First, the arrogant remark. I won't put it to a vote as you would, but I think that is your trademark even by, "your own." I think most people feel it is due to your self-inadaquate opinion. To support this I would assert you often trying to press yourself off as someone older than you actually are. Also, this academic elitist policy you attempt to invoke. A BS in some 'whatever' economics degree from some obscure college is nothing. Hell, even a BA/BS from UCLA, ASU, etc. is still an undergradute degree - big friken deal. Guys like Frontal Lobe likely look at guys like you attempting to make volumes out of your puny little undergraduate degree as wanna-bees. Todd, pinch yourself; when a person finds themself trying to overestimate their own intelligence they have a low self-image.
Thanks for the chuckle Ed. I don't know about Management, but the Engineering College at Georgia Tech is one of the top-notch schools in the country. And using ASU as an example of a even better school. Priceless.
Thanks for the chuckle Ed. I don't know about Management, but the Engineering College at Georgia Tech is one of the top-notch schools in the country. And using ASU as an example of a even better school. Priceless.
I wrote:
"A BS in some 'whatever' economics degree from some obscure college is nothing. Hell, even a BA/BS from UCLA, ASU, etc. is still an undergradute degree - big friken deal."
First, I didn't mean to put ASU or UCLA on a platform. I think very low of ASU actually, and I don't know much about UCLA. Secondly, GT is a great school with high credibility, but in economics??? Even though I'm not into engineering schools, I have heard the word, "engineering" and GT in the same sentence before.
Lastly, Todd didn't major in engineering; he majored in management or economics, or whatever flowery degree. Thanks for the chuckle too (engineering - economics: same thing). Also, the premise I was interjecting was that an undergraduate degree is not a huge deal to where you can throw it around as if you are now an expert. I have one too; so what?
[This message has been edited by I'm Back (edited 07-06-2004).]
Can you provide proof of me misplacing quotation marks?
I think the question should be How much proof can I produce before I get typer's cramp? Do you REALLY need to see it? 'Cause I REALLY don't enjoy the thought of that much work.
quote
Not at all, I well know how to use either format. I choose to use the format I do because it is easier to transcribe a complete thought down and throw quotes on it. I often use WORD to compose my posts and the quotebox function makes it a pain.
I use WORD too Ed. It makes it EASIER if you know what you are doing. I'll give you credit for this much Ed, you're as consistant for a good laugh as Nancy Pelosi who said that the Landslide election of Arnold Schwarzenegger was an "indictment of the BUSH administration." BWAHAHAHAHA!
But go on Ed. Don't ask anyone. You have it ALL figured out. Nothing new to teach you is there?
quote
First, the arrogant remark. I won't put it to a vote as you would, but I think that is your trademark even by, "your own." I think most people feel it is due to your self-inadaquate opinion. To support this I would assert you often trying to press yourself off as someone older than you actually are. Also, this academic elitist policy you attempt to invoke. A BS in some 'whatever' economics degree from some obscure college is nothing. Hell, even a BA/BS from UCLA, ASU, etc. is still an undergradute degree - big friken deal. Guys like Frontal Lobe likely look at guys like you attempting to make volumes out of your puny little undergraduate degree as wanna-bees. Todd, pinch yourself; when a person finds themself trying to overestimate their own intelligence they have a low self-image.
Low self image huh? Thanks doctor Freud. Does ANYBODY WHO KNOWS ME PERSONALLY think a lack of confidence and self-worth defines my personality....at ALL?
BWAHAHAHAHA.
Ed, you are truly priceless. Thank God people like you are out there.
Ed, I say this in a strict desire to get you to lift your head from your computer long enough to take stock of your life. We, who you rail against here regularly, have wives who love us, and children who adore us, and neighbors and friends who come over for BBQs and play games and enjoy LIFE. While you sit there on the 4th of July weekend, woman-less, child-less, friend-less, love-less, spewing a 2 hour long rants of your hate-filled bile and DEMAND a reply from people who are likely doing what people do on the weekend...LIVING. And you sit there and try your hand at psychology on ME????????????? BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Good grief Ed, I'm glad I don't have hate in my soul. What must it be like, I wonder ,to constantly have to compare yourself to others that you perceive as BETTER than you. Note that I never said I was better than you. But I find it terribly interesting that you THINK that I think that I am better than you.
