The greatest supply-sider in recent history is....

[Uncensored2008]

There is a *HUGE* difference between the personal computing market if '82 and the personal computing market of '92. What Apple had ini '82 is a good chunk of a miniscule market. What they had in '92 was a company on the verge of bankruptcy playing a pathetic 2nd to a vritual monopoly in Microsoft. You had the same thing in '02 only worse, but the personal computing space had grown by leaps an bounds.

I agree 100%

My only point is that the original Apple opened the path for the personal computer. It was the success of Apple that got IBM to invest in the PC.

In '92 we were still trying to put a computer on every desk and practically nobody had ever touched a "laptop computer".

Shoot, Compaq got it's name from the fact that it built a "luggable" in 1983. Little 5" screen. By 90, I had a laptop with VGA display and a 80486.

You and I both know about Apple's recent success, but considering Apple to be anything dominant in the actual personal computing revolution is a weird joke. Microsoft did that.

IBM did that, and probably not on purpose. IBM used off the shelf parts to get to market quickly. By doing so, they created open architecture.

ISA, industry standard architecture made all the parts play together. DOS ran on any ISA computer, any program written for DOS ran on any ISA based computer. Then there was LIM, Lotus, Intel, Microsoft, which defined standards for memory access. MAC now obeys LIM standards.

So, the Internet would certainly have existed without Ethernet and I don't think that Ethernet per se really contributed much to the Internet explosion of, say, '04-05.

Every node of the internet runs Ethernet. No other networking protocol is sufficient to handle to routable traffic demands. TCP/IP was developed with the assumption that it would ride on Ethernet.

Netscape did.

?????


Netscape is important to the Web, but irrelevant to the internet. The internet was around several decades before the Web showed up. Just like Windows is to OS2, or Gnome is to Linux, the Web is an interface. Without the Web, the internet would remain the domain of geeks. It was Andreessen who made the internet accessible to the masses, but the internet was thriving long before him.

Microsoft Internet Explorer did. Dirt cheap USR modems did. Ethernet - not so much. I don't really think that I saw Ethernet as being a superior technology until maybe '97, '98 when the low-cost 100M switches started emerging. By then we all already had bought a book on amazon.com.

You don't seem to grasp that the internet is based on Ethernet. Every TCP/IP packet that travels is an Ethernet packet.

Even to the point that those things were important to society and computing, I don't see that they really changed the way people think - except maybe the Internet Browser - that maybe did.

What is it in the C language that you believe altered the thinking of the average person?

I find procedural languages operate the way most people already think. In reality, they are instruction lists. Do this, then do that, in sequence. Start at the top, go to the bottom, do everything on the list. There is no change in the way people think, which is why C is a fairly easy language for people to learn.

OOP languages foray into new concepts. Triggers, Timers, PEM's, focus, all of these are far outside of a list based thought process.

 

[Uncensored2008]

of course that's 100% perfectly ignorant and 100% perfectly liberal. Its the very ignorance that led Mao and Stalin to figure they could run an economy with hordes of Ph.D's. Capitalism thrives on animal spirits, entrepreneurship, and management.

If what Jobs and Gates did was just buy and sell we'd all do it to be very rich, famous, and on our way to heaven too.

I'll bite, name one thing Steve Jobs invented?

Gates and Allen are a different story. They wrote the BASIC interpreters used in the Apple machines, TRS80 and CP/M. This is how they got the chance with IBM (and access to the CP/M source code they stole to have DOS written.)

To get from the IBM main frame to the PC and IPhone you needed the perfect dream, spirit, determination, money, blind faith, ignorance, intelligence, and tons of luck.

Is that how you think things happened?

In business school they take you through all of American industry to show the folks who know most (IBM in this case) know least. At one point though GE, RCA, AT&T were the ones who knew most about computers. IBM was nothing.

And what business school did you attend?

I'm an MCSE, with a BSIS and an MBA. You?

Hope the liberal understands now?

Understands what?

 

[Uncensored2008]

sorry you're 100% wrong. Supply-side, in governemnt anyway, means tax cuts so people have more of their own money with which to create new goods and services that increase our standard of living

Take an introductory economics class.

well the term Supply Side came from Jack Kemp, not from Say and the two theories are only somewhat similar.

Jack Kemp was football player who turned to politics. Arthur Laffer is the economist who popularized the the concept among Americans with the "Laffer Curve."

