The Greatest Job Creator Of All Time

[percysunshine]

The Greatest Job Creator Of All Time....

Is sex. Everyone knows that. Why try to overcomplicate things?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was referring to the Google Search Engine.

I wasn't, I was referring to everything Google gives away, something you said no company would do after doing all the development and research,

The primary motive of giving away the Android operating system was to increase advertising revenue. "The Google search engine usage on Android phones increased tenfold in one year, translating into lucrative advertising revenue for Google."

Google Profits Up, Fueled by Android - Mobiledia

Did you know that Microsoft makes more money off of every Android phone that is sold than Google does? Google actually has to pay Microsoft to give away an operating system they developed, thanks to the government. Yet, for some reason, you think the government makes things better.

What an idiot.

Also Android Apps, which are downloadable through Google are loaded with advertising. One estimate is that 65% of the apps contain advertising.

Free Android Apps Packed with Ads are Major Battery Drains | PCWorld

And? Those ads are developed by third party developers, not Google. The ones developed by Google don't have ads built into them.

Not being an Android user, I don't know much about Android.

That is obvious.

I bet you use the iPhone. Guess what, those ads have built in ads that drain the battery too.

And yes, I'm well aware of the Google products.

Yet you keep talking about their advertising like that is what they do. If you were really familiar with Google you would know advertising is how they pay the bills. What they do is make things that people want.

I certainly hope the government hasn't contributed to Google since they incorporated. However, prior to their business startup, NSF and the government provided the founders funding to develop their first search engine, Backrub. They continued to perfect the technology resulting in the Google search engine which was first demonstrated at Stanford. Later that search engine became the centerpiece of there business venture. So the first Google search engine was developed not with entrepreneurial funds but rather funds from government and NSF.

Sergey Brin - NSF Graduate Research Fellowships Program (GRFP)

Google now gives away as much money every year to other developers as they got in that initial grant. How terribly selfish of them, they should pay higher taxes and let the government decide who gets the money, right?

 

[waltky]

Dat be Granny...

... she gonna start a business wringin' farts outta shirt-tails...

... a-fore dey get sent to the dry cleanery...

... she gonna hire a buncha Hispexicans...

... an' get `em to work real cheap fer her...

... so's she don't tell Immigration dey's here illegally...

... an' pay `em under the table...

... (I dunno, mebbe she gonna hire midget Hispexicans)...

... an' den she gonna use the money to buy Halliburton stock...

... she says we gonna get rich.

 

[ThinkCritically]

The Greatest Job Creator Of All Time....

Is sex. Everyone knows that. Why try to overcomplicate things?

So all we need to do is screw our way out of the recession. Ah yeah!

 

[waltky]

Think wrote: So all we need to do is screw our way out of the recession. Ah yeah!

Uncle Ferd says...

... "Dey gonna legalize prostitution?"

 

[ThinkCritically]

Think wrote: So all we need to do is screw our way out of the recession. Ah yeah!

Uncle Ferd says...

... "Dey gonna legalize prostitution?"

Forget QE3....that would be all the stimulus that the country needs

 

[code1211]

The right wing conservatives and libertarians worship the rich and markets, it is these wonderful rich people and in these marvelous markets that jobs are created. To hear the wingnuts say it, you'd think jobs grew from the rich and markets were just brimming with work. Like money growing on trees the wingnuts bow to their gawds of money and magic. So here's a little history on jobs.

"More Government, Please!' By Thomas Frank, excerpted from the December 2011 Harper's magazine

Speaker Boehner giving a speech at the Reagan Building:

"One of the reasons job creators aren’t doing their thing, Boehner explained, is that they had been “slammed by uncertainty from the constant threat of new taxes, out-of-control spending, and unnecessary regulation from a government that’s always micromanaging, meddling, and manipulating.” It was this last infraction—excessive regulation— that drew most of Boehner’s ire, and as the Speaker spoke, the indictment lengthened. Not only were “intrusion and micromanagement” by Big Brother causing job creators to rend their garments in frustration.

[...]

This is such a shibboleth among Republican politicians that to hear it is to yawn, to move a few comfortable inches deeper into somnolence. But then the Speaker said something that caused me to shake my head and rub the sleep out of my eyes. The building in which he was talking, he pointed out, “is named in memory of former president Ronald Reagan, who recognized that private-sector job creators are at the heart of our economy. And they always have been.”