I'm sorry you don't have a degree, a family, achievement, or status in your life. And just like the 9/11 terrorists who have nothing to contribute except their own self pity and loathing I feel sorry for you. And I'm even more sorry that you feel the ONLY way to get respect is to BULLY it out of people instead of earning it through actions. For example, This is a FIERO forum Ed...When is the last time you posted to the TECH or GENERAL Fiero Section? Do I really need to do a search when we know the answer already? What Fiero project have you done lately? I have finished 5 since January (do a search I posted threads on them all). At the same time I have been working on my Masters Degree in Economics, Spend lots of time with my Family, Attend the occassional Fiero event, and work of a full-time job. I have a used book business for one simple reason...I READ LIKE MAD!!! I have no room for all my books so I sell some when I am done. I read more in a day than most people read in a month. Multiply that times my 40 years on this Earth and you can imagine the wealth of info I have crammed into my head. I am not a know it all, I am an ASK IT ALL! That is why I have learned so much. But do you take advantage of that marvelous resource? Do you try to use me to make yourself better, smarter, or more widely experienced? No, you already HAVE all the answers. The reason I know so much Ed is not because I'm better than you, it because I'm not afraid to be vulnerable enough to ASK for help. I want to learn and know more and more about everything all of the time. I'm a knowledge junkie! Which is why I rag on you about the QUOTE box. All you need do is day, "I don't know. Can you help?" It's the easiest thing in the world to do and yet you can't bring yourself to do it because you think it will make you look weak. Tragic.
You spend so much time dwelling on how to MAKE people like you and respect you and admire you that you never LET them like, respect, and admire you. Learn to let others be strong Ed and you may find that RED bar of yours swing a little to the GREEN.
Sorry Ed, you failed again. I have too much self-esteem to find your comments anything but funny.
BTW, did I mention I minored in Psych. (Just cause I know it irks you.)
quote
Thanks, but I'm going to look quite a bit older and volumes wiser if I want life lessons.
That's the sadest statement of all because Ed I have ALWAYS believed that I can learn from ANYONE! And yes, I even learn from you. I'm glad your part of this world. Without you, I'd be a far less wise man.
Originally posted by I'm Back: (5 pages, 2,426 words spread over 11 posts IN ONE DAY to ONE THREAD)
At the risk of diminshing the impact of the phrase:
HOLY CRAP
... I find myself needing it once again.
* * *
I honestly don't think this is a mere case of someone trying to prove a point any more. Eleven posts in one day to a single thread--that may be some kind of record. My original attempt to showcase his excessively bombastic nature has resulted in the creation of some kind of monster.
* * *
JOURNAL, JULY 6, 2004:
Yesterday I posted some facts which refuted one of test subject A's points. Today, he posted eleven posts to the test thread. He totally ignored my factual information, as expected, and proceeded to repeat his original arguments in their entirety (with additional material besides) and with more arrogance and condescension. His tone has become more belligerent as he demanded a complete refutation of his citations, and he stated that he would not post any more evidence until I answered his evidence. (After this statement was when he re-posted his earlier arguments.)
I then repeated the factual information to test subjects B, C, and D--my mother, my cat, and a random stretch of sidewalk.
Test subject B nodded and commented that it was good news. Test subject C gave me a dirty look, turned over, and went to sleep. Test subject D eroded slightly.
With the exception of test subject B, all test subjects showed approximately the same level of listening or reading comprehension. As for test subject D, I observed that someone had scratched the word "lick" into the cement when it was drying. (I have no idea what this means in relation to employment data.)
* * *
Okay, that's a humerous way to put it.
But there's a grain of truth in it. As I stated in my last post, I decided to put out a little factual data to support one of my statements and refute one of yours. Not only did you ignore what I posted; you re-iterated the evidence you'd posted before. Nothing in any of the eleven posts that you spammed the thread with this afternoon even acknowledged that I'd given you some facts to chew on.
And a typical lawyer response too, IMHO--someone presents a piece of inconvenient evidence supporting his statement, bury it under a load of BS.
And a typical lawyer response too, IMHO--someone presents a piece of inconvenient evidence supporting his statement, bury it under a load of BS.