Understanding Supply-Side Economicswww.investopedia.com/articles/05/011805.aspCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
May 14, 2010 – Supply-side economics is better known to some as "Reaganomics", or the "trickle -down" policy .... Supply-side economics has a colorful history.

Any person or group using the phrase "trickle down" has no credibility.

{The focus of "supply-side economics" on tax policy is a grave and even dangerous restriction in the use of the concept, since many more public policy issues ride on a proper understanding of the matter in its generality. That "production (supply) underlies consumption" is, in turn, only one logical implication of Say's Law. Production not only underlies consumption, but, if "supply creates demand," then consumption is something that, once we have the production, will take care of itself in a free market. Also, production reflects the investment of capital, both human and material, which means that "supply-side economics" and Say's Law, in their generality, are principles of capital and so first principles of capitalism itself. This is not a issue that should be neglected. } - Dr. Thomas Sowell

Yes that is Says Law. But Kemp would go to taxi drivers and ask them if they'd work harder if their taxes were lower. To integrate Supply Side and Say you have to explain that if people have more of their own money they will supply more goods and the economy will therefore boom.

Kemp is a politician.

Do you turn to Baseball players for medical care?

 

[samjones]

You don't seem to grasp that the internet is based on Ethernet. Every TCP/IP packet that travels is an Ethernet packet.

Ethernet *FRAME*. There isn't a one-to-one relationship between and IP packet and and Ethernet Frame. In fact it's probably pretty safe to say that 99% of the TCP/IP packets that traverse the public Internet are, at some point in their travels, *NOT* encapsulated in Ethernet frames. In my first view of networking routers were intended to separate large networks to control broadcast traffic and to minimize the inevitable collision problems that limited the size of thinnet Ethernet.

This is why I preferred Token Ring. More scalable.

In my second view of networking, routers were intended to connect disparate topologies. Like it connected my Token Ring network to the CSU/DSU T1 that let my users do Gopher and Usenet and get email from the outside.

Ethernet is amazingly popular - it's hard to say why, exactly. Just right place/right time technologically speaking, I think. For whatever reason they decided to build wireless technologies on top of it. I guess it was just kindof "there".

The Internet doesn't rely on it. TCP/IP doesn't rely on any particular layer 2 technology.

Netscape is important to the Web, but irrelevant to the internet.

I just think people read and think differently post-WWW than they did pre-WWW. It has something to do with being able to tie lots of interrelated thoughts together and to find information on demand. THere was a time when we held a set of encyclopediea in reverence because "Oh the information contained therein!" No information is cheap.

Netscape is important to the Web, but irrelevant to the internet. The internet was around several decades before the Web showed up. Just like Windows is to OS2, or Gnome is to Linux, the Web is an interface. Without the Web, the internet would remain the domain of geeks. It was Andreessen who made the internet accessible to the masses, but the internet was thriving long before him.

What is it in the C language that you believe altered the thinking of the average person?

I know you wonder why I keep bringing up Dennis Ritchie. It's because he died within a week of Steve Jobs and Steve Jobs was regarded as some kind of deity while Dennis Ritchie got barely a mention. I think that all the original programming languages, including C gave us great tools for organizing thoughts and evaluating data. Yes, simple constructs - sequence, iteration, decision. We all "know" how these things work. Just like we all know what it looks like to fly. Try inventing a machine that can do it....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Kemp is a politician.

Do you turn to Baseball players for medical care?

again you have not integrated Say's Law with Supply side economics. Laffer did not say he based supply side on Say. Laffer and Kemp were great friends. Their idea was to lower taxes and free up business, not to promote Says Law

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ethernet *FRAME*. There isn't a one-to-one relationship between and IP packet and and Ethernet Frame.

And?

In fact it's probably pretty safe to say that 99% of the TCP/IP packets that traverse the public Internet are, at some point in their travels, *NOT* encapsulated in Ethernet frames. In my first view of networking routers were intended to separate large networks to control broadcast traffic and to minimize the inevitable collision problems that limited the size of thinnet Ethernet.

You're confusing topology with packet design.

First you need to understand the OSI model. Ethernet works at the network layer, TCP works at the transport layer. Ethernet is a network protocol, TCP is a transport protocol.

This is why I preferred Token Ring. More scalable.

