Overpaid CEOs and Greedy Capitalists.. oh my!

[itfitzme]

It would be really awesome to prove thqt there is no fiscal spending multiplier. *The person that does this wil go down in economic history. *To do so would require understanding the entire body of research on fiscal multipliers and demonstrating how and why all the previous literature is wrong as well as how the prevailing macro economic theory on marginal propensity to spend, etc.

It would be great to show whstbthe tax and spending multipliers are, given the available public info.

I've tried it, for the tax multiplier, using a single variable linear regression, to no avail. *Of course, failing to show it is not showing it is not. *

A better approach would be a two variable regression with both gov't spending and taxes. *

Even then, there are issues because the fiscal muptipliers vary depending on the state of the economy. *Both can be negative. *No one doubts that goverent spending can crowd out private markets during certain stages of business cycle. *And, oddly, the liturature indicates that there are times when the tax multiplier can be negative. *The problem is that a quantity that varies both positive and negative over a span of data will simply not show up. *Even worse, the fiscal multiplier effects are transitory.

**I doubt that anyone posting here has either the statistical skill or computing power to pull it off, myself included. *It can be a fun exercise, though doomed for failue, just for practice. *It's the kind of thing that is done as a project for a graduate intoduction to econometrics or linear regression course.

Personally, I will leave it to the really smart guys that have Ph.Ds and do it for a living. There are a few peer reviewed articles available published by the NBER and IMF.

 

[itfitzme]

...

...

Here is the problem.

.....

Your method is to state that spending has no effect then to move on to taxes. Unfortunately, in order to do that you must first prove that spending has no effect. *You haven't and because you haven't, everything else that follow is meaningless.

Says who?

Show me where I said spending has no multiplier.

Says who about what? There were four paragraphs.

*If you mean the last one the answer would be "logic, reason, the scientific method". Not a who but a what. I assume that, given you excellent effort at researching and examining real data that this is what you were going for.

If you mean the spending multiplier, I have to refer you to doing a search on fiscal multipliers.

If you mean something else, you will need to be clearer.

If you don't remember saying that spending has no effect, I really can't help you. If you do agree that government spending has an effect, the same problem remains as you have neglectded the spending side of things. Unfortunately, with this kind of analysis the two cannot be looked at seperately. It just doesn't work that way. There are multiple inputs affecting a single output.

 

[georgephillip]

You made the claim, I'm consulting you.

Maybe you should get a little closer to the profits, Patriot?

"The war on Afghanistan is part of a profit driven agenda: a war of economic conquest and plunder, ”a resource war”.

"While Afghanistan is acknowledged as a strategic hub in Central Asia, bordering on the former Soviet Union, China and Iran, at the crossroads of pipeline routes and major oil and gas reserves, its huge mineral wealth as well as its untapped natural gas reserves have remained, until June 2010, totally unknown to the American public.

"According to a joint report by the Pentagon, the US Geological Survey (USGS) and USAID, Afghanistan is now said to possess 'previously unknown' and untapped mineral reserves, estimated authoritatively to be of the order of one trillion dollars (New York Times, U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan – NYTimes.com, June 14, 2010, See also BBC, 14 June 2010)."

?The War is Worth Waging?: Afghanistan?s Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas | Global Research

"The war on Afghanistan is part of a profit driven agenda: a war of economic conquest and plunder, ”a resource war”.

Yeah, we tricked Osama into attacking us so we could take over Afghanistan's minerals. LOL!

Boy, you are stupid.

Got lithium?

"An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the 'Saudi Arabia of lithium,' a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys."

You really put the rich into *****, Stupid.

?The War is Worth Waging?: Afghanistan?s Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas | Global Research

 

[georgephillip]

Look, I don't know WHY this is such a hard concept for some people to grasp, but wealthy people tend to make wealth faster than poor people. Just like fat people tend to eat more than skinny people. Just like fast cars tend to outperform slow cars. Just like marathon runners tend to run greater distances than couch potatoes. Statistics which show us these are reality, doesn't mean anything!

Now, if you wanted skinny people to be fatter, you would have them eat more, as opposed to putting fat people on a diet. If you want a slow car to perform better, it does no good to put sugar in the tank of the fast car. And if you want a couch potato to run a marathon, you have to get them off the couch and in some kind of training, hobbling the marathon runner will not make the couch potato better. You will never make poor people wealthy by making wealthy people poorer.

Yes, policies may seem to play favorites and give advantages to the wealthy, but this is because poor and middle-class people don't create jobs and opportunities for others, and wealthy people do. This isn't because wealthy people are better, or care more, it's because they have the means to finance large capitalist projects, and they can afford to take more risks. So we intentionally make policies which encourage these wealthy people to use their money for things that create jobs and opportunity. The thing is, whenever they do this, they generally make even more wealth.

Look closer:

"From 2009 to 2011, the average wealth of America’s richest 7% — the 8 million households with a net worth north of about $800,000 — rose nearly 30% to $3.2 million from $2.5 million, according to a Pew Research Center report that analyzed recent Census data. By contrast, the average wealth of America’s remaining 93%, some 111 million households, actually dropped by 4% to $134,000 from $140,000."

Is that an example of rich people running Brand Marathon Sweat Shops in India, Brazil, and China or does it have more to do with corrupt porkers injecting sugar into the election campaigns and retirements of DC couch potatoes?

Back to Recession » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

It has more to do with capitalists outsourcing union jobs more than anything else. This is a result of 40-50 years of liberal pro-labor-union policies, and is exactly what conservatives back in the day, warned would happen. They were hooted down by liberals who were having none of it, and insisted we had to "support the union label" and that's what we did. Now that the jobs are gone, we are left with a bunch of lower-paying jobs, which pulls the average down. The answer here is not more Socialism or Marxism. That is what caused the problem with outsourcing. What needs to be done, is to implement policies favorable to capitalism. Reduce or eliminate corporate taxation, get rid of capital gains taxes, and encourage rich people to spend the hell out of their money, rather than hoard it away in securities or offshore accounts. Offer incentives for American companies who opt to create jobs here rather than outsource, and stop biting the hand that feeds us.

Again, the statistics you are showing me are not alarming or surprising, it's the result of failed Socialist policies that did not work, and you want to implement MORE of the same.

Which Marxist or Socialist policies do you blame for the 2.1 million American manufacturing jobs lost or eliminated since 2001?

NEW REPORT: 2.7 Million U.S. Jobs Lost Over the Last Decade Due to Growing Trade Deficit with China | Alliance for American Manufacturing

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe you should get a little closer to the profits, Patriot?

"The war on Afghanistan is part of a profit driven agenda: a war of economic conquest and plunder, ”a resource war”.

"While Afghanistan is acknowledged as a strategic hub in Central Asia, bordering on the former Soviet Union, China and Iran, at the crossroads of pipeline routes and major oil and gas reserves, its huge mineral wealth as well as its untapped natural gas reserves have remained, until June 2010, totally unknown to the American public.

"According to a joint report by the Pentagon, the US Geological Survey (USGS) and USAID, Afghanistan is now said to possess 'previously unknown' and untapped mineral reserves, estimated authoritatively to be of the order of one trillion dollars (New York Times, U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan – NYTimes.com, June 14, 2010, See also BBC, 14 June 2010)."

?The War is Worth Waging?: Afghanistan?s Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas | Global Research

"The war on Afghanistan is part of a profit driven agenda: a war of economic conquest and plunder, ”a resource war”.

Yeah, we tricked Osama into attacking us so we could take over Afghanistan's minerals. LOL!

Boy, you are stupid.

Got lithium?

"An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the 'Saudi Arabia of lithium,' a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys."

You really put the rich into *****, Stupid.

?The War is Worth Waging?: Afghanistan?s Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas | Global Research

Let me know when we start stealing their natural resources, dumbass.

And how we tricked Osama. LOL!

 

[Boss]

Look closer:

"From 2009 to 2011, the average wealth of America’s richest 7% — the 8 million households with a net worth north of about $800,000 — rose nearly 30% to $3.2 million from $2.5 million, according to a Pew Research Center report that analyzed recent Census data. By contrast, the average wealth of America’s remaining 93%, some 111 million households, actually dropped by 4% to $134,000 from $140,000."

Is that an example of rich people running Brand Marathon Sweat Shops in India, Brazil, and China or does it have more to do with corrupt porkers injecting sugar into the election campaigns and retirements of DC couch potatoes?

Back to Recession » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

It has more to do with capitalists outsourcing union jobs more than anything else. This is a result of 40-50 years of liberal pro-labor-union policies, and is exactly what conservatives back in the day, warned would happen. They were hooted down by liberals who were having none of it, and insisted we had to "support the union label" and that's what we did. Now that the jobs are gone, we are left with a bunch of lower-paying jobs, which pulls the average down. The answer here is not more Socialism or Marxism. That is what caused the problem with outsourcing. What needs to be done, is to implement policies favorable to capitalism. Reduce or eliminate corporate taxation, get rid of capital gains taxes, and encourage rich people to spend the hell out of their money, rather than hoard it away in securities or offshore accounts. Offer incentives for American companies who opt to create jobs here rather than outsource, and stop biting the hand that feeds us.

Again, the statistics you are showing me are not alarming or surprising, it's the result of failed Socialist policies that did not work, and you want to implement MORE of the same.

Which Marxist or Socialist policies do you blame for the 2.1 million American manufacturing jobs lost or eliminated since 2001?

NEW REPORT: 2.7 Million U.S. Jobs Lost Over the Last Decade Due to Growing Trade Deficit with China | Alliance for American Manufacturing

Have we been following PRO-CAPITALIST policies, doing everything we can to HELP CAPITALISTS and encourage American free market capitalism? You people seem to be stuck in some kind of time warp, where you THINK we have been doing this and it isn't working, but the fact remains, for the past 60-70 years, this country has slowly implemented one Socialistic policy after another, hobbling and hindering capitalism at every turn, because you claimed this was going to "help the working class," but it has FAILED... now you point to the FAILURE of your own ideas, and blame that on the capitalists!