In point of fact, the Ronald Reagan Building is the opposite of a monument to free enterprise and private-sector job creation. The gigantic structure, completed in 1998, is the second-largest federal office building after the Pentagon. It was built under the supervision of the General Services Administration, on a scale so inflated that the former president’s son Michael once called it “Mount Wastemore.” Had this palace’s existence been left entirely up to the private sector and the unfettered market, it would not be here. The jobs involved in its construction would not have been created at all."

[..]

"Here, if we are willing to see it, is a story that might prove instructive as we grapple with a second breakdown of our economic system. We can let people who are out of work languish on unemployment insurance, a program that didn’t exist in the 1930s, or we can count on food stamps to see them through. But if we are so concerned about job creation, why not just create jobs? It’s not an impossibility, despite the lessons intoned so soberly by Speaker Boehner and his colleagues."

Here come the jobs: Time Great Depression

"...The program’s administrator, Roosevelt confidant Harry Hopkins, had famously spent more than $5 million in his first two hours as a federal official. At the CAW, he found jobs for 4 million people in two months.

Although it would be a brain stopping system error to acknowledge it nowadays, these achievements would probably make Harry Hopkins— bleeding-heart, government- loving, unelected super bureaucrat Harry Hopkins— the all-time greatest job creator in American history. Yes, his manic spending infuriated laissez faire purists of 1933 just as much as the Obama Administration’s deficits bother such people today. But his tactics worked. The WPA, which Hopkins ran from 1935 to 1938, ultimately created about 3 million jobs per year.

[...] Even a thoughtful (so called) conservative agrees.

“Compared to almost any tax cut, the employment impact of direct federal hiring is far superior,” I was told by Ross Eisenbrey of the Economic Policy Institute. And as the economist Kevin Hassett, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, assured a congressional panel in 2010, “If the economic stimulus moneys were spent directly hiring individuals, they would have created twenty-one million jobs.” Hassett went on to explain how federal money might be used to subsidize private-sector hiring."

Harper's Magazine

PS For the intelligent reader may I suggest checking into Harper's, for the wingnuts continue believing corporate created reality, corporations - so called job creators - love it when you all sing in tune.

Do your experts agree that when the government hires people to do their little make work thingy's using the best technology that would have allowed a decrease of workers in any other environment on the planet, that this is creating wealth?

All of the job justification in the world will never explain why the administrative jobs in this country have decreased in every sector except government.

The only possible explanation is runaway waste, fraud and abuse. In what possible method might the staffing of the 1960 Federal Government demand an increase a little under 20% while the staffing of the Congress has about doubled? The only thing that has changed is the amount of bribery to conduct and the amount of officials to buy off.

Out petty and ridiculously self-important leaders are charlatans who need to surround themselves with sycophants and fools at our expense.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

 

[Flopper]

I was referring to the Google Search Engine.

I wasn't, I was referring to everything Google gives away, something you said no company would do after doing all the development and research,

The primary motive of giving away the Android operating system was to increase advertising revenue. "The Google search engine usage on Android phones increased tenfold in one year, translating into lucrative advertising revenue for Google."

Google Profits Up, Fueled by Android - Mobiledia

Did you know that Microsoft makes more money off of every Android phone that is sold than Google does? Google actually has to pay Microsoft to give away an operating system they developed, thanks to the government. Yet, for some reason, you think the government makes things better.

What an idiot.



And? Those ads are developed by third party developers, not Google. The ones developed by Google don't have ads built into them.



That is obvious.

I bet you use the iPhone. Guess what, those ads have built in ads that drain the battery too.

And yes, I'm well aware of the Google products.

Yet you keep talking about their advertising like that is what they do. If you were really familiar with Google you would know advertising is how they pay the bills. What they do is make things that people want.

I certainly hope the government hasn't contributed to Google since they incorporated. However, prior to their business startup, NSF and the government provided the founders funding to develop their first search engine, Backrub. They continued to perfect the technology resulting in the Google search engine which was first demonstrated at Stanford. Later that search engine became the centerpiece of there business venture. So the first Google search engine was developed not with entrepreneurial funds but rather funds from government and NSF.

Sergey Brin - NSF Graduate Research Fellowships Program (GRFP)

Google now gives away as much money every year to other developers as they got in that initial grant. How terribly selfish of them, they should pay higher taxes and let the government decide who gets the money, right?

Government in the early days of the Internet, did what private industry had no interest in doing, laying a foundation for a worldwide network, that welcomed all players. Today that foundation has become a vital part of our economy and our daily lives.