You are confusing topology with network protocols. Token Ring is 20 years dead and ethernet hasn't been a bus topology for a dozen years. Token ring was a polling protocol. Polling every node on the internet to find the token would hardly be practical.

Ethernet is the favored network protocol because it's demand priority based. This offers more robust channel prioritization than other protocols.

In my second view of networking, routers were intended to connect disparate topologies. Like it connected my Token Ring network to the CSU/DSU T1 that let my users do Gopher and Usenet and get email from the outside.

Okay.

Ethernet is amazingly popular - it's hard to say why, exactly. Just right place/right time technologically speaking, I think. For whatever reason they decided to build wireless technologies on top of it. I guess it was just kindof "there".

The Internet doesn't rely on it. TCP/IP doesn't rely on any particular layer 2 technology.

Cerf worked closely with Metcalf when developing TCP, which was designed specifically for ethernet. You're right that IP is agnostic regarding frame type, but the assumptions behind TCP are based on the ethernet model.

I just think people read and think differently post-WWW than they did pre-WWW.

I'll buy that.

It has something to do with being able to tie lots of interrelated thoughts together and to find information on demand. THere was a time when we held a set of encyclopediea in reverence because "Oh the information contained therein!" No information is cheap.

Okay, I agree.

I know you wonder why I keep bringing up Dennis Ritchie. It's because he died within a week of Steve Jobs and Steve Jobs was regarded as some kind of deity while Dennis Ritchie got barely a mention.

I understand, but Jobs was just a lot more high profile. The marketing guys get all the money and glory.

[quote[I think that all the original programming languages, including C gave us great tools for organizing thoughts and evaluating data. Yes, simple constructs - sequence, iteration, decision. We all "know" how these things work. Just like we all know what it looks like to fly. Try inventing a machine that can do it....[/QUOTE]

Sure. The C language helped to standardize syntax. Funny, when I was in school, C was the new comer, COBOL and Fortran the established languages.

Times change.

 

[samjones]

First you need to understand the OSI model. Ethernet works at the network layer, TCP works at the transport layer. Ethernet is a network protocol, TCP is a transport protocol.

No. Ethernet works at the datalink layer. IP works at the network layer. TCP is a transport-layer protocol. That you got correct.

You are confusing topology with network protocols. Token Ring is 20 years dead and ethernet hasn't been a bus topology for a dozen years. Token ring was a polling protocol. Polling every node on the internet to find the token would hardly be practical.

No, no, and no. Almost everything is wrong.

1. Token Ring may be dead, but not "20 years dead". Maybe 15... but it was all the rage 20 years ago.
2. Probably the single most common type of ethernet is still "bus-based", using the word loosely. Wireless networks are still shared, collision-based networks. That 54M ain't 54M all to yourself, you know.
3. Polling every node to give permission to send isn't impractical or unusual. It's still the norm in many WAN technologies..... the implication that a Token Ring network required "polling every node on the Internet" is just a bad misunderstanding of how that technology worked.

Ethernet is the favored network protocol because it's demand priority based. This offers more robust channel prioritization than other protocols.

"Ethernet" .... or, more precisely, collision-based architectures are the norm in the wireless space because no one came up with a better approach yet. I agree that token passing isn't going to work on an incredibly untrusted network, but that doesn't mean you just have to throw that frame out there and hope you don't bump into someone else's (collision detection techniques duly noted.) 99% of people would see it as anything other than a new letter at the end of their router model, but Ethernet is not enshrined. It can go away just like other technologies do.

It's doubly-true in the wired world.

Cerf worked closely with Metcalf when developing TCP, which was designed specifically for ethernet. You're right that IP is agnostic regarding frame type, but the assumptions behind TCP are based on the ethernet model.

No. That is 100% untrue. TCP/IP is designed as a wide-area networking protocol capable of running on any layer 2 toplogy. It wouldn't have grown and survieved if it were anything else. You may not understand this, but vast areas of the Internet are simply not based on Ethernet.

Granted, if a cable plugs into your computer, it's likely Ethenet, but that's not "The Internet".

I understand, but Jobs was just a lot more high profile. The marketing guys get all the money and glory.

Bill Gates wasn't a marketing guy. Do you think Zukerberg is a marketing guy? I don't really see him that way.