Manufacturing jobs have become obsolete here, because capitalist can't afford to hire and pay unionized labor. Their motive is to make profit, and they can do that better by outsourcing labor, which is precisely what they do. In order to get these kinds of jobs to come back, you have to REVERSE what you have been doing, and start implementing PRO-CAPITALIST policy.

Again... Imagine for a second, if we completely eliminated all corporate taxation and got rid of cap gains taxes? Not only would an abundance of overseas wealth assets come pouring back home, but foreign investors would be lined up to bring their operations to America, where there is plenty of labor and low taxation. Hells bells, we would have to grant amnesty to all the illegals here, just to fill the massive number of new jobs created! There would be a SHORTAGE of labor before very long, and at that point, supply and demand would kick in, forcing pay rates to soar. As that happened, the income tax revenues realized, would also begin to soar, and we'd never miss a dime of the corporate taxation we eliminated. Every American willing to work, would have an abundance of options and could literally name their price.

But NOOooooo.... You want to chomp down some more on the hand that feeds us! THAT is YOUR solution, and it's just plain DUMB!

 

[AmazonTania]

Says who about what? There were four paragraphs.

You were trying to tell me what I should be trying to prove or disprove. If you are not even aware of what the discussion is about, maybe you should keep up before telling another what their position should be regarding the topic.

*If you mean the last one the answer would be "logic, reason, the scientific method". Not a who but a what. I assume that, given you excellent effort at researching and examining real data that this is what you were going for.

If you mean the spending multiplier, I have to refer you to doing a search on fiscal multipliers.

If you mean something else, you will need to be clearer.

If you don't remember saying that spending has no effect, I really can't help you.

The fact that you cannot quote what I said shows there is a problem, and I think I discovered what it was: Your comprehension. I specifically said on multiple occasions that military spending doesn't stimulus the economy.

If you do agree that government spending has an effect, the same problem remains as you have neglectded the spending side of things. Unfortunately, with this kind of analysis the two cannot be looked at seperately. It just doesn't work that way. There are multiple inputs affecting a single output.

Does spending have an effect? Of course it does. It grows GDP, but that is about the extent of it. You get a larger number in regards to GDP. If you are trying to suggest that growing the economy and increasing GDP are the one in the same, then it's not surprising to me that you are using GDP as a bogus metric.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Amazon responds to my post saying that I am WRONG AGAIN. Lets check the self expressed expert on economics and see how she did:

Quote:
Uh, Amazon, my poor fact challenged tool, you may want to check your history. The clinton cap gain tax cuts did not go into effect until mid 1998. Must have been a phantom effect, eh, Amazon. Funny, same thing all of those bat shit crazy con web sites try. Move the time back a couple years. Why, by coincidence, their efforts to change history was JUST LIKE YOU, in this case.

To which Amazon comments:

According to the Tax Foundation, May 7th, 1997 is when the Capital Gains tax cut went into effect. Bad start for you already. But failure is something you are already use to, correct?

Federal Capital Gains Tax Rates, 1988-2011 | Tax Foundation

Now, Amazon, I know this is a really, really complex thing for you. But try to follow this, if you can. If you looked at your source, you would have seen that while the tax "law" went into effect, as you say, in may of 97, the tax cuts went into effect later. I said they went into effect in mid 98. That would be correct if you look at your refference. Passed in may 97, went into effect for purchases made after JULY 1998. So, bad start for YOU already. You see, tax increases only effect the economy after they take effect. Hell, you could have gone to Heritage. Even they had that one correct.


Then, Amazon continues:

The between 1993 and 1997, the Dow Jones was actually contracting and from February 1997 to May 1997, unemployment leveled at 5.3 - 5.2 percent. It wasn't until the capital gains tax was implemented on May 7th that the economy really took off. Notice the divergence:

Now, now, amazon. Economists do not look at ue rates much over a short, say 4 month period. But for your understanding, since you seem incapable of telling the truth, the ue rate went from 5.3% in Feb. of 1997 go 4.9% in May of that year. Now, as a simple money changer you may not understand the following, but try to understand that I said:
1. Lowering tax rates during times of low ue does not have any real effect on the ue rate. Now, what you need to understand is that the ue rate was at exactly 4.3% when this simple cap gains rate increase occurred. That would have had absolutely NO impact on my statement. As I have said before in this post, lowering tax rates during low ue times is very often a GOOD THING.
2, The ue rate was still going down in 97 and 98 as a result of the impacts of earlier stimulus. If you understood stimulus, it is EXPECTED that when you do a stimulus, it will have impact for years to come. And this one did.
3. That .4% ue rate decrease was pretty substantial when starting with an already very low rate. After the cap gains went into effect in July of 98, over the next year and a half, the ue rate continued down another 1.5%. All of which proves nothing, of course, unless you like to believe what pretty much ONLY the bat shit crazy con tool sites would like us to believe, which was that the whole Clinton economic success, and certainly his deficits, were the result of a cap gains tax reduction that went into effect over the last 18 months of his term. Only the bat shit crazy con web sites and you, Amazon, push that idea. Here you go, again, Amazon, an actual real impartial source.
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States


Then, Amazon states:

There was no boom before Clinton Capital Gains Tax Cut. The Dot Com Boom started in 1997 and the Capital Gains Tax Cut went into effect during the same Year. The Dow Jones went from 3241 on the day of Clinton's inauguration to 6843 in 5 years. That's more than 100% increase in 5 years, which is a very long time by today's standards. After the tax cut, the Dow went from 7085 to 11028 in only 3 short years after the tax cut.

Right. The timeline for the .com bubble is questionable, but most believe it started at around the same time as Amazon.com got it's start, in 1994. The impact on the market was later, of course. During the clinton term, the ue rate fell from 7.4% at the beginning of his term, to 3.9% at the end. And no real difference resulted from the cap gains tax cut at all. Only the far, far right try to push that concept.

GDP grew faster than for any but three other presidents during his term. By the way, before you go breathlessly checking who the higher two were, they were Truman and LBJ as I recall. And yes, you would be so happy to see that Regan came in at a strong 4th.
The Clinton economy, in charts.



Then Tanya make this profound statement:

What a joke. I love the fact that you go to a personal website instead of the BLS for actual unemployment data. This is really what I deal with when I visit this forum.

Really. I assume you are talking about the DaveManual.com sit. Hardly a personal website. DaveManual is one of the most respected and know impartial sites on the web. And, if you care to get at the numbers for the time period you want, that should be your source. The numbers from this site, for ue, for example, are from the bls site. Jesus, Tanya. Do you just normally talk to stupid people.
But here is the deal. If you care to find a place which I misquoted numbers from DaveManual, let me know and I will check it out. If I or he (it would not be he) was wrong, I would actually apologize. As in admit my mistake. Which is a novel idea for con tools.

Then Tanya comes up with this piece of brilliant drivel:

Hey, according to our own website 5% unemployment is not low. If anything, it's average. The lowest average unemployment was 2% and the highest average was 9%. I'm assuming you can do basic math. Then you'll understand the difference between low unemployment and just, eh, average.

Sorry, Tanya, if you EVER PAID ANY ATTENTION TO A SIMPLE ECONOMICS CLASS, you would understand why economists see under 6% is acceptable and under 5% is low. You see, they are not so blatantly stupid as to consider the MEAN UE RATE as anthing to consider in determining where low starts. Jesus, you are ignorant. So, by your assessment, if the historic rate was 15% and it got down to 10.9%, then you would say 10.9% would be low???? Jesus, what can one say.

Then Tanya, Unable to refute what I said (which was the truth, Tanya) made up her own graphs, and ignored what they said:

The major increases happened BEFORE the unemployment rate got worse. The tax increases which Reagan implemented didn't help unemployment at all. According to the US Treasury, the tax increases were too small to even play a significant role in GDP. The only major tax bill which had a significant effect on the economy was the Tax Reform Act of 1986. And you can clearly see the impact from this chart I created...

Now now now tanya. You continue to ignore what I have said. No economist , nor I, would say that a tax decrease when the ue rate was low is a bad thing. And the tax decrease in the 1986 bill was during times of LOW UE. Remember, Tanya, as I have proven to you, the ue rate had gone from 7.3% when reagan passed his first major tax decreas, to 10.8% in November of 1982, That was the HIGHEST RATE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. And that rate had gone up at a regular rate from the implimentation of his tax decreases. The tax bill of 86 was passed when the UE rate was at 7.1%, and dropping rapidly.

Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

So, were tax increases of help in lowering the ue rate. No, not really. But was the money generated to provide stimulus?? Yes, it was. But more importantly, the money provided by BORROWING which you continue to ignore, was very helpful in allowing stimulative spending. Remember, Reagan tripled the national debt and borrowed more than all presidents before him COMBINED!! And he started those two things, AFTER the first tax decrease did not do as we were lead to believe. And ue went up and the deficit went up. That is when supply side economics went out the window, me poor ignorant money changer. Except the 86 tax decrease, which set up Bush 1 for a single term.

What you do, as do all con tools, is concentrate on gdp and try to cherry pick dates. And generally, you can find no support for what you are saying. No impartial sources. But, oddly enough, you do criticize my sources though you should know that they are completely impartial. Now, if we look at your very own source, created by you, we should believe them??: We should have no doubt that it is completely impartial?? Jesus, you are a clown.


Then, our lying con says the following:

The major increases happened BEFORE the unemployment rate got worse.

Sorry, the first tax decrease happened in Feb of 1981, the month after Reagans inaguration. It went into affect in Feb of that year, and started a string of increases in the deficit and the ue that went on to the peak at the end of 82. About 20 months of ue increases to 10.9%. Tax increases and borrowing started toward the beginning of 82, when it became obvious the problem was a big deal.

And next time try not to use your very own charts. They are not worth the time to vet.


So then, Tanya notes the following fiction:

It wasn't my job to do that. My original intent was to show that tax cuts were stimulative, not tax increases. If anything, I have already show that tax cuts decreases unemployment again with my example with Reagan and once again with my Clinton example.

