    carry on

  7. 2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    The common meaning- unrestrained or uninhibited. So you can’t have uninhibited capitalism because the economic system we refer to as capitalism is a product of social and legal inhibitions and restraint.

    Of course you can have unrestrained capitalism if the people in charge of enforcing those restraints choose not to (and in fact actively are tearing down those restraints)

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  8. 1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    So to answer your question, @Sawbonz the phrase “unfettered capitalism” is a sort of oxymoronic irony, like “lawless state.”

    That doesn’t answer my question. My question is what is your definition of unfettered

  9. 6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    I disagree. It’s not pedantry. In the first place, it’s simply incorrect to say that “unfettered capitalism” tends toward monopoly.
    But more importantly the kleptocracy relies on linguistic constructs for control, because it allows them to rig the discourse against you. When you call what they are doing “unfettered capitalism,” a meaningless expression which to a layperson sounds like you are saying “letting markets work,” you’ve already lost the argument, because that’s not what’s happening at all. 
     

    When a company bribes a president for an exclusive government contract, that’s not “unfettered capitalism.”

    A far more accurate statement would be to say that unpunished corruption leads to monopoly. 

    What does the word “unfettered” mean to you?

    • Hook 'Em 2
  10. 24 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


    Capitalism can’t really exist without various artifacts of state, eg private property and state power to enforce it. 
     

    There’s a much longer explanation here beyond the scope of this thread, but a lot of our political discourse revolves around rent seekers and bad actors looking for state support hiding behind the word “capitalism” and people who just don’t want to get fucked over not having the vocabulary or conceptual framework to understand it.

    I think when anyone makes a statement like I did about about unfettered capitalism trending toward monopoly, that statement should be construed with the understanding that everyone expect bad actors to exist and do their best to exploit weaknesses in whatever system of government is set up. It would save a lot of time getting caught up in pedantry 

    • Hook 'Em 5
  11. 3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

     
    No. That’s a widely held misconception. Market competition in large, mature industries with declining, or  low but stable margins often consolidates around a small number of players as a result of economies of scale and expense capital, until they are disrupted by paradigm shifts and innovation, at which point those large players and industries typically cease to exist. Market competition rarely produces *monopolies* without state intervention.

    Monopoly inherently socializes risk, and Capitalism *requires* risk and cost to be fully assumed by private capital. 

    However, a small number of players in a consolidated market is an effective monopoly if they are working together. Thats why laws and enforcement of laws against things like collusion, price fixing, and other anti-competitive practices are so important. They  protect the freedom of the market and allow the invisible hand to do its thing. 

    Where does capitalism exist in the absence of a state

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...