Networking companies and computer companies in the 1970's and early 80's where focused on developing networks that used their proprietary technology. These were closed systems. The company built the hardware, wrote the software, and provided the support for the network. They were very profitable and their creators did not grasp the vision of a worldwide network in which all developers and manufactures were welcome. Only as the Internet develop in 80's did it become clear to the industry that they had to adapt or die. They had to conform to the protocols and the open architecture of the Internet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was referring to the Google Search Engine.

I wasn't, I was referring to everything Google gives away, something you said no company would do after doing all the development and research,



Did you know that Microsoft makes more money off of every Android phone that is sold than Google does? Google actually has to pay Microsoft to give away an operating system they developed, thanks to the government. Yet, for some reason, you think the government makes things better.

What an idiot.



And? Those ads are developed by third party developers, not Google. The ones developed by Google don't have ads built into them.



That is obvious.

I bet you use the iPhone. Guess what, those ads have built in ads that drain the battery too.



Yet you keep talking about their advertising like that is what they do. If you were really familiar with Google you would know advertising is how they pay the bills. What they do is make things that people want.

I certainly hope the government hasn't contributed to Google since they incorporated. However, prior to their business startup, NSF and the government provided the founders funding to develop their first search engine, Backrub. They continued to perfect the technology resulting in the Google search engine which was first demonstrated at Stanford. Later that search engine became the centerpiece of there business venture. So the first Google search engine was developed not with entrepreneurial funds but rather funds from government and NSF.

Sergey Brin - NSF Graduate Research Fellowships Program (GRFP)

Google now gives away as much money every year to other developers as they got in that initial grant. How terribly selfish of them, they should pay higher taxes and let the government decide who gets the money, right?

Government in the early days of the Internet, did what private industry had no interest in doing, laying a foundation for a worldwide network, that welcomed all players. Today that foundation has become a vital part of our economy and our daily lives.

Networking companies and computer companies in the 1970's and early 80's where focused on developing networks that used their proprietary technology. These were closed systems. The company built the hardware, wrote the software, and provided the support for the network. They were very profitable and their creators did not grasp the vision of a worldwide network in which all developers and manufactures were welcome. Only as the Internet develop in 80's did it become clear to the industry that they had to adapt or die. They had to conform to the protocols and the open architecture of the Internet.

Government did what government was interested in doing, making it easier for them to communicate so they could kill people. Personally, I am happy to know that no private company is interested in that.

Funny thing about your version of history, it doesn't explain why all those businesses were busy developing network protocols. It also doesn't explain why the government chose a network that is designed to thwart any government control, and doesn't depend in the reliability of the network to keep itself up and running. The Internet is specifically designed to rely on individual hosts for reliability, which gives the businesses that are better at building servers to host everything more control than the network that they communicate over. Does that sound like something the government would design?

All those networks with their proprietary technology are still out there, still running effectively, and still connected to the Internet. The only thing you can give the government credit for is TCP/IP, which only won because the Department of Defense declared that is what they would use.

Come to think of it, something similar happened in nuclear power. The Navy through one bureaucratic admiral, decided on a design for all their power plants, and every power plany built in this country used the same design. That design happened to be one of the least reliable of the many alternatives that were on the drawing board, but it was ready right then, so it got picked. Makes you wonder, if the government hadn't been involved, would the Internet be more reliable and secure? TCP/IP is good, but there were some serious security flaws built into it that had to be dealt with after the fact.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Government in the early days of the Internet, did what private industry had no interest in doing, laying a foundation for a worldwide network, that welcomed all players. Today that foundation has become a vital part of our economy and our daily lives.

so????

1) liberals want to cut the military because they don't like defense investing much these days

2) because the defense dept made a lucky contribution to the internet is not an argument for unlimited military spending as an investment!!! Conservatives have the brains to know that private investment will be far more fruitful investment because then many diverse people are playing with their own hard earned money, rather than a few liberal swine monopolist bureaucrats playing with the other peoples' money.

.

 

[Flopper]

Government did what government was interested in doing, making it easier for them to communicate so they could kill people. Personally, I am happy to know that no private company is interested in that.

A rightwinger that's concerned about the military killing people; that's a first.

Funny thing about your version of history, it doesn't explain why all those businesses were busy developing network protocols.

They developed protocols for the internal use by their organization, contractors, and business partners. The protocols were tailored to their network design concepts. Few companies in the early days of networking chose to share the details of their protocols with their competitors. To do so, would make it easy for competitors to develop component that would compete with their own products.