And, once again, I did not ever say that tax increases are stimulative. They are not. You continue to say that I have said they are, proving your dishonesty. What I did say is that tax increases can provide revenue for stimulus. And have. And you showed nothing that you say you have. Tax decreases from 81 for Reagan were far from stimulative. He said they would be. They were, however, just the opposite. Lead to deficits and the second highest ue rate in our history. For really obvious reasons to anyone with an actual understanding of economics. And, your attempt to say that Clinton's stimulus spending using tax revenue from his tax increases did not help the ue rate and the economy in general just does not pass the giggle test. Just use the data I provided, and if you think I misquoted, point it out. But I did not misquote. Your statements, me dear, just do not pass the giggle test.


Then, Tanya says the following:

I study and research economics and finance FOR A LIVING. You just dabble and experiment with it when you're trying to one-up some other loser online with your subpar knowledge and understanding.

Right, my poor economic illiterate. Your points come from one place, and one place only. That is the bat shit crazy con tool sites that all of your points are pushed. Clinton's cap gains tax decrease law of 97 is a classic. Every bat shit crazy con tool site is trying to make them THE reason for the success of Clinton's term. But you can find no economists backing that concept up. Just does not pass the giggle test. A year and a couple months of cap gains tax cuts on top of an already thriving economy made no real impact, though some, no doubt. Just odd, that when you say you are not a con, the only place you can find this idea being pushed is in the bat shit crazy con sites. And from TANYA. WHAT A COINCIDENCE.

Relative to my background in economics, I have plenty. Collegiate and working time. And lots of research just for the fun of it. If you are going to try to sell me that stock brokers do a lot of econ research, forget it. I have known my share, and most are totally ignorant of economics. But, good try....Well, not really. Stupid try.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You see, tax increases only effect the economy after they take effect.

of course thats not true, people are reacting to Obamacare taxes long before they actually have to pay the taxes, and of course Smoot Hawley is widely thought of as a cause of the Great Depression even though it did not take effect until after the Depression had begun. You see, dear, people have what we call in economics "rational expectations"! Why not look it up??

Slow??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

THE reason for the success of Clinton's term.

too stupid!! Clinton got elected just as Bush 41's economy started to boom; Clinton merely rode the wave. Would anyone on earth argue that his tax hikes helped the economy by taking money away from the private sector where 100% of growth comes from??

 

[AmazonTania]

So, Amazon responds to my post saying that I am WRONG AGAIN. Lets check the self expressed expert on economics and see how she did:

Quote:
Uh, Amazon, my poor fact challenged tool, you may want to check your history. The clinton cap gain tax cuts did not go into effect until mid 1998. Must have been a phantom effect, eh, Amazon. Funny, same thing all of those bat shit crazy con web sites try. Move the time back a couple years. Why, by coincidence, their efforts to change history was JUST LIKE YOU, in this case.

Seriously, why do you keep monologuing to yourself?

Now, Amazon, I know this is a really, really complex thing for you. But try to follow this, if you can. If you looked at your source, you would have seen that while the tax "law" went into effect, as you say, in may of 97, the tax cuts went into effect later.

That's not how laws work. When a law goes into effect, the statutory conditions go into effect as well. That would be like saying the minimum wage increase goes into effect, but everyone is still making $7.25 an hour they did before the wage increase.

Congratulations, you failed basic civics.

I said they went into effect in mid 98. That would be correct if you look at your refference. Passed in may 97, went into effect for purchases made after JULY 1998. So, bad start for YOU already. You see, tax increases only effect the economy after they take effect.

You are lying and I know that you are. No where does it say that the tax cut in 1997 took effect in 1998. You are either very bad at comprehending, or you just can't understand the chart for what it is.

It's pretty sad that I have to resort to using a screenshot to show how much of a liar you are, but you actually believe that you have people on this forum who will take your word for what you say. And since it is obvious that you don't understand how capital gains work, I will explain.

Capital Gains are taxed based on your overall income (or no income if you choose to live off capital gains). And they are also taxed based on how long you hold your investments: from short-term to long term. Here is the screen shot to show the tax threshold, liar:

According to the Tax Foundation source you are lying about, if your marginal income is 39.6% and you have held your assets for more than 5 years, your capital gains taxes are 20%. This is under May 7th, 1997. Notice that from January 1st, 1993 - May 6th, 1997, the Top Marginal rate on long term capital gains were 28%. Then on May 7th, that rate drops 8%. No where does it say that these cuts went into effect in 1998. So congratulations, you've been outed as a liar. And it must be really pathetic to take an online debate so far that you actually have to lie about the evidence presented to you. Come on. It's not that serious.

Hell, you could have gone to Heritage. Even they had that one correct.

Then why didn't you cite your source from the Heritage website and prove my wrong? Could it be that no such source exist and you are pathetically trying to grasp at straws.

Now, now, amazon. Economists do not look at ue rates much over a short, say 4 month period.

Yes, they do. A 4 month period is equal to that of a financial quarter and GDP is recorded on a quarterly basis. Sorry, reality disagrees with you.

But for your understanding, since you seem incapable of telling the truth, the ue rate went from 5.3% in Feb. of 1997 go 4.9% in May of that year. Now, as a simple money changer you may not understand the following, but try to understand that I said:
1. Lowering tax rates during times of low ue does not have any real effect on the ue rate. Now, what you need to understand is that the ue rate was at exactly 4.3% when this simple cap gains rate increase occurred. That would have had absolutely NO impact on my statement. As I have said before in this post, lowering tax rates during low ue times is very often a GOOD THING.
2, The ue rate was still going down in 97 and 98 as a result of the impacts of earlier stimulus. If you understood stimulus, it is EXPECTED that when you do a stimulus, it will have impact for years to come. And this one did.
3. That .4% ue rate decrease was pretty substantial when starting with an already very low rate. After the cap gains went into effect in July of 98, over the next year and a half, the ue rate continued down another 1.5%. All of which proves nothing, of course, unless you like to believe what pretty much ONLY the bat shit crazy con tool sites would like us to believe, which was that the whole Clinton economic success, and certainly his deficits, were the result of a cap gains tax reduction that went into effect over the last 18 months of his term. Only the bat shit crazy con web sites and you, Amazon, push that idea.

I can't understand any of this. It's a good thing I don't have to respond to any of this drivel because I have already proved that you were lying the first time about went the Capital Gains Cuts were enacted. So this makes your entire point irrelevant.

Here you go, again, Amazon, an actual real impartial source.
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

That's a blog. Not an impartial website. You might as well cite a source from Rachal Maddow's website or Paul Krugman's blog. I least I know what I'm getting into when I visit his blog...

But keep plugging it. I'm sure you'll even convince me that it's impartial if you try hard enough.

Right. The timeline for the .com bubble is questionable, but most believe it started at around the same time as Amazon.com got it's start, in 1994. The impact on the market was later, of course. During the clinton term, the ue rate fell from 7.4% at the beginning of his term, to 3.9% at the end. And no real difference resulted from the cap gains tax cut at all. Only the far, far right try to push that concept.

Asset bubbles don't start as soon as a company or IPO establishes. That's beyond dumb. And if most people believe the boom started in 1990 they would be wrong because it started in 1997.

The dot-com bubble (also referred to as the dot-com boom, the Internet bubble and the Information Technology Bubble[1]) was a historic speculative bubble covering roughly 1997–2000 (with a climax on March 10, 2000, with the NASDAQ peaking at 5132.52 in intraday trading before closing at 5048.62) during which stock markets in industrialized nations saw their equity value rise rapidly from growth in the Internet sector and related fields.

Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GDP grew faster than for any but three other presidents during his term. By the way, before you go breathlessly checking who the higher two were, they were Truman and LBJ as I recall. And yes, you would be so happy to see that Regan came in at a strong 4th.
The Clinton economy, in charts.

Irrelevant information.

Really. I assume you are talking about the DaveManual.com sit. Hardly a personal website.

DaveManual.com is Dave Manual's personal website, twit. Notice that his name is also on his website address and all of his information about himself is listed there.

DaveManual is one of the most respected and know impartial sites on the web. And, if you care to get at the numbers for the time period you want, that should be your source. The numbers from this site, for ue, for example, are from the bls site. Jesus, Tanya. Do you just normally talk to stupid people.

Dave Manual is a blogger. Not an economist, not a statistian, but a blogger. You do realize you are admitting that you are such a hack that you don't get your facts from primary or secondary statistics websites, but internet blogs? And somehow you are proud of that. I thought you were a bigger joke before.

But here is the deal. If you care to find a place which I misquoted numbers from DaveManual, let me know and I will check it out. If I or he (it would not be he) was wrong, I would actually apologize. As in admit my mistake. Which is a novel idea for con tools.

I didn't say you misquoted numbers. I said your own source refutes you, as you have claimed that 5% is low unemployment and your source says otherwise.

Sorry, Tanya, if you EVER PAID ANY ATTENTION TO A SIMPLE ECONOMICS CLASS, you would understand why economists see under 6% is acceptable and under 5% is low.

Your English is so bad, you don't even understand that you said the same thing that I said.

Hey, according to our own website 5% unemployment is not low. If anything, it's average. The lowest average unemployment was 2% and the highest average was 9%. I'm assuming you can do basic math. Then you'll understand the difference between low unemployment and just, eh, average.

Unemployment was 5.5%. That's not low. That's average. Low Unemployment is anywhere from 2 - 4% because that is below average.

Seriously, I say that 5% is average and anything under is considered low. You say I'm wrong, then you end up saying the exact same things that I have already said. There aren't enough adjectives to describe how dumb you are...

You see, they are not so blatantly stupid as to consider the MEAN UE RATE as anthing to consider in determining where low starts. Jesus, you are ignorant. So, by your assessment, if the historic rate was 15% and it got down to 10.9%, then you would say 10.9% would be low???? Jesus, what can one say.

Yes, they do. If the average historical unemployment has been 15% then anything under 15% is considered low. It doesn't matter what you personally believe low is. Unfortunately for you, math and statistical data doesn't care what your personal opinions are.

