Enda

i think - based on nothing at all - that we offered him a contract before he left. He took a while off (missing a month's wages means nothing to him) to consider his options.

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 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. 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.) What do you mean "disputes"? Nobody thinks that the assumptions required to reach an equilibrium can be, and regularly/almost always are, violated. Ah here. Of course it does. It holds under the assumptions it requires. Nobody does! 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.

Ridiculous to be judging him so soon. He's had one great season (with Norwich) and nine crap games with Villa. Impossible to write him off so quick.

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.

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.

Yeah and using Ariel gel/liquid rather than the powder, Should I not use softener? This thread continues to be the gayest thing ever.

"Exclusive here on AVTV, we only bring you the best bits. Well that's not true, there are highs and lows. But the average is pretty good." Jack Woodward, PhD in Marketing/

I think people are under-rating how combative Ireland and KEA could be in the middle.

I think we have a new winner! Nadzeya Ostapchuk just won gold in the women's shot put! Jaysus.

I'd love Stevens to flourish but I wasn't impressed with his positioning in the games I've seen. Test him in the league cup games and reserves but I'm not sure about him just yet. A bit like Lichaj a couple of years ago.

Looks like Mccleish is trying to sneak back in. Vlaar is the man to stop him. From the look of that picture he is too slow Head down as well. No chance he could spot a good pass. Hoofer. Lambert out.

Although I agree there must be people who'd get excited enough by a bigger VP to start buying tickets, I'd say there's only about twelve of them. People go to VP to watch football, not gaze lovingly at the architecture. Madness.

Hmm... think I recognise you. Were you leading a bit of a slagging match with the Irish lads in the next section over?