It also doesn't explain why the government chose a network that is designed to thwart any government control, and doesn't depend in the reliability of the network to keep itself up and running.

They designed the network so that if part of the network failed, the remainder of the network would continue to run. Some say that was because of a fear of a nuclear attack disabling the network; not sure that's true. But there was no central control because if it failed the network could fail. Reliability was achieve by using alternate data paths between nodes and alternate nodes. So if one node failed traffic would reroute to alternate paths and alternate nodes. That's how the early internet was designed and the same concept is used today.

The Internet is specifically designed to rely on individual hosts for reliability, which gives the businesses that are better at building servers to host everything more control than the network that they communicate over. Does that sound like something the government would design?

Yes, because the goal of the designers of ARPANET was to keep the backbone of the network working. The military considered that critical just as Internet users do today. Individual hosts are relied on to supply the information and they may fail but the transmission through the Net is independent of the host and rarely fails.

All those networks with their proprietary technology are still out there, still running effectively, and still connected to the Internet. The only thing you can give the government credit for is TCP/IP, which only won because the Department of Defense declared that is what they would use.

All the ones I am familiar with now run TCP/IP and the networks are no longer proprietary. Software and hardware are supplied by many vendors.

I don't think you understand the development of TCP/IP. The TCP/IP protocols were initially developed as part of the research network developed by the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA or ARPA). It was not developed seperately from ARPANET but in conjuction with ARPANET. NCP was the first protocol run on ARPANET. TCP/IP replaced NCP. At that time, ARPANET became the first subnet on what we now call the Internet.

If the government hadn't been involved, would the Internet be more reliable and secure? TCP/IP is good, but there were some serious security flaws built into it that had to be dealt with after the fact.

More reliable, I doubt it. TCP/IP, on a packet switching network such as the Internet is incredibly reliable. If the Internet has an Achilles heel, it's hundreds of thousands of servers running applications such as US Message Board; all run independently by various organization. Some are well maintained others are ignored. This is the main fault of the Internet, but it also the main strength.

The TCP/IP protocols, the basis for the Internet, lacks even the most basic mechanisms for security, such as authentication or encryption. The reason for this has little to do with government and much to do with the fact that the international community that's responsible for TCP/IP have never agreed on a security layer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A rightwinger that's concerned about the military killing people; that's a first.

You are so far out in left field you think the foul pole is home plate. I oppose the death penalty and state sanctioned torture, and have been accused by a few lefties of being a terrorist sympathizer because I want to disband the TSA, go read my posts if you don't believe me.

They developed protocols for the internal use by their organization, contractors, and business partners. The protocols were tailored to their network design concepts. Few companies in the early days of networking chose to share the details of their protocols with their competitors. To do so, would make it easy for competitors to develop component that would compete with their own products.

And, as I already pointed out, AT&T gave those protocols they developed for UNIX and their internal network away, which was the catalyst that actually made the internet what it is today. Feel free to keep insisting that nobody ever does that though, it is amusing.

They designed the network so that if part of the network failed, the remainder of the network would continue to run. Some say that was because of a fear of a nuclear attack disabling the network; not sure that's true. But there was no central control because if it failed the network could fail. Reliability was achieve by using alternate data paths between nodes and alternate nodes. So if one node failed traffic would reroute to alternate paths and alternate nodes. That's how the early internet was designed and the same concept is used today.

Some people say all sorts of things, the truth is that the last thing ARPANET was designed for is a nuclear attack.

Yes, because the goal of the designers of ARPANET was to keep the backbone of the network working. The military considered that critical just as Internet users do today. Individual hosts are relied on to supply the information and they may fail but the transmission through the Net is independent of the host and rarely fails.

You just got that backwards.

The host are responsible for the transmission of the information. The actual reason for this is the network back then was so unreliable that it couldn't be relied on at all, so the hosts had to take the load. If any part of the network fails the host can reroute the information.

All the ones I am familiar with now run TCP/IP and the networks are no longer proprietary. Software and hardware are supplied by many vendors.

You aren't familiar with FTP, SMTP, IMAP, POP3, DHCP, ARCNET, etc? I would think you have heard of at least a couple of those, even if you don't know what they mean.

[

I don't think you understand the development of TCP/IP. The TCP/IP protocols were initially developed as part of the research network developed by the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA or ARPA). It was not developed seperately from ARPANET but in conjuction with ARPANET. NCP was the first protocol run on ARPANET. TCP/IP replaced NCP. At that time, ARPANET became the first subnet on what we now call the Internet.