Again, you still don't understand how an unemployment rate is calculated:

Unemployed / Labour Force * 100 = Unemployment Rate​

Unless you consider the historical labour force participation rate, there is no way to know what is consider normally low, average or high. Some countries (like Singapore) have an unemployment rate of 1% and have had unemployment rates as high as 5%. 3% is their historical average, but according to your faulty logical their unemployment rate has never been high.

The unemployment rate is always taken into account in regards to it's labour force and this is always take into consideration with it's population. This is what an unemployment rate is, and this is how an unemployment rate is calculated. But how can you possibly understand something so basic from an Econ 101 lesson. Google is the extent of your economic text book and you use a blogger's website for statistical data. Again, what a joke.

Now now now tanya. You continue to ignore what I have said. No economist , nor I, would say that a tax decrease when the ue rate was low is a bad thing. And the tax decrease in the 1986 bill was during times of LOW UE.

LMAO! Too Funny! So now 7.5% is now low unemployment? Keep in mind, the historical average is still 5%, and you yourself consider it average (or 'acceptable' are the words you have used):

Sorry, Tanya, if you EVER PAID ANY ATTENTION TO A SIMPLE ECONOMICS CLASS, you would understand why economists see under 6% is acceptable and under 5% is low.

So which is it? Is 7.5 low unemployment or is 4% low unemployment? Your coherency is so screwed up, you don't even know what you are trying to say.

Remember, Tanya, as I have proven to you, the ue rate had gone from 7.3% when reagan passed his first major tax decreas, to 10.8% in November of 1982, That was the HIGHEST RATE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. And that rate had gone up at a regular rate from the implimentation of his tax decreases. The tax bill of 86 was passed when the UE rate was at 7.1%, and dropping rapidly.

No, after the first tax cut nothing happened to the unemployment rate. The unemployment surged after the Fed Funds rate was increased to fight off inflation. A natural side effect of tightening the monetary base.

So, were tax increases of help in lowering the ue rate. No, not really. But was the money generated to provide stimulus?? Yes, it was. But more importantly, the money provided by BORROWING which you continue to ignore, was very helpful in allowing stimulative spending. Remember, Reagan tripled the national debt and borrowed more than all presidents before him COMBINED!! And he started those two things, AFTER the first tax decrease did not do as we were lead to believe. And ue went up and the deficit went up.

And that did nothing. All of the economic growth which occurred happened when Reagan decreased spending in those financial quarters. You are wrong again, and reality disagrees with you.

And Government spending in relation to job growth? Practically non-existant.

Sorry, but once again reality disagrees with you.

That is when supply side economics went out the window, me poor ignorant money changer. Except the 86 tax decrease, which set up Bush 1 for a single term.

Supply Side is more than just tax cuts. There are actually four pillars involved with the concept and Reagan hardly implemented two of them. Couldn't be bother to Google that, I guess. Then that would mean you would have effectively learned something.

What you do, as do all con tools, is concentrate on gdp and try to cherry pick dates.

I didn't mention GDP not once. I only mentioned it in the last paragraph to show you that this stimulus that you believe was so great had no significant effect on the economy, and even less on job growth. GDP has either contracted slightly or remained stagnant during the quarters federal spending increased. And Federal Spending hardly had any relationship with job growth at all.

And generally, you can find no support for what you are saying. No impartial sources.

I can. But that is not my idea of a debate. I formulate my own thesis and support it with data, which I have done on many occasions. You just say whatever that comes to mind, state it as a fact and hope people will treat it as such. You clearly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

But, oddly enough, you do criticize my sources though you should know that they are completely impartial. Now, if we look at your very own source, created by you, we should believe them??: We should have no doubt that it is completely impartial?? Jesus, you are a clown.

Lets compare and constast the sources you have used:

You used DaveManual.com. Which is a blog. Not a primary source for data. An online blog. You have also used the Washington Post, an online newspaper. Again, not a data collecting website.

I, on the other hand, have used the St. Louis Federal Reserve website. A data collecting website, by not only financial bloggers but by economist and others in the financial industry. Even Paul Krugman uses it.

And yes, I have taken the time to create my own charts as there are limitations to using the charts provided on the Federal Reserve website. When I use their website, I can't write the text or draw arrows on their website. But one of the features are that I can download the data and create my own charts.

There is nothing questionable about the charts I create when I use the data from a statistical source. There is something questionable when someone links a blogger's website and passes it on as statistical fact. Guess which actualyl looks more credible.

I'll give you a hint. It's not you.

Sorry, the first tax decrease happened in Feb of 1981, the month after Reagans inaguration. It went into affect in Feb of that year, and started a string of increases in the deficit and the ue that went on to the peak at the end of 82. About 20 months of ue increases to 10.9%. Tax increases and borrowing started toward the beginning of 82, when it became obvious the problem was a big deal.

Showcasing more of that dreadful history. The first tax decrease happened in August, not February. As if it wasn't apparent enough that you were making things up, I can even get the history channel to verify.

Aug 13, 1981:
Reagan signs Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA)

Reagan signs Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) ? History.com This Day in History ? 8/13/1981

It went into affect in Feb of that year, and started a string of increases in the deficit and the ue that went on to the peak at the end of 82.

Bad history is once again bad. The Government brought in more revenue in 1982 than it did in 1981, but brought in less revenue than it did in 1983 than it did in 1982. This is nominal terms AND as a percentage of GDP...

From the CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/historicaltables[1].pdf

Tax Revenue

1980: $517.1B
1981: $599.3B
1982: $617.8B
1983: $600.6B
1984: $666.4B

Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP:

1980: 19%
1981: 19.6%
1982: 19.2%
1983: 17.5%
1984: 17.3%
1985: 17.7%
1986: 17.5
1987: 18.4%
1988: 18.2%

Why did I highlight these in different colours? Well do outline which years were the years of tax cuts and which were the years of tax increases. Now you are not really great with history, so just so you know the years highlighted in green are the tax cut years. The years highlighted in red? You figure it out...

About 20 months of ue increases to 10.9%. Tax increases and borrowing started toward the beginning of 82, when it became obvious the problem was a big deal.

The Government is always borrowing. You're too inept to understand that when a deficit happens, the Government has to borrow the remaining balance. Either from the public or foreign investors. Are you really trying debate political matters without understanding how debt works? And again with the bad history, the spending started as soon as Reagan took office. During his first year, Outlays as a percentage of GDP increased by a full percent.

Outlays:

1980: $590.9B
1981: $678.2B
1982: $745.7B
1983: $808.4B
1984: $851.8B
1985: $946.3B

And next time try not to use your very own charts. They are not worth the time to vet.

This is why I created my own charts, because you make up history as you go along. If you are not going to take the time to verify your own nonsense, don't even try.

So again, to clarify the actual facts, the tax increases happened before the unemployment increased dramatically. The spending (which has been going on since the beginning of Regan's first term) did nothing to slow unemployment. Government Outlays even increased almost $100 between the years of 1984 and 1985, and did nothing to the unemployment rate which was still at 7.5% (which you don't believe is high, now apparently).

Spending did nothing. Tax increases did nothing. The unemployment did not shrink until taxes were lowered in 1986.

And, once again, I did not ever say that tax increases are stimulative. They are not. You continue to say that I have said they are, proving your dishonesty. What I did say is that tax increases can provide revenue for stimulus. And have. And you showed nothing that you say you have. Tax decreases from 81 for Reagan were far from stimulative.

I never said they were either. Funny, how you end up doing the very same thing you accuse me of doing.

He said they would be. They were, however, just the opposite. Lead to deficits and the second highest ue rate in our history.

Well, he is a politician...

And, your attempt to say that Clinton's stimulus spending using tax revenue from his tax increases did not help the ue rate and the economy in general just does not pass the giggle test.

It passes the reality test though.

Yes, you have to love that stimulus. Especially when the spending keeps decreasing and decreasing. And just in case you try to make something up, here it is from an annual perspective.

Yeah, and that balanced budget? Also the result of stimulus, right? I'm convinced you will say anything you want in a sad attempt to prove a point, regardless of history or facts.

Right, my poor economic illiterate. Your points come from one place, and one place only. That is the bat shit crazy con tool sites that all of your points are pushed.

The Federal Reserve?

Clinton's cap gains tax decrease law of 97 is a classic. Every bat shit crazy con tool site is trying to make them THE reason for the success of Clinton's term. But you can find no economists backing that concept up.

I'm not even sure you can name a single economist without taking the time to look it up. Let alone actually be familiar with another economist's work.

Relative to my background in economics, I have plenty. Collegiate and working time. And lots of research just for the fun of it. If you are going to try to sell me that stock brokers do a lot of econ research, forget it. I have known my share, and most are totally ignorant of economics. But, good try....Well, not really. Stupid try.

I really hope that you are not saying that with a straight face. Well you are bound to fool someone. Getting their economic data from a personal blog instead of a statistical economic source... Yeah, lots of people in the economic profession do it. Felix Salom, Paul Krugman, Zero Hedge.

What a joke.

 

[Rshermr]

You see, tax increases only effect the economy after they take effect.

of course thats not true, people are reacting to Obamacare taxes long before they actually have to pay the taxes, and of course Smoot Hawley is widely thought of as a cause of the Great Depression even though it did not take effect until after the Depression had begun. You see, dear, people have what we call in economics "rational expectations"! Why not look it up??

Slow??

Perhaps you can show an actual source, as in an impartial one, that says the economy is reacting to the affordable care act in any measurable way. Assuming you can get your head out of the bat shit crazy con web sites. You know, actual impartial sources, like, oh, say, the cbo.

 

[AmazonTania]

Perhaps you can show an actual source, as in an impartial one, that says the economy is reacting to the affordable care act in any measurable way.

The average growth rate in Full-Time employment since the Affordable Healthcare was 0.35%.

But the average growth rate in Part-Time employment since then is 0.9%.