Ed
IMHO your poopoo stinks just as bad as I'm Back's poopoo. About the only difference between the two of you is I'm Back passes me a note from the next stall, warning of of the impending foul odor is associated with steeming piles of poop I cant see.. You however insist on saying it's roses tha I am smelling... ok... how do you explain the splashing going on in the world today? Someone watering the roses or something?
IMHO your poopoo stinks just as bad as I'm Back's poopoo. About the only difference between the two of you is I'm Back passes me a note from the next stall, warning of of the impending foul odor is associated with steeming piles of poop I cant see.. You however insist on saying it's roses tha I am smelling... ok... how do you explain the splashing going on in the world today? Someone watering the roses or something?
I'm not even sure I understand what you're trying to say here. His poop smells as bad as mine but it's okay because he lets you know it's going to smell bad?
If I understand your comment about "roses" correctly, you're saying that I've been lying to you about the vailidity of my posts? I don't recall directing any statements your way regarding the validity of my postings. My argument was with I'm Back, in any event, and I was trying to demonstrate why I thought his posts were inconsiderately long and poorly formatted.
& as for "splashing" you're going to have to be a little less allegorical and a little more specific as to what you're talking about.
I'm not even sure I understand what you're trying to say here. His poop smells as bad as mine but it's okay because he lets you know it's going to smell bad?
If I understand your comment about "roses" correctly, you're saying that I've been lying to you about the vailidity of my posts? I don't recall directing any statements your way regarding the validity of my postings. My argument was with I'm Back, in any event, and I was trying to demonstrate why I thought his posts were inconsiderately long and poorly formatted.
& as for "splashing" you're going to have to be a little less allegorical and a little more specific as to what you're talking about.
Ed
I'm just indicating that I'm Back SEEMS to post information and it is up to the reader to refute it.. It just seems that you always refute it and at times totally ignore it THEN claim he tried to burry your opinion or retort like the following quote "a typical lawyer response too, IMHO--someone presents a piece of inconvenient evidence supporting his statement, bury it under a load of BS"
I don't like lawyers myself and Ed is definatly NOT a lawyer. If you took the time to get to know him you would fully understand what I mean. The man carries his credibility in a semi trailer in a very tightly guarded and well hidden I'm Back storage depot.
Enough with the sunshine blowing. I will however lock horns with Ed any time I feel like refuting him OR if I have a question that needs to be answered and I'm sure he will enjoy it as much as I will if he gives an answer that I disagree with.
Lately I tend to agree with him on a VERY important theme, one most Americans and damn near ALL politicians seem to have forgotten about and that goes without saying any more.
I just wish you would get off the personal slap fest, keep it short and to the point. It's a heck of alot more interesting than watching two guys duke it out. But hey I like a good fight myself and that definatly goes without any further elaboration.
I do not understand why we still believe just because ANYBODY that has arms, legs, torso, head, etc. is chosen by our society to have such an ultimate power over our lives, that they are somehow empowered with some "super-human" aura, that they must have some "moral" superiority over the rest of us.
I have more respect for a factory worker who does his job manufacturing real products for our society than I do any so-called "president".
No, not Marxist. Constitutional-Constructionist Libertarian maybe; if you need to slap a label on my brain.
Overall, all great change in the last couple of thousand years has come from the individual inventor of technology. Automtic ice-makers are a brilliant but underated device. Readers of this forum are suspected fans of the internal combustion engine I think.
"President", hell, thats just another label we invented for our personal comfort.
Don't get me wrong though. We have the least horrible government system in the known world; in my opinion. At least I can get a cold beer easily in thousands of locations coast to coast in this country.
I am just naive enough to believe that mankind can create something far better in the future than what we call the "best" now.
Originally posted by zardoz: I do not understand why we still believe just because ANYBODY that has arms, legs, torso, head, etc. is chosen by our society to have such an ultimate power over our lives, that they are somehow empowered with some "super-human" aura, that they must have some "moral" superiority over the rest of us.
Yeah, it amazes me too how we expect our elected leaders to walk on water.
I do not understand why we still believe just because ANYBODY that has arms, legs, torso, head, etc. is chosen by our society to have such an ultimate power over our lives, that they are somehow empowered with some "super-human" aura, that they must have some "moral" superiority over the rest of us.
