Enda

I don't think there's anything pathetic about not being happy with how our top players have been sold and replaced with inferior quality.

This is a "Waheyyy we finally have a young player who's playing well" thread.

Give it a rest?

And Given

Did it look like it in real time? I'm not sure.

Best bit of the match for me was when MON brought on Frazier Campbell and put Seb Larsson at right back.

MON loves throwing on shite footballers and putting random midfielders to right back when his team are losing. Some things never change.

I hear he's making an £8m swoop for Zat Knight and Nicky Shorey in January.

Got the selection spot on today. Not sure many of us would have gone with Bannan, Westwood and Ireland but it worked a treat.

Lowton, Vlaar, Benteke, all look like very good signings and Kea and Bennett look like decent pieces of business. Westwood in his first start today was excellent. I look forward to seeing who Lambert has lined up in January.

Still very unconvinced by Bennett, but it looks like Lowton, Vlaar, Benteke, Westwood and KEA look like excellent value for money. Excited by January.

Some world-beating exotic-sounding winger from Luxembourg's second division for 20p, and a left-back please Paul.

Didn't look happy to be taken off today.

Alas I've got a few years on Enda Jnr.

He got absolutely skinned by Saha within two minutes of coming on today. Lesson learned, hopefully.

Think he made a good challenge from a cross, though I wasn't sure it was him. Was anyone watching him closely?

What I want to know is, how on Earth did it get to the stage where he actually left? Weren't the club interested in keeping him here?

He was superb today. Bannan was excellent as well.

It's funny in some ways. CM is our weakest position (maybe LB tips it) when people are not performing. But between KEA (who I rate more than most), Ireland, Westwood, Bannan, Herd and Delph, we have some serious competition too.

One thing I will say for Lambert's tendency to make 24 changes every week is that players will know that poor performances will get them dropped.

I can only see a Sunderland win here, unfortunately.

Lambert out.

How's he been doing for the reserves?

He's six months older than Benteke.

Welcome aboard, TJ.

(For the record I neither teach nor particularly like DSGE models. I'm a micro man, myself.)

(Except between my legs.)

But no, I see no contradiction in them at all.

I can't think of a way of summarising why without a boring example of DSGE. A DSGE model has many moving parts. Say you want to model consumption, investment, and output. Then you have one equation for how consumption depends on investment and output. You have one equation for how investment depends on consumption and output. You have one equation for how output depends on consumption and investment. That's three equations and three unknowns, which is fine. The stochastic part is that there is some "shock" that comes along and, say, blows up half your investment every now and again. That's also fine. Pick whatever "shock" you want and see how consumption, investment, and output react to it.

The key element of networks is that everyone affects everyone else. You buy a phone/join Facebook and all your mates are now more likely to buy phones/join Facebook than they were, since they like talking to you. And when they buy a phone/join Facebook, you spend more time on the phone/Facebook than you otherwise would since you like talking to them. In jargon terms, you get positive (or negative) feedback loops.

There's nothing stopping you incorporating this type of behaviour into your consumption equation in the DSGE.

And there's nothing stopping you incorporating an "Oh shit, that other bank just stopped lending. Maybe we should too." type behaviour into your investment equation either.

Edited to add: fair enough on the Keen thing. I'd suggest there are more interesting people to listen to/read about research though.

I don't think any harm to the discipline of economics would be done if most of the equilibrium 'thinking' were thrown out all together. Macro would be better off with a balance sheet approach and agent based modelling.

I think you've the wrong notion of equilibrium. There are equilibria in agent based models too (which are almost always DSGE models). Some have equilibria, some don't.

If some model has no equilibrium, then its dynamics are going to be determined exclusively by the assumptions you make about the agents. There's no "solution" to the model, so it's all in the dynamics. That's fine, but it's hard to learn anything from the chaos that ensues, since it's always determined by your assumptions. Or, at least, nobody has yet showed there's a lot to be learned from this.

If some model has an equilibrium, and it's not reached, then you need to explain why it's not reached. (Note you need some notion of equilibrium before you ask this question.) That's a very interesting question. We could learn a lot from that. Nobody has answered it in general.

There's an interview with Andy Haldane which is quite interesting on models and their failure. He doesn't mention Paul Ormerod by name, but he's one of the people who have been writing about network effects, which people like Steve Keen are picking up on.

I research network effects. There is a large literature on the subject. There is brilliant research being done on networks. It's not being done by Steve Keen. (Not really by me, either.)

In general I find that the more any given economist disputes Walrasian equilibrium, the sharper they are.

Walrasian equilibrium simply does not stand up to logic

indeed I would say that we cannot even say that market processes necessarily generally move towards equilibrium.

The dynamics of "any given point" to/from equilibrium is an enormous area of research. There are plenty of interesting results. Few of them are simple to explain, and none of them have permeated to undergrad texts yet. (As I said before in this thread, undergrads find equilibrium difficult enough. Trying to explain saddle paths/sink points/whatever would be a wasted venture.) Nobody is claiming that markets necessarily move toward equilibrium.

For Sunderland I'd like to see Bent and Benteke start together.

Are Clark and/or Baker back?

One slightly good thing - not saying it's a major thing - is that at least Lambert is rotating. Makes it more likely he'll get it right at some stage, as opposed to being very stubbornly wrong.

Sunderland have only won one game this season. Things could look brighter on Saturday.

Lambert is a Warnock type of manager,good at getting championship teams promoted but is found wanting with the big boys.

I've been busy so haven't been on the site for a couple of months, but Jesus there's a lot of whinging teenage girls on here. People are completely over-reacting.

Things were dire yesterday and Lambert has made some shocking decisions (not having a word with Bent before dropping him, bringing on Weimann, Joe Bennett is looking like an average Enda Stevens, etc.) But keep things in perspective. It's still early days. Saying we're certain for relegation is ridiculous. We're six points off 11th ffs.

Lowton is looking like a good right back.

Dropping Guzan was a brilliant idea.

Vlaar and Clark/Dunne will be a good CB pairing.

KEA is a good player who's had a crap few games.

Benteke looks like a great signing.

We need some certainty in the back four, we need to learn how to **** defend set pieces, we need to play a five man midfield, and we need someone who can cross the ball. That's all doable.

We'll spend some money in January, and we'll stay up this season. We'll come about 15th. 20 pound to VT if I'm wrong.

Aside from having a good game, his first touch was superb throughout.

Given, Lowton, Vlaar, Clark, Bennett, El Ahmadi, Delph, N'Zogbia, Agbonlahor, Benteke, Weimman.

£3m+£2m+£3m+£0+£3m+£3m+£8m+£9m+£0+£7m+£0 = about £40m in transfer fees.

I make Man City's starting XI as costing about £170m.

Attacking line-up. Interesting to see how we perform.

Mat Kendrick's denied this on Twitter.

Where? I can't see it.

@conorquinn45 Don't think so, no

— Mat Kendrick (@MatKendrick)

August 23, 2012

@conorquinn45 @MatKendrick Any truth in the Dunne to Stoke rumour?

@MatKendrick @conorquinn45 Don't think so, no

Mat Kendrick's denied this on Twitter.

Briefly met him in Chicago, and got him to sign my jersey. Jokingly told him that Enda Stevens was going to take his place.

Didn't expect that one to be true.

Are you guys using softener or just powder?

Yeah and using Ariel gel/liquid rather than the powder, Should I not use softener?