Why exactly is Part-Time employment growing at a much rather rate than Full-Time? Could it have anything to do with the fact that employers with 50 a more full-time employees (Full-time categorized as usually 30 or more hours a week, not 35 or more as outlined by the BLS) will be forced to provide their employees health care?

As a result, part-time employment as been on a long-term upward trend.

Assuming you can get your head out of the bat shit crazy con web sites. You know, actual impartial sources, like, oh, say, the cbo.

What? All of a sudden DaveManual.com is not an impartial website anymore? It's funny how you never sourced your information from the CBO once. Now all of a sudden you have standards when it comes to citing your sources.

I guess we can add goalpost shiftier to your list of deficiencies: Comprehending, English Gammar, Researching, Economic understanding. Basically, being a competent human being.

 

[MikeK]

Don't know how old you are, but other people WERE there! Before Bill Gates, there were at least a half dozen companies producing both computers for home use, and operating systems. Gates developed a stable user-friendly OS that more consumers liked, than what was available from competitors, and this is how free market capitalism works. Bill Gates didn't invent computers, or operating systems, he had a lot of competition from some pretty big players, but he had a product that was superior and the consumer responded.

[...]

I have no argument with all that. In fact, let's go all the way back to UNIVAC -- and stay with me this time.

The microcomputer was coming. It was a matter of time and incremental development. In the same way as electricity was discovered with a key, a kite, and a lightning storm, it was Edison who finally made a light bulb. Now look what we have. And each step along the way, from telegraph, to light bulbs, to radios, to trolley cars and television, and on and on, each step of the way someone standing on the shoulders of the previous stage of development in the field of electricity produced something which entitled him to fame and fortune, which I have no problem with.

My problem is with the size of the fortunes some of these innovators (and schemers) end up hoarding. Unless some limitation is imposed this very obvious flaw in the capitalist system manifests as a malignancy. Because in order for the capitalist system to continue functioning properly it is critically important that its revenue, its lifeblood, continues to circulate -- much like the blood in a healthy living organism.

This fact was demonstrated in the phenomenal economic growth that took place during the decades between the late 1940s and the early 1980s, which came about partly because of the redistribution of wealth enabled by FDR's WPA and CCC programs and partly by the increase in wages brought about by the Union Movement. Redistribution = Circulation = Growth.

Beginning with Reaganomics, which is the same kind of Milton Friedman-style supply side, "trickle down" scam (which commenced the collapse of the Chilean economy in 1973), we have watched the accumulated wealth of the super-rich consistently rise to record levels while the wages and assets of the working class have stagnated and are being consistently reduced. The obvious consequence of this abnormal imbalance is diminished circulation. A kind of economic cancer.

The super-rich have managed to bribe our Congress to regulate, de-regulate, arrange and re-arrange the mechanism of our economic engine in ways that accommodate their interests. The money that should be flowing through the arteries, veins, and capillaries of our economy is being hoarded, much of it in offshore accounts. And if this situation continues there is only one way it can turn out, which is our America becoming a third-world extension of Mexico, inhabited by a moneyed aristocracy and an impoverished peasantry.

Because that is the way "free market" (laissez faire) capitalism works!

 

[Rshermr]

So, tanya, worrying about making sure everyone understands the cap gains tax (because she wants everyone to believe what she would like to believe) says:

According to the Tax Foundation source you are lying about, if your marginal income is 39.6% and you have held your assets for more than 5 years, your capital gains taxes are 20%. This is under May 7th, 1997. No where does it say that these cuts went into effect in 1998. So congratulations, you've been outed as a liar. And it must be really pathetic to take an online debate so far that you actually have to lie about the evidence presented to you. Come on. It's not that serious.

OK, for some portion of the assets that have been owned for over a year, you are correct. My mistake. Tax deductions are far from my specialty. But the real point remains, that would have, and did have very little impact on the economy, according to any impartial source I have ever read. But again, every bat shit crazy web site would try to tell you that it did. find me a source that is impartial that explains why it did, and I will be impressed. Otherwise, your simply pasting data that is largely immaterial.

Quote:
Now, now, amazon. Economists do not look at ue rates much over a short, say 4 month period.
Yes, they do. A 4 month period is equal to that of a financial quarter and GDP is recorded on a quarterly basis. Sorry, reality disagrees with you.


Look at in terms that it means much, dipshit. Of course economists look at the ue as often as they get new numbers, but they do not take short periods of time to seriously consider the numbers for determining projections. A four month period is interesting, but not particularly helpful in understanding the trend, and in looking at what is causing what.

Quote:
But for your understanding, since you seem incapable of telling the truth, the ue rate went from 5.3% in Feb. of 1997 go 4.9% in May of that year. Now, as a simple money changer you may not understand the following, but try to understand that I said:
1. Lowering tax rates during times of low ue does not have any real effect on the ue rate. Now, what you need to understand is that the ue rate was at exactly 4.3% when this simple cap gains rate increase occurred. That would have had absolutely NO impact on my statement. As I have said before in this post, lowering tax rates during low ue times is very often a GOOD THING.
2, The ue rate was still going down in 97 and 98 as a result of the impacts of earlier stimulus. If you understood stimulus, it is EXPECTED that when you do a stimulus, it will have impact for years to come. And this one did.
3. That .4% ue rate decrease was pretty substantial when starting with an already very low rate. After the cap gains went into effect in July of 98, over the next year and a half, the ue rate continued down another 1.5%. All of which proves nothing, of course, unless you like to believe what pretty much ONLY the bat shit crazy con tool sites would like us to believe, which was that the whole Clinton economic success, and certainly his deficits, were the result of a cap gains tax reduction that went into effect over the last 18 months of his term. Only the bat shit crazy con web sites and you, Amazon, push that idea.

I can't understand any of this. It's a good thing I don't have to respond to any of this drivel because I have already proved that you were lying the first time about went the Capital Gains Cuts were enacted. So this makes your entire point irrelevant.
I am not surprised that you can not. Though maybe it is that you choose not to.
Because if you could find an actual impartial source that believes the drivel you are espousing, then it would be interesting



Quote:
Here you go, again, Amazon, an actual real impartial source.
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States
That's a blog. Not an impartial website. You might as well cite a source from Rachal Maddow's website or Paul Krugman's blog. I least I know what I'm getting into when I visit his blog...


But keep plugging it. I'm sure you'll even convince me that it's impartial if you try hard enough.

Here is the problem. You can not convince a con tool of anything. If you do not know of davesmanual.com, sorry for you. Pretty well tells anyone who does economic research that you do not. Here, me con tool. See if this will help:

About Davemanuel.com

About The Site:

Read by over 5,000 people every day
Read by people in over 185 different countries
Davemanuel.com has been referenced by:
New York Times
Washington Post
TheStreet.com
Forbes - 2
PBS.org
Wired.com
DailyKos.com
Yahoo Finance
CNNMoney.com
Telegraph.co.uk
Business Insider
National Review - 2 3
The Daily Beast
Zero Hedge

Mission: To have an online repository of financial and political information that is often searched for but is generally hard to find.

Quote:
Right. The timeline for the .com bubble is questionable, but most believe it started at around the same time as Amazon.com got it's start, in 1994. The impact on the market was later, of course. During the clinton term, the ue rate fell from 7.4% at the beginning of his term, to 3.9% at the end. And no real difference resulted from the cap gains tax cut at all. Only the far, far right try to push that concept.
Asset bubbles don't start as soon as a company or IPO establishes. That's beyond dumb. And if most people believe the boom started in 1990 they would be wrong because it started in 1997.
Jesus, Tanya. Ya suppose so. Do you suppose that Amazon was the first or only .com company in 1994??? Perhaps you have some proof of the 1997 except a very shaky one.
Quote:
The dot-com bubble (also referred to as the dot-com boom, the Internet bubble and the Information Technology Bubble[1]) was a historic speculative bubble covering roughly 1997–2000 (with a climax on March 10, 2000, with the NASDAQ peaking at 5132.52 in intraday trading before closing at 5048.62) during which stock markets in industrialized nations saw their equity value rise rapidly from growth in the Internet sector and related fields.

Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice source. Wikipedia, the EDITABLE on line encyclopedia. Not to knock you a lot, I use it to, but only for a quick check. Then I find sources that back it up, or do not. Especially when the article you are looking at says:
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (July 2012)

I was working in that world at that time, and I hate to tell you, but not many of us there at that time would necessarily agree with 1997, or 1994, or any other date. You are looking at the financial end of things, which did not initially recognize the .com bubble.
Quote:
The dotcom bubble
What was the Dot-com Bubble?
And lots more. It is obvious that things were in high gear since 1994, though you could pick any year and say it was the start. But most do not believe it STARTED as late as 1997.


GDP grew faster than for any but three other presidents during his term. By the way, before you go breathlessly checking who the higher two were, they were Truman and LBJ as I recall. And yes, you would be so happy to see that Regan came in at a strong 4th.
The Clinton economy, in charts.
Irrelevant information to me, but thanks for bring it up nonetheless. GDP from 1993 to 1996
The relevency is that the economy grew year by year by more than for any other president. Not from 1996, or 1997, but as soon as it was nudged by stimulus spending in clinton's first years.



Quote:
Really. I assume you are talking about the DaveManual.com sit. Hardly a personal website.
DaveManual.com is Dave Manual's personal website, twit. Notice that his name is also on his website address and all of his information about himself is listed there.

Quote:
DaveManual is one of the most respected and know impartial sites on the web. And, if you care to get at the numbers for the time period you want, that should be your source. The numbers from this site, for ue, for example, are from the bls site. Jesus, Tanya. Do you just normally talk to stupid people.

Dave Manual is a blogger. Not an economist, not a statistian, but a blogger. You do realize you are admitting that you are such a hack that you don't get your facts from primary or secondary statistics websites, but internet blogs? And somehow you are proud of that. I thought you were a bigger joke before.