Does power corrupt, or do the corrupt seek power?
Off Soap Box
My minimum expectation is that anyone that I would want to represent me would have better honor and moral characteristics than I have. Many elected politicians give off an aura of a sleaze factor. (Our last president, Slick Willy, being one of them).
Yes, if that is what you expect, then you have still have that freedom (I think) to vote via secret ballot for that candidate.
True freedom and liberty would let us all elect a schizoid dictator to "president" if that was the will of the people. Constitutional safeguards theoretically provide checks and balances to restrict such an individual.
Personally, and this is only personal observation, I do not care whether or not a person has socially unapproved sex, or inhales restricted agricultural products, or gets sloppy drunk. Morals are always defined within a "religous" framework. That is OK, because people must use religion to shield themselves from the horrible truth.
By the way, I usually vote straight elephant ticket, because in my perception, that party is usually more closely aligned with constitutional principle. (changing as of late)
What I do care about, is how much of that persons personal behavior is inflicted upon my day to day activities.
Do I pay more tax? Do I sign more release forms? Do I trade personally perceived "safety's" for restricted behaviors. One could go on and on.
In essence, personal freedoms always come at the highest costs. Ask D-Day men if guns are necessary to preserve liberties.
I am glad you expressed your opinion here.
It is neither my place or intention to change it, and I thank you for letting me express mine.
Yes, if that is what you expect, then you have still have that freedom (I think) to vote via secret ballot for that candidate.
True freedom and liberty would let us all elect a schizoid dictator to "president" if that was the will of the people. Constitutional safeguards theoretically provide checks and balances to restrict such an individual.
Personally, and this is only personal observation, I do not care whether or not a person has socially unapproved sex, or inhales restricted agricultural products, or gets sloppy drunk. Morals are always defined within a "religous" framework. That is OK, because people must use religion to shield themselves from the horrible truth.
By the way, I usually vote straight elephant ticket, because in my perception, that party is usually more closely aligned with constitutional principle. (changing as of late)
What I do care about, is how much of that persons personal behavior is inflicted upon my day to day activities.
Do I pay more tax? Do I sign more release forms? Do I trade personally perceived "safety's" for restricted behaviors. One could go on and on.
In essence, personal freedoms always come at the highest costs. Ask D-Day men if guns are necessary to preserve liberties.
I am glad you expressed your opinion here.
It is neither my place or intention to change it, and I thank you for letting me express mine.
You state that Clinton "inherited a waste economy and repaired it within 2 years". Not true. The recession of 1991 was over before the 1992 elections. The economy in 1999-2000 was showing much more than "signs of slight downturn" as you assert--the Dot-Com bust was in full swing during that time, and in the winter of 2000 there was a serious shortage of natural gas--not Clinton's fault, but it contributed to a seriously waning economy. EDIT: The Dow-Jones average had already fallen a fair piece from its record high of 13,000-odd long before Bush was even certified as the winner of the election. IIRC even before the election was held. /EDIT
Yep, it was a tedious time around the election. Polls showed it might be close, and a lot of people knew that if Bush got the office, the economy would tank. So it was partly a self fulfilling prophecy, as people were afraid to invest. The more it looked like Bush would get it, the worse it got.
Then came Enron and buddy Ken. Who wrote that energy policy?
quote
Originally posted by zardoz: By the way, I usually vote straight elephant ticket, because in my perception, that party is usually more closely aligned with constitutional principle. (changing as of late)
As of late??? Reagan tried to curtail the first ammendment.
Originally posted by Tugboat: Yep, it was a tedious time around the election. Polls showed it might be close, and a lot of people knew that if Bush got the office, the economy would tank. So it was partly a self fulfilling prophecy, as people were afraid to invest. The more it looked like Bush would get it, the worse it got.
Sorry, I'm afraid that's not entirely correct.
As you can see, the downward trend that started in 1999 steepened early in 2000. And also, it turned sharply UPWARD at the beginning of 2001. As Bush was inaugurated Jan 20, 2001 (and the resolution of the graph is admittedly rather low) it's kind of hard to support the notion that those who had capital to invest were worried that Bush would ruin the economy.