In any event - my point comparing Jobs and Ritchie is simply that money isn't everything and you can't evaluate a person's contribution to our world simply by how much money they made.

 

[Sallow]

probably Steve Jobs. Without people like him we'd all be living back in the stone age. Probably the best policy toward people like that would be huge tax subsidies so that the least productive among us would be helping or contributing the most important and productive among us.

Perhaps you view "recent history" as being the last 10 years? Even on your terms - the ones you choose to make your point, Bill Gates is a heckuvalot more influential than Steve Jobs ever was.

Personally, I think that Dennis Ritchie - who was found dead one week to the day after Steve Jobs, was far more important than either of the above...... There's more to life than money, you know.

The horrible thing is, I had to look mr Ritchie up.

Dennis MacAlistair Ritchie (b. September 9, 1941; found dead October 12, 2011),[ was an American computer scientist who "helped shape the digital era." He created the C programming language and, with long-time colleague Ken Thompson, the Unix operating system.

The computer I am using right now uses Unix as the operating system. Jobs is the really cool guy who got me to pay a lot of money for something that is free

Ritchie was one of the greats.

Jobs and Gates? They sell stuff other people made.

 

[Sallow]

First you need to understand the OSI model. Ethernet works at the network layer, TCP works at the transport layer. Ethernet is a network protocol, TCP is a transport protocol.

No. Ethernet works at the datalink layer. IP works at the network layer. TCP is a transport-layer protocol. That you got correct.

You are confusing topology with network protocols. Token Ring is 20 years dead and ethernet hasn't been a bus topology for a dozen years. Token ring was a polling protocol. Polling every node on the internet to find the token would hardly be practical.

No, no, and no. Almost everything is wrong.

1. Token Ring may be dead, but not "20 years dead". Maybe 15... but it was all the rage 20 years ago.
2. Probably the single most common type of ethernet is still "bus-based", using the word loosely. Wireless networks are still shared, collision-based networks. That 54M ain't 54M all to yourself, you know.
3. Polling every node to give permission to send isn't impractical or unusual. It's still the norm in many WAN technologies..... the implication that a Token Ring network required "polling every node on the Internet" is just a bad misunderstanding of how that technology worked.



"Ethernet" .... or, more precisely, collision-based architectures are the norm in the wireless space because no one came up with a better approach yet. I agree that token passing isn't going to work on an incredibly untrusted network, but that doesn't mean you just have to throw that frame out there and hope you don't bump into someone else's (collision detection techniques duly noted.) 99% of people would see it as anything other than a new letter at the end of their router model, but Ethernet is not enshrined. It can go away just like other technologies do.

It's doubly-true in the wired world.

Cerf worked closely with Metcalf when developing TCP, which was designed specifically for ethernet. You're right that IP is agnostic regarding frame type, but the assumptions behind TCP are based on the ethernet model.

No. That is 100% untrue. TCP/IP is designed as a wide-area networking protocol capable of running on any layer 2 toplogy. It wouldn't have grown and survieved if it were anything else. You may not understand this, but vast areas of the Internet are simply not based on Ethernet.

Granted, if a cable plugs into your computer, it's likely Ethenet, but that's not "The Internet".

I understand, but Jobs was just a lot more high profile. The marketing guys get all the money and glory.

Bill Gates wasn't a marketing guy. Do you think Zukerberg is a marketing guy? I don't really see him that way.

In any event - my point comparing Jobs and Ritchie is simply that money isn't everything and you can't evaluate a person's contribution to our world simply by how much money they made.

Nicely done.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jobs and Gates? They sell stuff other people made.

any one can buy and sell, but one in a 100 million can do it the way Jobs and Gates did it.

Making stuff has no value unless you know what do with it as Jobs and Gates knew. In fact, in B school they teach you that those who know the most about something, like IBM, won't know what to do with it and so lose out to Gates types.

Indeed this is the story of capitalism and this is why we must identify true supply siders and subsidize them rather than welfare recipients.

 

[samjones]

Jobs and Gates? They sell stuff other people made.

any one can buy and sell, but one in a 100 million can do it the way Jobs and Gates did it.

Making stuff has no value unless you know what do with it as Jobs and Gates knew. In fact, in B school they teach you that those who know the most about something, like IBM, won't know what to do with it and so lose out to Gates types.