Jesus, you are a clown. If you look above, you will see you are among a very few really ignorant people who do not use davemanual and respect it as what it is. Davemanual is not a bolg, but a website. It has links to blogs. Sorry for you. Now, I know that you think that taking numbers from the st louis fed and making charts is really good research. I would prefer to look at the numbers from a source I can trust, not Tanya's charts. Too easy to lie with statistics. I prefer to remove as many of the variables as possible. And you are a variable, as would I be if I were making charts.

Quote:
But here is the deal. If you care to find a place which I misquoted numbers from DaveManual, let me know and I will check it out. If I or he (it would not be he) was wrong, I would actually apologize. As in admit my mistake. Which is a novel idea for con tools.
I didn't say you misquoted numbers. I said your own source refutes you, as you have claimed that 5% is low unemployment and your source says otherwise.

Quote:
Sorry, Tanya, if you EVER PAID ANY ATTENTION TO A SIMPLE ECONOMICS CLASS, you would understand why economists see under 6% is acceptable and under 5% is low.
Your English is so bad, you don't even understand that you said the same thing that I said.

Quote:
Hey, according to our own website 5% unemployment is not low. If anything, it's average. The lowest average unemployment was 2% and the highest average was 9%. I'm assuming you can do basic math. Then you'll understand the difference between low unemployment and just, eh, average.
Quote:
You see, they are not so blatantly stupid as to consider the MEAN UE RATE as anthing to consider in determining where low starts. Jesus, you are ignorant. So, by your assessment, if the historic rate was 15% and it got down to 10.9%, then you would say 10.9% would be low???? Jesus, what can one say.

Unemployment was 5.5%. That's not low. That's average. Low Unemployment is anywhere from 2 - 4% because that is below average.
Seriously, I say that 5% is average and anything under is considered low. You say I'm wrong, then you end up saying the exact same things that I have already said. There aren't enough adjectives to describe how dumb you are...

Yes, they do. If the average historical unemployment has been 15% then anything under 15% is considered low. It doesn't matter what you personally believe low is. Unfortunately for you, math and statistical data doesn't care what your personal opinions are.

Well, lets take a look at ue rates in general, my economic expert:
The highest rate for a single month is shared by November and December of 1982 with an unemployment rate of 10.8%

The year with the highest average unemployment rate was 1982 with an average unemployment rate of 9.71%

The lowest rate for a single month is shared by May and June of 1953 with an unemployment rate of 2.5%

The year with the lowest average unemployment rate was 1953 with an average unemployment rate of 2.93%
From DaveManual, me dear.
Now, in 1948, the rate was under 3% on average for the year, and reached 2.5% for one month. That was a heavily war impacted time, nothing much normal about it.
Since 1970, there have been a total of 7 years where the ue rate has been below 5%.
A brief history of U.S. unemployment - The Washington Post
"a normal unemployment rate is 6 to 7 percent, with anything higher than that considered a high unemployment rate."
What Is a High Unemployment Rate?
Most economists believe we are at full employment when the unemployment rate is between 4 and 6%. This is known as the natural rate of unemployment. This rate changes over time as changes in our economy affect structural unemployment levels.
Chapter 6: Unemployment
Saying that 5% ue is average is interesting. Because it has happened only 8 years over the past 43. So a little hard to believe that you actually think that 5% is average. Only 14 years have been under 6%. Get the drift. That is why economists, in general, believe that an ue under 6% are low. Rates from 6 to 7% are average. During that same 43 year period, about 14 were above 7%.
So, you can say all you want that 5% was an average ue rate. But among those of us from the fact based world, you simply look stupid.


Again, you still don't understand how an unemployment rate is calculated:

Yes I do, but I am sure you are going to provide a painful explanation. Here is the deal, me dear, the blm provides the numbers monthly. So, what is your point???


Unemployed / Labour Force * 100 = Unemployment Rate

Unless you consider the historical labour force participation rate, there is no way to know what is consider normally low, average or high. Some countries (like Singapore) have an unemployment rate of 1% and have had unemployment rates as high as 5%. 3% is their historical average, but according to your faulty logical their unemployment rate has never been high.

The unemployment rate is always taken into account in regards to it's labour force and this is always take into consideration with it's population. This is what an unemployment rate is, and this is how an unemployment rate is calculated. But how can you possibly understand something so basic from an Econ 101 lesson. Google is the extent of your economic text book and you use a blogger's website for statistical data. Again, what a joke.
No, me dear. What you just posted is a joke. We are, I believe, talking about the us ue rate, not that of another country. But, me dear, in addition to the above drivel, there are many other considerations. And we could spend all day. I know you think what you just wrote was smart, but you are truly ignorant about unemployment rates. Jesus, that was stupid.


Quote:
Now now now tanya. You continue to ignore what I have said. No economist , nor I, would say that a tax decrease when the ue rate was low is a bad thing. And the tax decrease in the 1986 bill was during times of LOW UE.
LMAO! Too Funny! So now 7.5% is now low unemployment? Keep in mind, the historical average is still 5%, Only to tanya, who is an economic idiot.and you yourself consider it average (or 'acceptable' are the words you have used):I consider 5% very low. I would consider 6% low. See above, dipshit.

Quote:
Remember, Tanya, as I have proven to you, the ue rate had gone from 7.3% when reagan passed his first major tax decreas, to 10.8% in November of 1982, That was the HIGHEST RATE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. And that rate had gone up at a regular rate from the implimentation of his tax decreases. The tax bill of 86 was passed when the UE rate was at 7.1%, and dropping rapidly.


No, after the first tax cut nothing happened to the unemployment rate. Really. You consider going to 10.8% nothing. Are you saying the ue rate did not rise?????
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

Quote:
So, were tax increases of help in lowering the ue rate. No, not really. But was the money generated to provide stimulus?? Yes, it was. But more importantly, the money provided by BORROWING which you continue to ignore, was very helpful in allowing stimulative spending. Remember, Reagan tripled the national debt and borrowed more than all presidents before him COMBINED!! And he started those two things, AFTER the first tax decrease did not do as we were lead to believe. And ue went up and the deficit went up.
And that did nothing. All of the economic growth which occurred happened when Reagan decreased spending in those financial quarters. You are wrong again, and reality disagrees with you.
Yup. That would be it. Decreasing spending did it. Jesus. What a joke.

And Government spending in relation to job growth? Practically non-existant.
So your charts would say. But then, they are cherry picked, and of no real value.

Sorry, but once again reality disagrees with you.
You have no reality, me dear. Just an intent to rewrite history. Look, you can get plenty of your charts and lie like a rug. Just stay out there among the bat shit crazy web sites, and they will provide your information for you.

Quote:
That is when supply side economics went out the window, me poor ignorant money changer. Except the 86 tax decrease, which set up Bush 1 for a single term.

Supply Side is more than just tax cuts. There are actually four pillars involved with the concept and Reagan hardly implemented two of them. Couldn't be bother to Google that, I guess. Then that would mean you would have effectively learned something.

Jesus, you are a clown. Like Supply Side is so complex. Jesus. Yes, I remember. But the four pillars, meant to be similar to the four pillars of Keynesian economics, were a simplistic set of ideas. Not sure I remember them precisely, but as I recall, lower taxes, decrease the size of gov, reduce gov regulation, and control the money supply to keep inflation low. Did not work, has never worked, and never will work. Which is why you see no universities teaching much of anything about the policy any more, And why the chicago school of economics is about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl these days. It really comes down to cut taxes, which will decrease the size of the gov(assuming you co not borrow), politically kill any gov regulations (which, unfortunately, pisses off the population and gets you and your party thrown out of office). Check how european austerity is working. And get after the fed to tighten the money supply. How damned profound is that.


Quote:
And generally, you can find no support for what you are saying. No impartial sources.

I can. But that is not my idea of a debate. I formulate my own thesis and support it with data, which I have done on many occasions. You just say whatever that comes to mind, state it as a fact and hope people will treat it as such. You clearly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
And there is your major malfunction. You post dubius graphs, state theory, and back it with nothing. Sorry, your analysis is worth nothing to anyone except yourself. There are those out there who have done actual analysis. And that would not include you.

Quote:
But, oddly enough, you do criticize my sources though you should know that they are completely impartial. Now, if we look at your very own source, created by you, we should believe them??: We should have no doubt that it is completely impartial?? Jesus, you are a clown.
Lets compare and constast the sources you have used:

You used DaveManual.com. Which is a blog. Again, my lying con, it is not a blog.Not a primary source for data. An online blog. You have also used the Washington Post, an online newspaper. Again, not a data collecting website.
You have your head so far up your ass trying to protect the con dogma that you have completely lost perspective. Sources that produce data are useful. Sources that provide services to access that data are useful. And sources that analyze that data from an impartial standpoint are highly useful. You see none of this, because you do not provide your actual sources, except the occasional gov agency name. You are simply stupid, not coherent.

I, on the other hand, have used the St. Louis Federal Reserve website. A data collecting website, by not only financial bloggers but by economist and others in the financial industry. Even Paul Krugman uses it.

Good for you, and I have no reason to take anything from your charts. You know you are completely partial. Stupid idea. Stupid sentence.

And yes, I have taken the time to create my own charts as there are limitations to using the charts provided on the Federal Reserve website. When I use their website, I can't write the text or draw arrows on their website. But one of the features are that I can download the data and create my own charts.

There is nothing questionable about the charts I create when I use the data from a statistical source. There is something questionable when someone links a blogger's website and passes it on as statistical fact. Guess which actualyl looks more credible.

I provide sources. Always have. I do not create my own charts and ask you to trust them. Nor do I, like you, create charts that have the timelines I want, and pick the data elements I want to show. Besides, you have given me plenty of reason to not trust you in the slightest. Like the whole effort to prove the Clinton economy was based on a capital gains tax decrease. Jesus, you even provided charts on that one. But you will not even try to find an economist that agrees with you. Funny.


Quote:
Sorry, the first tax decrease happened in Feb of 1981, the month after Reagans inaguration. It went into affect in Feb of that year, and started a string of increases in the deficit and the ue that went on to the peak at the end of 82. About 20 months of ue increases to 10.9%. Tax increases and borrowing started toward the beginning of 82, when it became obvious the problem was a big deal.