What happened in 1999? The Dot-Com Bust, which happened after the Justice Dept (the Clinton Justice Dept, run by Janet Reno) announced that Microsoft would be broken up into smaller companies. And what happened in 2000? A bitterly cold winter drove energy prices sharply upward. (This was also around the time that California was experiencing its energy crisis BTW.)
& here's the article that graph came from:
It was run in the Wednesday, July 7 issue of the Chicago Sun-Times, on page 61.
So you're saying the economy was at it's worst when Bush took office and has improved (more or less) steadily since? I don't know a lot of people who see it that way. The Dow Jones peaked in January 2000, the Nasdaq in March.
In 2000, the Dow lost 6.17% of its value (11,497.10 to 10,788.00) In 2001, the Dow lost 5.35% of its value (10,788.00 to 10,021.60) In 2002, the Dow lost 16.76% of its value (10,021.60 to 8,341.63)
In 2000, the Nasdaq lost 39.28% of its value (4,069.31 to 2,470.52). In 2001, the Nasdaq lost 21.05% of its value (2,470.52 to 1,950.40). In 2002, the Nasdaq lost 31.53% of its value (1,950.40 to 1,335.51).
But the economy was improving?? People seeing their savings evaporate don't tend to spend a lot. Of course since the market's been in the crapper, people have been investing in houses and other things that build the GDP instead of the market and the GDP figures are inflated.
Unemployment in Virginia was 2.2% in 2000, 4.1% in 2002 and 2003.
GL
[This message has been edited by Tugboat (edited 07-09-2004).]
So you're saying the economy was at it's worst when Bush took office and has improved (more or less) steadily since? I don't know a lot of people who see it that way. The Dow Jones peaked in January 2000, the Nasdaq in March.
In 2000, the Dow lost 6.17% of its value (11,497.10 to 10,788.00) In 2001, the Dow lost 5.35% of its value (10,788.00 to 10,021.60) In 2002, the Dow lost 16.76% of its value (10,021.60 to 8,341.63)
In 2000, the Nasdaq lost 39.28% of its value (4,069.31 to 2,470.52). In 2001, the Nasdaq lost 21.05% of its value (2,470.52 to 1,950.40). In 2002, the Nasdaq lost 31.53% of its value (1,950.40 to 1,335.51).
But the economy was improving?? People seeing their savings evaporate don't tend to spend a lot. Of course since the market's been in the crapper, people have been investing in houses and other things that build the GDP instead of the market and the GDP figures are inflated.
Unemployment in Virginia was 2.2% in 2000, 4.1% in 2002 and 2003.
GL
First off all your numbers are a little off. If the Dow Peaked in January of 2000 then it did so a full 12 months BEFORE Bush took office who did so on January 20, 2001. Secondly, the Dow Jones is a measure of Stock sales and has little to do with the President. If you look at your Dow Jones history you will see that the the Dow started it's meteoric rise on January 20, 1995. The EXACT day that the Republicans took over the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years. The reason is obvious. A Republican led Congress was an inspiration to investors who fueled the Dot Com Boom in the first place. Who ever sat in the White house was just along for the ride. Up or down!
True, the amount of stock people buy is often determined by a President's social and fiscal policies. Clinton passed no legislation that had anything to do with the economy so it could be argued that people were inspired to buy more stock as a result iof Clinton's desire to stay out of the way and not gum-up the works. But under Bush's watch the President had no choice but to enact dramatic legislation in the face of a recession handed to him upon taking office. Then throw 9/11 and 2 wars into the mix. Frankly, it's amazing anybody has a job at all let alone a growing economy. His tax cuts clearly have worked.
First off all your numbers are a little off. If the Dow Peaked in January of 2000 then it did so a full 12 months BEFORE Bush took office who did so on January 20, 2001. Secondly, the Dow Jones is a measure of Stock sales and has little to do with the President. If you look at your Dow Jones history you will see that the the Dow started it's meteoric rise on January 20, 1995. The EXACT day that the Republicans took over the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years. The reason is obvious. A Republican led Congress was an inspiration to investors who fueled the Dot Com Boom in the first place. Who ever sat in the White house was just along for the ride. Up or down!