Indeed this is the story of capitalism and this is why we must identify true supply siders and subsidize them rather than welfare recipients.

What IBM knows the most about is offering to sell a service and then outsourcing the actual work to India. That is IBM's forte. Maybe you really admire that.

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are different people. They brought different qualities to the task of running a business.

Jobs put together hardware components that other people made and made it look "cool". It wasn't really a very profitable thing to do - but it made alot of money in the first few years that he did it and it made a helluvalot of money over the last 10 years. The amazing thing to me is how many things Apple doesn't do and doesn't even try to do.

Bill Gates looked at the software that other people were making and made the same thing.... and, I won't necessarily say he did it better, but I will say that he ran well-established companies out of business competing with them on their home turf.

So I have to admit that I see a certain genius to doing that. There was a time when I thought nobody could ever know WordPerfect out of the word processing market or Lotus123 out of the spreadsheet market of Borland out of the compiler market.

But Thomas Edison they weren't. Eli Whitney - not hardly. Orville and Wilbur - not even close. Better to compare them to Andrew Carnegie or Cornelius Vanderbilt. Rich? Yes. Admirable? Nyahhhhhh.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What IBM knows the most about is offering to sell a service and then outsourcing the actual work to India. That is IBM's forte. Maybe you really admire that.

IBM does that because they lost the technology war they waged against Microsoft. Microsoft may well end up in the same boat, vis a vis Google.

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are different people. They brought different qualities to the task of running a business.

Jobs put together hardware components that other people made and made it look "cool". It wasn't really a very profitable thing to do - but it made alot of money in the first few years that he did it and it made a helluvalot of money over the last 10 years. The amazing thing to me is how many things Apple doesn't do and doesn't even try to do.

Sometimes that's the key to success. In-n-Out thrives on not selling anything other than hamburgers.

Bill Gates looked at the software that other people were making and made the same thing.... and, I won't necessarily say he did it better, but I will say that he ran well-established companies out of business competing with them on their home turf.

Gates established and worked within established standards. Microsoft made everything work together. There is no diminishing the value of doing that.

So I have to admit that I see a certain genius to doing that. There was a time when I thought nobody could ever know WordPerfect out of the word processing market or Lotus123 out of the spreadsheet market of Borland out of the compiler market.

Proprietary eventually fails - a lesson Apple should, but won't, learn.

But Thomas Edison they weren't. Eli Whitney - not hardly. Orville and Wilbur - not even close. Better to compare them to Andrew Carnegie or Cornelius Vanderbilt. Rich? Yes. Admirable? Nyahhhhhh.

I find Bill Gates very admirable.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What IBM knows the most about is offering to sell a service and then outsourcing the actual work to India. That is IBM's forte. Maybe you really admire that.

NO NO NO reread for comprehension!! IBM was the greatest computer expert in the world. THey could make anything with the greatest talent in the world. But it took a new kid, Gates, to realize it should be sold to individuals as a PC. So yes you need technology geniuses( China has a million) but mostly you need Gates and Jobs to figure out what its good for. THey are the key to capitalism and so are rewarded accordingly.

As I said this is taught in B school because it is the story of all industry.

 

[samjones]

IBM does that because they lost the technology war they waged against Microsoft. Microsoft may well end up in the same boat, vis a vis Google.
...
Sometimes that's the key to success. In-n-Out thrives on not selling anything other than hamburgers.



Gates established and worked within established standards. Microsoft made everything work together. There is no diminishing the value of doing that.
...
Proprietary eventually fails - a lesson Apple should, but won't, learn.

Embrace and extend was Microsoft's approach to standards - and still is. They got the strategy from Microsoft.

Essentially I see Apple as nothing more than a very rich consumer electronics company who hasn't quite figured out the actual "technology market". They've lived by the phone, they'll die by the phone. It's a very fickle market. People get a new one every year and they won't think twice about changing manufacturers.

In the meantime, I don't really see Google as being a realistic competitor to Microsoft. Amazon is a competitor to Microsoft. Google's just cheap garbage. Give them 5 years and maybe they'll come up with a usable product.

The thing about all these providers - Amazon, Rackspace, etc.... is they'd better provide and encourage a complete non-Microsoft solution or else they risk enriching their competitor with their own platform.

We saw Novell do this back in the 90's. They provided a PC-friendly server platform that encouraged people to put a Microsoft-based PC on every desk. This made Microsoft so rich that they developed a server platform that knocked Novell right out of business.