And next time try not to use your very own charts. They are not worth the time to vet.

See, this is why I created my own charts because your history is dreadful. This first tax decrease happened in August, not February. As if it wasn't apparent enough that you were making things up, I can even get the history channel to verify.
Yup, you are right. It was August. Long time ago. But the important part of that issue was what happened to ue. Which you claimed was nothing. Which is joke number 2. And yes, I know you say it was the volker problem. Which it partially was. But, the ue rate was coming down, and it then went up like a rocket. August until Dec of the following year.

Quote:
Aug 13, 1981:
Reagan signs Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA)

Reagan signs Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) ? History.com This Day in History ? 8/13/1981
Quote:
It went into affect in Feb of that year, and started a string of increases in the deficit and the ue that went on to the peak at the end of 82.
Bad history is once again bad. The Government brought in more revenue in 1982 than it did in 1981, but brought in less revenue than it did in 1983 than it did in 1982. This is nominal terms AND as a percentage of GDP...
Well, there you go. The Reagan admin had nothing to worry about. Did not need to raise taxes 11 times and Borrow Like Crazy. Maybe they just did not have a problem, as you are trying to say. Which lines up with only one source: The bat shit crazy con web sits. Perfect alignment. Again.

From the CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...storicaltables[1].pdf

Tax Revenue

1980: $517.1B
1981: $599.3B
1982: $617.8B
1983: $600.6B
1984: $666.4B

Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP:

1980: 19%
1981: 19.6%
1982: 19.2%
1983: 17.5%
1984: 17.3%
1985: 17.7%
1986: 17.5
1987: 18.4%
1988: 18.2%

Now, there are the numbers that matter. Did you notice that the percentage dropped from 83 til 86, as a percentage. Now, you may think that they did not know this was coming in 82, but they did, and that started the increase in borrowing. And the hurry to get out tax increases. Then, you forget the whole growth of government thing. Remember, borrowing tripled the national debt during the reagan admin. You kind of miss that point, again, as usual.


Quote:
About 20 months of ue increases to 10.9%. Tax increases and borrowing started toward the beginning of 82, when it became obvious the problem was a big deal.

The Government is always borrowing. You're too inept to understand that when a deficit happens, the Government has to borrow the remaining balance.No, not necessarily. Not, for instance for the last couple years of the Clinton admin. But of course, what you are trying to cover up is the amount of the borrowing. Tripled the national debt, and borrowed more that all of the previous presidents combined. Either from the public or foreign investors. Are you really trying debate political matters without understanding how debt works? No, I have that pretty well down, dipshit. You certainly have a big head, though. And again with the bad history, the spending started as soon as Reagan took office. During his first year, Outlays as a percentage of GDP increased by a full percent. Good for you, tiny mind. You noticed. Pat yourself on the back.

Outlays:

1980: $590.9B
1981: $678.2B
1982: $745.7B
1983: $808.4B
1984: $851.8B
1985: $946.3B

Quote:
And next time try not to use your very own charts. They are not worth the time to vet.
This is why I created my own charts, because you make up history as you go along. If you are not going to take the time to verify your own nonsense, don't even try.

So again, to clarify the actual facts, the tax increases happened before the unemployment increased dramatically.They started, and the borrowing started, as soon as the deficit and ue problem was understood. The spending (which has been going on since the beginning of Regan's first term) did nothing to slow unemployment. Government Outlays even increased almost $100 between the years of 1984 and 1985, and did nothing to the unemployment rate which was still at 7.5% (which you don't believe is high, now apparently). You may notice that the ue rate was 10.9% in late 82. So you would like everyone to believe that the ue rate should have gone down like a rocket as a result of stimulus spending. It NEVER does. Unemployment is always the last indicator to come down. The ue rate dropped by 2% in 1983, about 1% in 1984, about .35 in 1985, and about .1% in 1986, .9% in 1987, and .4% in 1988, and .1% in 1989. So, your great hope, the 1986 tax decrease lowered the rate, if you believe that was all that was going on, by something like 1 to 1.5%

Spending did nothing. Tax increases did nothing. The unemployment did not shrink until taxes were lowered in 1986.
Right. How the hell do you write these statements and look yourself in the mirror. See the above. Must be that damned davemanual site, eh. Or could it be that you are lying again. From its high in dec of 82 until mid 86, the ue rate had dropped by 3% and was still dropping. typical of a stimulus. And was probably still going to keep on dropping as long as gov spending kept on keeping on. The tax decrease did very little Most likely under 1%.

Quote:
And, your attempt to say that Clinton's stimulus spending using tax revenue from his tax increases did not help the ue rate and the economy in general just does not pass the giggle test. Just use the data I provided, and if you think I misquoted, point it out. But I did not misquote. Your statements, me dear, just do not pass the giggle test.
It passes the reality test though.

No, it does not. And sure, I am going to use your graphs. Look at your statements, and how they wash with the actual numbers.



Yes, you have to love that stimulus. Especially when the spending keeps decreasing and decreasing. And just in case you try to make something up, here it is from an annual perspective.

Well, that would make you totally devoid of economic understanding. The spending from any stimulus ALWAYS decreases year after year. You spend as much as possibly early, to generate private employment. Did you expect those stimulus spending numbers to keep going UP??? Never, ever have, and never ever will. Now, that is truly just basic, and I mean basic, logic. I thought you were telling me how smart you were. I am so disappointed.

Yeah, and that balanced budget? Also the result of stimulus, right? I'm convinced you will say anything you want in a sad attempt to prove a point, regardless of history or facts.
It was the result of a strong economy. And low unemployment. And a .com bubble. And the alignment of the sun. The spending helped. Though you will never admit it. Because you are a con tool.

Quote:
Right, my poor economic illiterate. Your points come from one place, and one place only. That is the bat shit crazy con tool sites that all of your points are pushed.
The Federal Reserve?
You can get all sorts of distorted analysis using fed reserve numbers from the bat shit crazy con web sites. As I am sure you know.

Quote:
Clinton's cap gains tax decrease law of 97 is a classic. Every bat shit crazy con tool site is trying to make them THE reason for the success of Clinton's term. But you can find no economists backing that concept up.
I'm not even sure you can name a single economist without taking the time to look it up. Let alone actually be familiar with another economist's work.That would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.

Really funny thing, one of my fishing buddies is an economist. I'll have to tell him I do not know him.

Quote:
Relative to my background in economics, I have plenty. Collegiate and working time. And lots of research just for the fun of it. If you are going to try to sell me that stock brokers do a lot of econ research, forget it. I have known my share, and most are totally ignorant of economics. But, good try....Well, not really. Stupid try.
I really hope that you are not saying that with a straight face. Well you are bound to fool someone. Linking economic data from a personal blog. Hopefully, you do not believe that it is a blog. If so, look up blog and try again. And if you would like to put some money up that I can not produce a ba in econ, let me know. Lets see if you have any backbone.


And yes you are a joke.

 

[Rshermr]

Perhaps you can show an actual source, as in an impartial one, that says the economy is reacting to the affordable care act in any measurable way.

The average growth rate in Full-Time employment since the Affordable Healthcare was 0.35%.

But the average growth rate in Part-Time employment since then is 0.9%.

Why exactly is Part-Time employment growing at a much rather rate than Full-Time? Could it have anything to do with the fact that employers with 50 a more full-time employees (Full-time categorized as usually 30 or more hours a week, not 35 or more as outlined by the BLS) will be forced to provide their employees health care?

As a result, part-time employment as been on a long-term upward trend.

Assuming you can get your head out of the bat shit crazy con web sites. You know, actual impartial sources, like, oh, say, the cbo.

What? All of a sudden DaveManual.com is not an impartial website anymore? It's funny how you never sourced your information from the CBO once. Now all of a sudden you have standards when it comes to citing your sources.

I guess we can add goalpost shiftier to your list of deficiencies: Comprehending, English Gammar, Researching, Economic understanding. Basically, being a competent human being.

Wow. Ed need some help? You said you were not a con. One more piece of proof that you are a liar. Teaming with the biggest con on the board. Who posts for money. Wonder, now, do you also do the post for money gig. You sure seem to have unlimited time. Really, Amazon, you can come out of the closet. Anyone can tell that you are a con tool Written all over everything you write. Makes you a liar. No way you could mistake having said you were not a con, when you know fully well you are. Sad.

So, here is Amazon (or whatever) with a slew of numbers that she has gleaned. Waste of time. Do not isolate or even address the meaningful variables. Wonder where Amazon got them. HMMMM.

Then she chimes in with this:

What? All of a sudden DaveManual.com is not an impartial website anymore?

Now that is a really stupid question. They are indeed impartial, as you well know. But if you are looking for analysis to dig the estimates out of the economic numbers, you do not use either a numbers provider, or a tool provider. You look to actual analysts. The above by you provides the reason why. Your charts are completely worthless. You have attributed variables to variables without having any idea of which variables are causative. No idea of chicken or egg. Funny. the CBO has a team of economists and analysts looking at various economic issues, but they may not have even tried to project this one. But Amazon, why, look at her go. Jesus, you are stupid.

And, me poor money changer, what you do not understand is that I have often used the CBO. Not home made charts. So, with you we spend time looking at your home made charts which have no credibility at all. You actually would compare yourself with a highly respected site like davemanual, which you are apparently too ignorant to even know of. Yea, that is it. I will look toward your charts for proof. To hell with using actual gov numbers provided by a well respected site. Jesus h. christ you are an idiot.