True, the amount of stock people buy is often determined by a President's social and fiscal policies. Clinton passed no legislation that had anything to do with the economy so it could be argued that people were inspired to buy more stock as a result iof Clinton's desire to stay out of the way and not gum-up the works. But under Bush's watch the President had no choice but to enact dramatic legislation in the face of a recession handed to him upon taking office. Then throw 9/11 and 2 wars into the mix. Frankly, it's amazing anybody has a job at all let alone a growing economy. His tax cuts clearly have worked.
I never tried to say the market wasn't declining when Bush took office, but it continued to decline badly despite the growing GDP. The Repug led congress sure didn't help in '02, did it?
Yeah, tax cuts for the rich solve everything. Riiight.
I never tried to say the market wasn't declining when Bush took office, but it continued to decline badly despite the growing GDP. The Repug led congress sure didn't help in '02, did it? GL
Toddster, you can post numbers and proofs until you're fingers hurt from typing, these people will NEVER believe anything different than what they want to. They believe the Democrats are their saviors. Fine. Whatever.
I never tried to say the market wasn't declining when Bush took office, but it continued to decline badly despite the growing GDP. The Repug led congress sure didn't help in '02, did it?
Yeah, tax cuts for the rich solve everything. Riiight.
GL
In case you haven't been paying attention the "Rich" (top 10% of all US income earners) pay 60% of ALL US taxes. Just exactly how much more of the burden do you think the top 10% should pay to keep the rest of us safe?
BTW, those 10% employ about 60% of the nation's employees too. So reducing their taxes means more jobs.
Toddster, you can post numbers and proofs until you're fingers hurt from typing, these people will NEVER believe anything different than what they want to. They believe the Democrats are their saviors. Fine. Whatever.
*sigh* You're right. I don't know why I bothered, either.
Of course since the market's been in the crapper, people have been investing in houses and other things that build the GDP instead of the market and the GDP figures are inflated.
...wait a second...you're saying that because the economy sucked, the GDP went UP?
Toddster, you can post numbers and proofs until you're fingers hurt from typing, these people will NEVER believe anything different than what they want to. They believe the Democrats are their saviors. Fine. Whatever.
And... The Republicans send the jobs overseas unchecked along with a few hundredthousand soldiers to be ground up like so much hamburgar meat?
Lets see.. Hamburgar meat... Saviors... Hamburgar meat... Saviors... Ok.. I give up.
There's certainly something that doesn't add up there, a steady rise in GDP while the market crashes and unemployment doubles??
GL
No, your statement that the GDP was "artificially inflated" while the economy was in the toilet is what doesn't make any sense. It's completely impossible. If the economy is bad, the GDP doesn't grow; if the economy is good, the GDP grows. The GDP growth rate is a primary indicator of how the economy is doing; it's an indicator of value added activity--ie economic activity which generates wealth. You cannot have a growth in GDP when the economy is performing poorly; poor economic performance tends to stop growth, or even to shrink the GDP. And the economy is not doing well if there is no GDP growth, ie no generation of additional wealth. Conversely, when the GDP is growing, there is wealth being generated and the economy is expanding.
The GDP growth rate, as I posted above, is set to hit its highest level in 20 years. Unemployment is being reduced to the tune of over 110,000 jobs per month. It's hard to see how unemployment can "double", as you assert, while the US Bureau of Labor Statistics is reporting 110,000+ jobs being created every month.
As for a market "crash", where is the Dow-Jones average today? Unless I missed something on the news this evening, it's hovering between 10,000 and 11,000. That does not exactly sound like a "market crash" to me.
Toddster, you can post numbers and proofs until you're fingers hurt from typing, these people will NEVER believe anything different than what they want to. They believe the Democrats are their saviors. Fine. Whatever.
Still got that nose crammed way up there. Tell me, did Todd have corn for dinner last night?
No, your statement that the GDP was "artificially inflated" while the economy was in the toilet is what doesn't make any sense. It's completely impossible. If the economy is bad, the GDP doesn't grow; if the economy is good, the GDP grows. The GDP growth rate is a primary indicator of how the economy is doing; it's an indicator of value added activity--ie economic activity which generates wealth. You cannot have a growth in GDP when the economy is performing poorly; poor economic performance tends to stop growth, or even to shrink the GDP. And the economy is not doing well if there is no GDP growth, ie no generation of additional wealth. Conversely, when the GDP is growing, there is wealth being generated and the economy is expanding.
The GDP growth rate, as I posted above, is set to hit its highest level in 20 years. Unemployment is being reduced to the tune of over 110,000 jobs per month. It's hard to see how unemployment can "double", as you assert, while the US Bureau of Labor Statistics is reporting 110,000+ jobs being created every month.
As for a market "crash", where is the Dow-Jones average today? Unless I missed something on the news this evening, it's hovering between 10,000 and 11,000. That does not exactly sound like a "market crash" to me.
Ed
So if people are investing in houses instead of stocks, that doesn't push up the GDP?
Edit: Dang, I hit "enter" to start a new line and it posted on me!
The unemployment #s I presented were for the first three years of W. There are more McJobs now, yes.
Things are coming back now, but as I look around me, people were much better off four years ago.
GL
[This message has been edited by Tugboat (edited 07-10-2004).]
No, it doesn't. Jobs are created based on need, so if Bill Gates gets an extra 600,000 tax break he doesn't go out and spend it hiring more people to do the same amount of work. Instead, he puts it in tax shelters like any smart person does and that money is gone from the economy. Want more jobs? Put more money into the bottom of the economy, that way more people can actually spend more money and that drives up demand, which in turn drives up production, which in turn drives up jobs as more people will be needed to meet increased production demands.
Give the wealthy tax breaks only makes them wealthier, it won't help the economy. And to head off the obvious, why would they invest in making more products when the existing products aren't selling because nobody can afford to buy them?
JazzMan
You obviously do not even know what the term "Tax Shelter" means. But I'll address that later. First off all, let's take your own example and ask ourselves what Bill Gates would do if he got to keep an extra $600,000 of the money he earned each year. Maybe he would buy a yacht! OK, how does that help the economy? Well, it employs sail makers, fiberglass hull manufacturers, carpenters, upholsterers, sonar and radar designers, deisel engine producers, etc. We are talking about the jobs of at least a few dozen people right there.
But more than likely he would invest it in new business buy buying stock or making the cash available to the venture capital market to start new businesses. Since my own father is a venture capitalist I can tell you for a fact that most venture capital is lost! Millions of dollars each year go down the drain invested in companies that go no where. 1 in 10 results in mega wealth. But the risk is tremendous, hence the reward. Without people willing to invest in business, business can't grow or expand, and there goes your job market. By investing that $600,000 into a business that business can buy new equipment. New equipment has to be BUILT, jobs. New equipment has to be SHIPPED, jobs. New equipment has to be INSTALLED, jobs. New equipment has to be SERVICED, jobs. New equipment has to be OPERATED, jobs. And most important of all, new equipment produces more goods which need to be packaged, stored, shipped, advertised, and consumed; jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs!
When you say "tax shelter" you seem to think that rich people just squirel their money away in matresses until they need to buy a new car. That is ridiculous on so many levels I won't even dignify it. I'll simply point out the fact that a "Tax Shelter" is a politicians word. It simply means "investment". But liberals figured-out long ago that if you call an investment a "Tax Shelter" then it sounds bad and must be stomped-out. More looking-glass logic because stomping out tax-shelters is the same as stomping out jobs.
On the other hand, we can do as you suggest and just give that $600,000 to the lower income earners. There are 143,000,000 employed people in America. If we gave that $600 grand out to the lowest 10% of income earners they would get .04 cents each AND not one new job will have been created. Whoa hoo, 4 cents! Let the party begin! Grandma can get that operation now.
So if people are investing in houses instead of stocks, that doesn't push up the GDP?
We have an indicator for this, it is called "housing starts". It is a measure of new home construction and yes, it's up nationally. Although it is down here in California, which explains why houses are so damned expensive here, we can't keep up with demand in other words.
Bill, you misread his quote. He said that 4 years ago things were better, which is what you were saying. Go back and reread his quote before you go off half-cocked.
JazzMan
Jesus... sorry.. LOL
My brain farted and now I smell like bullshit.... time for a shower.. oh wait, I'm already all wet.
I don't know about Management, but the Engineering College at Georgia Tech is one of the top-notch schools in the country. And using ASU as an example of a even better school. Priceless. 
BWAHAHAHAHAHA 
HOLY CRAP 