...And to a certain extent I think that we are seeing and will continue to see the same thing happen to VMWare in the near future.

(Parenthetically I will add that all of this is nothing that the Appleidiots will understand because they have an effin clue what happens when they pull up a web page on their phone.)

If anybody plans on running Microsoft out of business then they're not going to do it by creating a platform that ultimately ends up selling alot more licenses for Microsoft.

Price/Performance is one thing. This is what all these providers tout (Amazon, Google, Rackspace, etc.). In the end if you look at the underlying technology you'll likely conclude that not only is Microsoft miles ahead of them, but Microsoft has a vision that is a good decade ahead of their's and Microsoft is widening the gap every year.

I will help some Appleidiot (comment not directed at UC2008) understand. Using your Mac to connect to your Microsoft Virtual Desktop at work is not "dumping Windows".

 

[samjones]

What IBM knows the most about is offering to sell a service and then outsourcing the actual work to India. That is IBM's forte. Maybe you really admire that.

NO NO NO reread for comprehension!! IBM was the greatest computer expert in the world. THey could make anything with the greatest talent in the world. But it took a new kid, Gates, to realize it should be sold to individuals as a PC. So yes you need technology geniuses( China has a million) but mostly you need Gates and Jobs to figure out what its good for. THey are the key to capitalism and so are rewarded accordingly.

As I said this is taught in B school because it is the story of all industry.

You must've gone to some crappy online B School. Steve Jobs has a complex story to tell. Bill Gates's story is pretty simple. Look at what your competitors are doing and do it better.... okay, so I don't want to start a fight over what's "better" - but Microsoft was really never a market leader in much..... they had a knack for taking over well-established markets.

Ironically, Microsoft was *THE* pioneer in tablet computing. They were doing tablets in '02. It was a departure for them to be so early in such an important technology. Now Apple owns the tablet market and Microsoft will never be able to loosen their grip, because Microsoft doesn't know how to beat a company at it's own game - llike they did for Enterprise email servers, client server database servers, conventional relational database apps, etc.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You must've gone to some crappy online B School. Steve Jobs has a complex story to tell. Bill Gates's story is pretty simple. Look at what your competitors are doing and do it better.... okay, so I don't want to start a fight over what's "better" - but Microsoft was really never a market leader in much..... they had a knack for taking over well-established markets.

Ironically, Microsoft was *THE* pioneer in tablet computing. They were doing tablets in '02. It was a departure for them to be so early in such an important technology. Now Apple owns the tablet market and Microsoft will never be able to loosen their grip, because Microsoft doesn't know how to beat a company at it's own game - llike they did for Enterprise email servers, client server database servers, conventional relational database apps, etc.

Microsoft create the smartphone market as well. The iPaq was the model Apple used for the iPhone. I don't think Microsoft will be competitive in that market either.

Google will dominate both tablets and phones - they already dominate the phones.

 

[stans]

Uncensored2008 said,

"Flooding a market with currency has no stimulant effect, only products can create economic activity."

Then how would you explain that the only country in the world to exit the depression by 1936, having an unemployment rate of 35% in 1933 and 5.7% in 1936 did it by massive government spending on infrastructure using borrowed money as they went off the gold standard. For comparison, the US rate was 25% in 1933 and slowly worked it's way down to 16.9% in 1936. England's rate was 25.7% in 1933 and 25.5 % in 1936.

 

[stans]

Uncensored2008 said,

"Conversely, there is great demand for cheap, non-polluting energy. Regardless of the demand, there is no supply. Demand cannot create supply, but supply will create demand."

There is no supply of cheap non-polluting energy because no one knows how to make any. Supply will not neccessarily create demand but supply MAY create demand. How many new products fail? Probably most but few hear about it.

 

[KissMy]

That is not the same thing as subsidy. Subsidy is giving money to a campaign dona like Solyndra to do some wonderful thing.

Allowing people to keep their own money is not subsidy.

When ethanol was given a tax break at the pump it was considered an evil subsidy that had to be done away with. It lowered the price that everyone paid at the pump, but it was considered an evil subsidy.

 

[editec]

Jobs wasn't a supply-sider.

But he certainly knew how to take advantage of the internationalist's free trade orgy, I grant you that.