Here is a piece with cbo quotes relative to unemployment increases or decreases as a result of the aca:

"The CBO knocks down the Republican claim that the health care legislation passed last year is a "job-killer." The CBPP explains:

No Evidence for House Republican Charge that Health Reform Is a “Job-Killer”, by Chad Stone and Paul N. Van de Water: Health reform will change the American economy in many ways over the next few decades, but it will not significantly change the number of jobs or the unemployment rate. A nonpartisan economic assessment by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds a variety of possible labor market effects, some positive and some negative, but nothing that justifies the inflammatory “job-killing” rhetoric invoked in House Republicans’ efforts to repeal the legislation.
House Republican claims that the legislation (the Affordable Care Act) is a “job-killer” imply that health reform measures will be a major drag on the economy because they will allegedly increase employers’ costs. But these claims are not supported by evidence, and they are at odds with leading non-partisan assessments of how health reform legislation will affect the economy and labor markets. ...
Unlike House Republicans’ claims that health reform is a “job killer,” CBO’s assessment that health reform will have only modest effects (both positive and negative) on U.S. labor markets is based on an examination of the evidence. ..."
Economist's View: The CBO Rebuts Republican Claims About the Affordable Care Act

From a negative standpoint, it will take a lot of folks out of the workforce for obvious reasons. That is that many americans, likely in the millions, work to have insurance. Many will now be able to quit a job to find new employment or to start their own business. Others may quit and await retirement. But the numbers are obviously hard to estimate.

So, I have found no report on ue and the aca that is recent. Though I have not given it a lot of time.

But one thing is for sure
At this point there is NO ESTIMATE OF JOB DECREASES RESULTING FROM THE ACA TO THIS POINT IN TIME. Sorry, ed, and Amazon, but that accusation is just plain stupid. Wonder where it is coming from. And, Amazon, makes your charts look really, really stupid. A team of economists and analysts finds nothing. But look at amazon and her laptop. Sorry, once again just does not pass the giggle test.

 

[Boss]

Don't know how old you are, but other people WERE there! Before Bill Gates, there were at least a half dozen companies producing both computers for home use, and operating systems. Gates developed a stable user-friendly OS that more consumers liked, than what was available from competitors, and this is how free market capitalism works. Bill Gates didn't invent computers, or operating systems, he had a lot of competition from some pretty big players, but he had a product that was superior and the consumer responded.

[...]

My problem is with the size of the fortunes some of these innovators (and schemers) end up hoarding.

Mike, I am only going to quote the relevant parts of your posts, I don't need to give your propaganda links any more publicity than you are giving, and it's really only rhetoric, so I want to stay focused on the topic here.

It's funny that Bill Gates name popped up yesterday, did you know that yesterday was Internet Tidal Wave Day? (Actually, I think it is the 26th, and someone had the date wrong on Facebook) Anyhoo.. This is the date Bill Gates sent a memo to all employees of Microsoft, informing them an Internet Tidal Wave was coming, they had missed it, and were going to have to catch up. The memo described Netscape with their Netscape Navigator as a "new competitor 'born' on the Internet." The memo outlines Microsoft's failure to grasp the Internet's importance, and in it Gates assigns "the Internet this highest level of importance" from then on. Microsoft began to expand its product line into computer networking and the World Wide Web.

The success of Gates and Microsoft, is traced back to this moment. This was the defining step that made both Gates and Microsoft very wealthy. Again, they didn't screw people over, they didn't cheat the system, they weren't "schemers" or criminals. Their key to success was a vision by a CEO, and the drive and ambition to make that vision happen.

Now what is really interesting, in a 2007 interview, Gates said that if he had to build Microsoft again today, it would not be possible. There have been so many regulations and restrictions placed on their industry, it simply wouldn't be possible to repeat what they did in today's business environment. From investment capital, down to product distribution, the Federal government has their hand in it all, and this stifles progress of capitalists.

If an innovator comes up with a revolutionary idea, something that will change the world forever... how much money should they get? Something that will save others trillions of hours and dollars over time, that will be used and benefited from today and forever... how many dollars is "fair" in your honest opinion? What about someone who creates a movie that will be watched for generations? How many dollars should they get for that? Other people, distributors and theaters, publishers and producers, are all going to continue making money for years and years to come, but what should the artist get? How about the poor unknown artist who sells street paintings, should they not also be compensated "fairly" for their art? Shouldn't they be entitled to the same kind of deal as the movie star? Hey, we have to make wealth earning "fair" right? So where does your plan lead us? Because, it looks like where it leads, is to some politician or government bureaucrats, making an arbitrary decision on what is "fair" at any given time, based on their "profound" wisdom and insight.

YOU shouldn't get to decide what is or isn't "fair" for someone else to make.... EVER!

 

[Rshermr]

Don't know how old you are, but other people WERE there! Before Bill Gates, there were at least a half dozen companies producing both computers for home use, and operating systems. Gates developed a stable user-friendly OS that more consumers liked, than what was available from competitors, and this is how free market capitalism works. Bill Gates didn't invent computers, or operating systems, he had a lot of competition from some pretty big players, but he had a product that was superior and the consumer responded.

[...]

My problem is with the size of the fortunes some of these innovators (and schemers) end up hoarding.

Mike, I am only going to quote the relevant parts of your posts, I don't need to give your propaganda links any more publicity than you are giving, and it's really only rhetoric, so I want to stay focused on the topic here.

It's funny that Bill Gates name popped up yesterday, did you know that yesterday was Internet Tidal Wave Day? (Actually, I think it is the 26th, and someone had the date wrong on Facebook) Anyhoo.. This is the date Bill Gates sent a memo to all employees of Microsoft, informing them an Internet Tidal Wave was coming, they had missed it, and were going to have to catch up. The memo described Netscape with their Netscape Navigator as a "new competitor 'born' on the Internet." The memo outlines Microsoft's failure to grasp the Internet's importance, and in it Gates assigns "the Internet this highest level of importance" from then on. Microsoft began to expand its product line into computer networking and the World Wide Web.

The success of Gates and Microsoft, is traced back to this moment. This was the defining step that made both Gates and Microsoft very wealthy. Again, they didn't screw people over, they didn't cheat the system, they weren't "schemers" or criminals. Their key to success was a vision by a CEO, and the drive and ambition to make that vision happen.

Now what is really interesting, in a 2007 interview, Gates said that if he had to build Microsoft again today, it would not be possible. There have been so many regulations and restrictions placed on their industry, it simply wouldn't be possible to repeat what they did in today's business environment. From investment capital, down to product distribution, the Federal government has their hand in it all, and this stifles progress of capitalists.

If an innovator comes up with a revolutionary idea, something that will change the world forever... how much money should they get? Something that will save others trillions of hours and dollars over time, that will be used and benefited from today and forever... how many dollars is "fair" in your honest opinion? What about someone who creates a movie that will be watched for generations? How many dollars should they get for that? Other people, distributors and theaters, publishers and producers, are all going to continue making money for years and years to come, but what should the artist get? How about the poor unknown artist who sells street paintings, should they not also be compensated "fairly" for their art? Shouldn't they be entitled to the same kind of deal as the movie star? Hey, we have to make wealth earning "fair" right? So where does your plan lead us? Because, it looks like where it leads, is to some politician or government bureaucrats, making an arbitrary decision on what is "fair" at any given time, based on their "profound" wisdom and insight.

YOU shouldn't get to decide what is or isn't "fair" for someone else to make.... EVER!

You do not know microsoft well. Or you are completely unable to admit that any company could be a preditary monopolistic organization. That Microsoft did many things well is obvious. On the other hand, they have released some of the worst software known to man.
The problem stems from something that you will never, ever admit. Bill Gates developed an os for IBM (pc dos) and then went to court and got ownership of it. It was not what IBM had in mind. They trusted gates. Never a good idea. That software, of course, led to a number of other os's, all of which worked only on intel 8080 based systems. Not great systems, but they had the price point, particularly as all the companies that began making intel based pc's and laptops.

So, some really good software like WordPerfect came along. Much better than word. But, Microsoft OWNED THE OS. So, microsoft could integrate word with the os, making for a number of really neat features. And, MS could put a bunch of developers and copy the features of the competitors. And they did. And WordPerfect was gone within a year or two. Then there was NETSCAPE. By far the leader in the web browser area, from the aspects of features and sales. But gone for the same reasons as WordPerfect.
Then there was Lotus 123. Same story. Best Spreadsheat software by far at the time. Same issues as WordPerfect and Netscape. Though the product still exists, it nearly went out of business and is now owned by IBM as a tiny fraction of it's original self.
So, here is the thing. No con worth his own salt will ever admit that monopoly is a bad thing. So instead, we deal with really, really inferior software as compared with what we could have, at higher prices, than we do today. We see companies that face completely unfair competition. And we loose the opportunity to purchase products that would have been much better. And no, you can not still go out and buy an old version of software from company Z, because you can no longer get support.

So, that is why the antitrust case against MS found MS guilty. However, when Bush 1 came into power, that finding was overturned. But most of the rest of the world has a much different outlook, and does regulate MS. But then, why would we ever look at the rest of the world.

 

[Boss]

No con worth his own salt will ever admit that monopoly is a bad thing. So instead, we deal with really, really inferior software as compared with what we could have, at higher prices, than we do today.

Nonsense. First of all, there was certainly no monopoly, you said yourself, there were all these other companies producing software. You've neutered your own propaganda. Furthermore, there are other softwares available at a higher price, just pop down to the Apple store!

But now... we're getting away from the topic. Where is the example of a Socialist OS and software to rival Microsoft or Apple? What? There isn't one? You mean, some socialist entrepreneur never rolled out anything to compete with the greedy capitalist pigs?

 

[georgephillip]

No con worth his own salt will ever admit that monopoly is a bad thing. So instead, we deal with really, really inferior software as compared with what we could have, at higher prices, than we do today.

Nonsense. First of all, there was certainly no monopoly, you said yourself, there were all these other companies producing software. You've neutered your own propaganda. Furthermore, there are other softwares available at a higher price, just pop down to the Apple store!

But now... we're getting away from the topic. Where is the example of a Socialist OS and software to rival Microsoft or Apple? What? There isn't one? You mean, some socialist entrepreneur never rolled out anything to compete with the greedy capitalist pigs?

No Microsoft monopoly?

"Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, RealNetworks, Linux, and others.[13]

"Judgment was split in two parts. On April 3, 2000, he issued his conclusions of law, according to which Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft immediately appealed the decision."

United States v. Microsoft Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia