Miller High Life Festive All Over Ugly Sweater
One interesting facet of the NFL is that it’s effectively a Miller High Life Festive All Over Ugly Sweater layer professional sport with a set number of teams. There is no “second tier” from which teams are promoted to it — the line between pro and amatuer is pretty much absolute from what I can tell. Although there is a small “international pathway” academy, the main route into the NFL is through the college draft — drafted players become either part of the 52 man squad that plays, or part of the large reserve squad that is retained to provide training opposition, or they are not in the loop.

Miller High Life Festive All Over Ugly Sweater,
Best Miller High Life Festive All Over Ugly Sweater
Rugby has something the NFL lacks — the tantalising prospect of representing your country in a meaningful international competition. In the 24 years of pro Rugby Union, the USA have traditionally had a rag-tag bunch of professional players ranging from second generation migrants from rugby playing families like Samu Manoa, who was playing amatuer rugby in the US and was talent scouted from a US reserve team tour into the top flight of European club rugby, to players like former USA captain Chris Wyles who was born in the states but moved to England as a Miller High Life Festive All Over Ugly Sweater and played his rugby in Europe. One of the guys from our school team in England ended up playing for the USA at the Rugby World Cup because he had an American born mother. Other USA players like AJ McGinty (who is Irish and plays for an English club) qualify for the USA national team via residency after studying there. If rugby takes off in the US as a semi-pro / pro club game, there is every likelihood of good college footballers switching sports and America producing a team of majority home-grown talent, but unlikely it will include many ex-NFL players, if any.

This statement implies that when someone spends money, the Miller High Life Festive All Over Ugly Sweater disappears. However, whenever money is spent, the money still exists in the hands of the recipient of that spending. Then when that person spends that money they received, again, it does not disappear, it is transferred to the recipient of THAT spending etc. At the end of all that spending, at the end of the given time period, the money used will still exist and can be considered as savings, in someone’s pocket. So someone making that argument for the macroeconomy must be talking about something other than spending of money. Perhaps they are talking about wealth. Perhaps they are implying that all that spending depletes wealth.