The actual problem here is that you don't understand it. TCP/IP is a small part of how the internet works. All it does is transmit the data packets, you also need a way for the data to data packets to determine where they are, where they have to go, and the various possible routes they can use to get there.

More reliable, I doubt it. TCP/IP, on a packet switching network such as the Internet is incredibly reliable. If the Internet has an Achilles heel, it's hundreds of thousands of servers running applications such as US Message Board; all run independently by various organization. Some are well maintained others are ignored. This is the main fault of the Internet, but it also the main strength.

Actually, TCP/IP is presenting some major problems with wireless networking through mobile devices, and quite a few companies are working on various solutions.

How is the fact that the Internet totally independent of any centralized control a fault?

The TCP/IP protocols, the basis for the Internet, lacks even the most basic mechanisms for security, such as authentication or encryption. The reason for this has little to do with government and much to do with the fact that the international community that's responsible for TCP/IP have never agreed on a security layer.

I see you can do a Google search. I actually misstated what I as saying.

We are currently using IPv4, and will soon be switching to IPv6 because of the inherent flaws in the IP part of TCP/IP restrict the ability of the Internet to assign addresses to individual devices.

 

[Flopper]

And, as I already pointed out, AT&T gave those protocols they developed for UNIX and their internal network away, which was the catalyst that actually made the internet what it is today. Feel free to keep insisting that nobody ever does that though, it is amusing.

Actually they did much more than that. They gave away Unix, which eventually became the primary operating system in Internet servers. However you left out one important detail. Under a consent decree in a settlement of an antitrust case, AT&T had been forbidden from entering the computer business and probably got a damn big write off giving it all away.

The host are responsible for the transmission of the information. The actual reason for this is the network back then was so unreliable that it couldn't be relied on at all, so the hosts had to take the load. If any part of the network fails the host can reroute the information.

Partially true. In terms of the Internet, a host is any computer connected to a TCP/IP network. If it's connected directly to the Internet, it's IP address is assigned by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. If it's connected to a subnet that's connected to the Internet, then IP addresses are assigned by a DHCP server. The point is a host can be a server, router, or even a workstation. Hosts both receive and transmit data.

You aren't familiar with FTP, SMTP, IMAP, POP3, DHCP, ARCNET, etc? I would think you have heard of at least a couple of those, even if you don't know what they mean.

I'm familiar enough with TCP/IP to know that ARCNET is not part of the TCP/IP protocol stack. ARCNET was and still is a type of local area network popular in 80's.

The actual problem here is that you don't understand it. TCP/IP is a small part of how the internet works. All it does is transmit the data packets, you also need a way for the data to data packets to determine where they are, where they have to go, and the various possible routes they can use to get there.

That's a ridiculous statement. The TCP/IP protocol suite is the language of the Internet. The various TCP/IP protocol headers and trailers are wrapped around the data to be transmitted. Those headers contain information for packet routing, error recover, network error detection, email addressing, IP address translation, WWW functions, and a host of other network functions. TCP/IP transmits nothing. Data is transmitting with routers, hubs, repeaters, computer workstations using network interface cards.

How is the fact that the Internet totally independent of any centralized control a fault?

That's a good question and it's not easy to answer. Basically the information needed to route packets is contain in the headers of the data packets themselves. The routers which are responsible for forwarding the packets read the headers and send them along to the next router in route. If a path to a router or a router goes down, then the other routers discover the fault and reroute the packets. There is so much redundancy in the Internet, almost all data gets to it's destination. If it doesn't there are provisions for re-transmitting. So there is no need for central control.

We are currently using IPv4, and will soon be switching to IPv6 because of the inherent flaws in the IP part of TCP/IP restrict the ability of the Internet to assign addresses to individual devices.

Yep, the original IP address scheme was not designed to support the huge number of hosts. The limits on the address size required subnets within subnets within subnet.. to an extent that performance was suffering. With IPV6, it's hard to imagine that we will ever run out of addresses.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The disparity of wealth in this country hasn't been this bad since the 1928.

If you're blind ask the nanny-state to find a reader for you, if you're not blind-----pull your head out, spit out the kool-aid and pay attention to the historical disparity of wealth record.

​

In 2007, the share of after-tax income going to the top 1 percent hit its highest level (17.1 percent) since 1979, while the share going to the middle one-fifth of Americans shrank to its lowest level during this period (14.1 percent).

Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation — an increase in income of $973,100 per household — compared to increases of 25 percent ($11,200 per household) for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent ($2,400 per household) for the bottom fifth.

If all groups’ after-tax incomes had grown at the same percentage rate over the 1979-2007 period, middle-income households would have received an additional $13,042 in 2007 and families in the bottom fifth would have received an additional $6,010.

In 2007, the average household in the top 1 percent had an income of $1.3 million, up $88,800 just from the prior year; this $88,800 gain is well above the total 2007 income of the average middle-income household ($55,300).

So?

So?
So 40 years of steady economic growth that, so?-----then Supply Side Economics brought us... today's economy.


You have a great imagination-----better to be read in a children's book than on a M/B about economics, but imaginative nonetheless.


In the world of how things actually work, Republicans have come up short --- "Supply Side Economics—that has always and universally failed" ~ David Brin



A Primer on Supply-Side vs Demand-Side Economics


David Brin

Posted: Feb 20, 2010

Let’s step back and examine how, in the U.S., Democrats and Republicans have become identified with two quite opposite economic theories.


We’ll start with the Republicans, who still clasp fealty to Supply Side Economics (SSE), a theory once labeled “voodoo” by the elder George Bush, but now mainstream conservative catechism for three decades.


Supply Side holds that you best stimulate economic activity by Increasing the net wealth possessed by society’s top echelons—people and groups who have no urgent material needs. Instead of spending it on direct “demand” purchases, these wealth-owners will invest any marginal wealth-gain (say from tax cuts) on things that increase “supply”—factories, new businesses, innovative goods and services. Thus the name Supply Side.

Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits the copy-and-pasting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

Supply Side holds that you best stimulate economic activity by Increasing the net wealth possessed by society’s top echelons

No it doesn't.

 

[regent]

I like economist, Shumpeter's--it is the inventors that cause jobs. Take the Automobile, what did that little gimmick create, roads, repair shops, an oil industry, courts, traffic signals and on and on. What of computers? Steam power? The list is endless.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And where do you thing Apple and Microsoft would be today without the government funding for ARPANET,

too stupid!! Even if the government gets lucky when it wastes trillions does that mean we should assume it should continue to waste trillions because once in a while they will hit on something??

Should we eliminate the VC industry and let Solyndra liberals take over??

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, very slow??

 

[JoeNormal]

Really? And you know that because? Assumption is often nonsense. Read a history of science sometime, all things are traced back and back and back to others. Again it is the reason today America is failing behind BRICS. Reactionary thought is useless thought. Do nothing tea party and other assorted politicians prove their uselessness daily.



Now imagine being called pompous by a twelfth grader living in mom's basement, reading Atlas Shrugged as history, and thinking Sean Hannity is really really smart. Hopefully you grow up someday Dude, aka oddball.

Republican ad hominem attacks aside, I find it interesting that -- the citizens of Socialist countries are the citizens that can most afford to have internet access in their homes.


Countries with Highest Internet Penetration Rates - Internet World Stats


The US, i.e. the richest country on Earth only ranks #16.

Your genius is showing again.

There is not a single country on that list above the US that is socialist. In fact, there isn't a country on that list that is socialist, as far as I know. All the countries that have a higher internet access rate than the US do have one thing in common, they are all smaller than the US.

You appear to be smart enough to understand the distinction between socialist and not but many of your conservative brethren aren't. They would probably consider any European country to be socialist.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They would probably consider any European country to be socialist.

WSJ had article over weekend saying that when you add it all up European governments are about the same size as American government. But, we win on regulations and generally maintain about a 30% per capita superiority on income.

THey may pull ahead though because they are using austerity to get their financial houses in order while we don't have to. We can just print money which in the long run will only make things worse.

 

[Rshermr]

They would probably consider any European country to be socialist.

WSJ had article over weekend saying that when you add it all up European governments are about the same size as American government. But, we win on regulations and generally maintain about a 30% per capita superiority on income.

THey may pull ahead though because they are using austerity to get their financial houses in order while we don't have to. We can just print money which in the long run will only make things worse.

Yea, austerity is working well. Where is your research again, ed?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They would probably consider any European country to be socialist.

WSJ had article over weekend saying that when you add it all up European governments are about the same size as American government. But, we win on regulations and generally maintain about a 30% per capita superiority on income.

THey may pull ahead though because they are using austerity to get their financial houses in order while we don't have to. We can just print money which in the long run will only make things worse.

Yea, austerity is working well. Where is your research again, ed?

Yes, adding $5 trillion to our debt is working well.