Overpaid CEOs and Greedy Capitalists.. oh my!

[Rshermr]

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?

Wow. I am surprised that a self expressed ceo that you do not know that there is no such thing as a pure, or complete, monopoly in the us, with the exception of a few specific cases of "natural monopolies". So of course microsoft could not be a true monopoly. It would be, you see, Boss, ILLEGAL. So, you probably need to go educate yourself to understand. See if you can use the google to look up monopoly, natural monopoly, and most importantly, MONOPOLY POWER. Then if you wanted to get an actual clue, you could look up what antitrust legislation is (was) about.
But then, Boss, you always pass the Koch test in every issue. All I have to do to understand what you would say about an issue, is think what the Koch interests would be. And there you are. Smack on every time.

Other softwares?? The plural of software is software. But no, you see, if you are working with an apple, and you want word processing or spreadsheet, you will be buying Microsoft word or excel. That is how things happen when you kill the small companies. They can not afford the cost to develop for another and much less prevalent os. But then, any ceo should recognize that. Just think about it for a minute.

Relative to what the other countries are doing, (funny you seem to think they are all socialist countries. They do not. But then, they do not think they are ceo's either). The laptop users are mostly MS Windows. The simple truth is, if you are a developer, you must develop for the largest market. That means the US, and since most foreign companies deal with the US, they tend to use whatever the US uses. Word files open on both sides of the pond, excel files the same.

So, now I am getting beyond my knowledge. I know that never bothers you, but it does me. So I will move over for someone more technical and up to date. Last time I knew, unix was big in europe, and Linux was growing fast. Are there european companies making computers and software. Jesus, now there is another really profound question. The answer is yes, boss, there are european sw and hw makers.. Again, you may want to try the google. Then you could ask an actual rational question. And perhaps you would not sound so much like someone following the Koch's around with your nose stuck firmly up their ass.

 

[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?

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

Wooops... You forgot some details!

On September 26, 2000, after Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact,[13] the plaintiffs (to save time) attempted to send Microsoft's appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal and sent the case to a federal appeals court.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because the Appellate court had adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" under which the Remedies could be taken, and also partly due to the embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges.[17] Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case.[18]
Judge Jackson's response to this was that Microsoft's conduct itself was the cause of any "perceived bias"; Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."[19] However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was chosen to hear the case.
The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.[20]

Ergo: No monopoly.

 

[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?

Wow. I am surprised that a self expressed ceo that you do not know that there is no such thing as a pure, or complete, monopoly in the us, with the exception of a few specific cases of "natural monopolies". So of course microsoft could not be a true monopoly. It would be, you see, Boss, ILLEGAL. So, you probably need to go educate yourself to understand.

I wasn't the one who claimed Microsoft was a monopoly, my argument was, they certainly weren't a monopoly, and you have now confirmed that.

So, now I am getting beyond my knowledge.

Hate to tell you, but you've been there a while!

 

[Rshermr]

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?

Wow. I am surprised that a self expressed ceo that you do not know that there is no such thing as a pure, or complete, monopoly in the us, with the exception of a few specific cases of "natural monopolies". So of course microsoft could not be a true monopoly. It would be, you see, Boss, ILLEGAL. So, you probably need to go educate yourself to understand.

I wasn't the one who claimed Microsoft was a monopoly, my argument was, they certainly weren't a monopoly, and you have now confirmed that.

So, now I am getting beyond my knowledge.

Hate to tell you, but you've been there a while!

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.

 

[georgephillip]

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

Wooops... You forgot some details!

On September 26, 2000, after Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact,[13] the plaintiffs (to save time) attempted to send Microsoft's appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal and sent the case to a federal appeals court.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because the Appellate court had adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" under which the Remedies could be taken, and also partly due to the embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges.[17] Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case.[18]
Judge Jackson's response to this was that Microsoft's conduct itself was the cause of any "perceived bias"; Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."[19] However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was chosen to hear the case.
The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.[20]

Ergo: No monopoly.

Expand your vocabulary:

"MICROSOFT AGREES TO END UNFAIR MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Microsoft, the world's largest and
dominant computer software company, agreed to end its illegal
monopolistic practices after the Department of Justice charged
that the company used unfair contracts that choked off
competition and preserved its monopoly position.

"The company agreed to settle the charges with a consent
decree that will prohibit Microsoft from engaging in these
monopolistic practices in the future."

Are you really surprised there are one set of laws for corporations and a different set for the victims of monopolies?

Microsoft Agrees to End Unfair Monopolistic Practices

 

[Boss]

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

Wooops... You forgot some details!

On September 26, 2000, after Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact,[13] the plaintiffs (to save time) attempted to send Microsoft's appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal and sent the case to a federal appeals court.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because the Appellate court had adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" under which the Remedies could be taken, and also partly due to the embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges.[17] Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case.[18]
Judge Jackson's response to this was that Microsoft's conduct itself was the cause of any "perceived bias"; Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."[19] However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was chosen to hear the case.
The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.[20]

Ergo: No monopoly.

Expand your vocabulary:

"MICROSOFT AGREES TO END UNFAIR MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Microsoft, the world's largest and
dominant computer software company, agreed to end its illegal
monopolistic practices after the Department of Justice charged
that the company used unfair contracts that choked off
competition and preserved its monopoly position.

"The company agreed to settle the charges with a consent
decree that will prohibit Microsoft from engaging in these
monopolistic practices in the future."

Are you really surprised there are one set of laws for corporations and a different set for the victims of monopolies?

Microsoft Agrees to End Unfair Monopolistic Practices

Monopolistic practices do not a "monopoly" make, my dear idjit. You see, Judge Jackson ruled they were a monopoly, and that ruling was overturned. (means it's invalid) Then the government went after Microsoft for a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft agreed to a settlement, resolving the issues of what the government claimed were "monopolistic practices" in Microsoft's non-monopolistic enterprise, are you following, pinhead?

There is no different set of laws. There is one set, and they apply to everyone. You see, if we DID have a different set of laws for the elite and wealthy, the kings and royalty... then your Socialist Marxist philosophy would make much better sense! This is precisely why you continue to try and paint this perception, when it is absolutely false.

It's important that people understand this, because it helps to reveal the insidious nature of what we're continuing to hear from the left. You're preaching Marxist Maoist garbage from 60-80 years ago, designed to combat the elite rulers and kings of Europe through revolution.

The problem is, the argument for these already-failed ideas, are based on a completely different adversary than free market capitalists. Therefore, free market capitalists must become the old "elite class" who operated under a different standard in Europe, where kings ruled and there was no constitution... or government to bring antitrust suits for monopolistic practices.

 

[Rshermr]

Wooops... You forgot some details!

On September 26, 2000, after Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact,[13] the plaintiffs (to save time) attempted to send Microsoft's appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal and sent the case to a federal appeals court.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because the Appellate court had adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" under which the Remedies could be taken, and also partly due to the embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges.[17] Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case.[18]
Judge Jackson's response to this was that Microsoft's conduct itself was the cause of any "perceived bias"; Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."[19] However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was chosen to hear the case.
The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.[20]

Ergo: No monopoly.

Expand your vocabulary:

"MICROSOFT AGREES TO END UNFAIR MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Microsoft, the world's largest and
dominant computer software company, agreed to end its illegal
monopolistic practices after the Department of Justice charged
that the company used unfair contracts that choked off
competition and preserved its monopoly position.

"The company agreed to settle the charges with a consent
decree that will prohibit Microsoft from engaging in these
monopolistic practices in the future."

Are you really surprised there are one set of laws for corporations and a different set for the victims of monopolies?

Microsoft Agrees to End Unfair Monopolistic Practices

Monopolistic practices do not a "monopoly" make, my dear idjit. You see, Judge Jackson ruled they were a monopoly, and that ruling was overturned. (means it's invalid) Then the government went after Microsoft for a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft agreed to a settlement, resolving the issues of what the government claimed were "monopolistic practices" in Microsoft's non-monopolistic enterprise, are you following, pinhead?

There is no different set of laws. There is one set, and they apply to everyone. You see, if we DID have a different set of laws for the elite and wealthy, the kings and royalty... then your Socialist Marxist philosophy would make much better sense! This is precisely why you continue to try and paint this perception, when it is absolutely false.

It's important that people understand this, because it helps to reveal the insidious nature of what we're continuing to hear from the left. You're preaching Marxist Maoist garbage from 60-80 years ago, designed to combat the elite rulers and kings of Europe through revolution.

The problem is, the argument for these already-failed ideas, are based on a completely different adversary than free market capitalists. Therefore, free market capitalists must become the old "elite class" who operated under a different standard in Europe, where kings ruled and there was no constitution... or government to bring antitrust suits for monopolistic practices.

Wow. talking about an Idgit. Your continued pushing of the maoist idea is just plain stupid. Really just does not pass the giggle test. I am a liberal pretty much, but I have NEVER seen any organization or web site pushing maoism. Perhaps you should enlighten me.
So, what I do have is a pretty strong understanding of economics. What you are saying, with your love of corporate power of any kind, is that you believe that adam smith was basically full of shit. Because, you see, he did not believe in monopoly power. Nor did much of any economists of his or later times. You do. Which makes you not a capitalist, but a libertarian. I suspect that you would agree with that, eh.

Because, you see, what I observe from you is that you do truly pass the Koch test. You do not line up at all with the middle class, though you would, of course, say that lining up with the Koch brothers is good for the middle class. Most would disagree. But as a libertarian, you are certain to believe that you see the only correct way ahead. What do you think, mr CEO???

 

[georgephillip]

Wooops... You forgot some details!

On September 26, 2000, after Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact,[13] the plaintiffs (to save time) attempted to send Microsoft's appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal and sent the case to a federal appeals court.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because the Appellate court had adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" under which the Remedies could be taken, and also partly due to the embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges.[17] Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case.[18]
Judge Jackson's response to this was that Microsoft's conduct itself was the cause of any "perceived bias"; Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."[19] However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was chosen to hear the case.
The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.[20]

Ergo: No monopoly.

Expand your vocabulary:

"MICROSOFT AGREES TO END UNFAIR MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Microsoft, the world's largest and
dominant computer software company, agreed to end its illegal
monopolistic practices after the Department of Justice charged
that the company used unfair contracts that choked off
competition and preserved its monopoly position.

"The company agreed to settle the charges with a consent
decree that will prohibit Microsoft from engaging in these
monopolistic practices in the future."

Are you really surprised there are one set of laws for corporations and a different set for the victims of monopolies?

Microsoft Agrees to End Unfair Monopolistic Practices

Monopolistic practices do not a "monopoly" make, my dear idjit. You see, Judge Jackson ruled they were a monopoly, and that ruling was overturned. (means it's invalid) Then the government went after Microsoft for a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft agreed to a settlement, resolving the issues of what the government claimed were "monopolistic practices" in Microsoft's non-monopolistic enterprise, are you following, pinhead?

There is no different set of laws. There is one set, and they apply to everyone. You see, if we DID have a different set of laws for the elite and wealthy, the kings and royalty... then your Socialist Marxist philosophy would make much better sense! This is precisely why you continue to try and paint this perception, when it is absolutely false.

It's important that people understand this, because it helps to reveal the insidious nature of what we're continuing to hear from the left. You're preaching Marxist Maoist garbage from 60-80 years ago, designed to combat the elite rulers and kings of Europe through revolution.

The problem is, the argument for these already-failed ideas, are based on a completely different adversary than free market capitalists. Therefore, free market capitalists must become the old "elite class" who operated under a different standard in Europe, where kings ruled and there was no constitution... or government to bring antitrust suits for monopolistic practices.

Are you stuck on rich, *****?

"The Department alleged that Microsoft used the following
unfair practices:
Exclusionary Per Processor Licenses--Microsoft makes its
MS-DOS and Windows technology available on a "per processor"
basis, which requires PC manufacturers to pay a fee to Microsoft
for each computer shipped, whether or not the computer contains
Microsoft operating system software. The complaint alleges that
this arrangement gives Microsoft an unfair advantage by causing a
manufacturer selling a non-Microsoft operating system to pay at
least two royalties--one to Microsoft and one to its competitor--
thereby making a non-Microsoft unit more expensive.
"Microsoft has used its monopoly power, in effect, to levy a
"tax" on PC manufacturers who would otherwise like to offer an
alternative system," said Bingaman. "As a result, the ability of
rival operating systems to compete has been impeded, innovation
has been slowed and consumer choices have been limited." She
noted that Microsoft has maintained the price of its operating
systems while the price of other components has fallen
dramatically. Since 1988, Microsoft's share of the market has
never dropped below 70 percent.
Unreasonably Long Licenses--The Department further alleged
that Microsoft's contracts are unreasonably long. By binding
manufacturers to the purchase of Microsoft products for an
excessive period of time, beyond the lifetime of most operating
system products, the agreements foreclose new entrants from
gaining a sufficient toe-hold in the market.
Restrictive Non-Disclosure Agreements--The Department also
charged that Microsoft introduced overly restrictive non-
disclosure agreements to unreasonably restrict the ability of
independent software companies to work with developers of non-
Microsoft operating systems. Microsoft sought the agreements
from companies participating in trial testing of the new version
of Windows, to be released later this year."

Microsoft Agrees to End Unfair Monopolistic Practices

Sociopaths get rich from socializing cost and privatizing profit, and only a two-tiered justice system makes that possible. For the last 150 years fascists and their useful idjits have bought the courts that have allowed corporations to extract enough surplus labor to enable pathic porkers like you turn a republic into an oligarchy. Ready for reparations?

 

[Boss]

Expand your vocabulary:

"MICROSOFT AGREES TO END UNFAIR MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Microsoft, the world's largest and
dominant computer software company, agreed to end its illegal
monopolistic practices after the Department of Justice charged
that the company used unfair contracts that choked off
competition and preserved its monopoly position.

"The company agreed to settle the charges with a consent
decree that will prohibit Microsoft from engaging in these
monopolistic practices in the future."

Are you really surprised there are one set of laws for corporations and a different set for the victims of monopolies?

Microsoft Agrees to End Unfair Monopolistic Practices

Monopolistic practices do not a "monopoly" make, my dear idjit. You see, Judge Jackson ruled they were a monopoly, and that ruling was overturned. (means it's invalid) Then the government went after Microsoft for a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft agreed to a settlement, resolving the issues of what the government claimed were "monopolistic practices" in Microsoft's non-monopolistic enterprise, are you following, pinhead?

There is no different set of laws. There is one set, and they apply to everyone. You see, if we DID have a different set of laws for the elite and wealthy, the kings and royalty... then your Socialist Marxist philosophy would make much better sense! This is precisely why you continue to try and paint this perception, when it is absolutely false.

It's important that people understand this, because it helps to reveal the insidious nature of what we're continuing to hear from the left. You're preaching Marxist Maoist garbage from 60-80 years ago, designed to combat the elite rulers and kings of Europe through revolution.

The problem is, the argument for these already-failed ideas, are based on a completely different adversary than free market capitalists. Therefore, free market capitalists must become the old "elite class" who operated under a different standard in Europe, where kings ruled and there was no constitution... or government to bring antitrust suits for monopolistic practices.

Wow. talking about an Idgit. Your continued pushing of the maoist idea is just plain stupid. Really just does not pass the giggle test. I am a liberal pretty much, but I have NEVER seen any organization or web site pushing maoism. Perhaps you should enlighten me.
So, what I do have is a pretty strong understanding of economics. What you are saying, with your love of corporate power of any kind, is that you believe that adam smith was basically full of shit. Because, you see, he did not believe in monopoly power. Nor did much of any economists of his or later times. You do. Which makes you not a capitalist, but a libertarian. I suspect that you would agree with that, eh.

Because, you see, what I observe from you is that you do truly pass the Koch test. You do not line up at all with the middle class, though you would, of course, say that lining up with the Koch brothers is good for the middle class. Most would disagree. But as a libertarian, you are certain to believe that you see the only correct way ahead. What do you think, mr CEO???

I'm not seeing where I said; "I believe in monopoly power," anywhere in the thread. As you already pointed out correctly, we have laws against monopoly in the US. So the whole entire monopoly argument is a non sequitur. BUT... For you guys who need to promote Marxist-Socialist-Maoist ideology... we have to create the PERCEPTION that monopolies aren't illegal, and make entities like Microsoft into monopolies, even when they aren't.

No, your little propaganda sites are not going to tell you they are promoting Maoist policies, or even Marxist-Socialist policies. What you have to do, is go read the Communist Manifesto, and the speeches of Mao which sparked the People's Revolution in China. You will curiously find the exact same 1% vs 99% argument, almost verbatim, and you will find the 'solution' is to take down capitalism. Now, I am sorry that I am more educated than you, and I have read these things and know what I know, and didn't spend my time playing video games and looking at porn. The movement you are a part of, has been in the works for the past 70-80 years, and it appears they've finally dumbed-down enough fools to make it work.

 

[Rshermr]

Yes, dipshit. YES, yes, yes. We all understand that ms was not a perfect or pure or complete monopoly, and that they are illegal. Dipshit. Jesus are you that stupid.
Have read Mao. Dipshit. And I do not and never have agreed with his policies. Got that yet, dipshit. Jesus you are a tool. And you are much to stupid to believe. You are screwed up in the head more than any actual human should ever, ever be. The dumned down fool, you will find, is in your mirror.

And yes, though you do not have the courage to admit what you are, you are indeed a libertarian.

And dipshit. It was not that economists like adam smith did not believe in pure monopolies. Because they, unlike you, had enough brain movement to understand that pure monopolies would b e rare. Should you ever have the capability to read about that which you do not want to believe, you would find that Adam Smith, and the others, were talking about Now pay attention, lightweight...were talking about MONOPOLY POWER!!!!! Damned idiot libertarian. Jesus.

 

[AmazonTania]

Wow, you really have nothing else. This is even a bigger mess than your previous two responses. I'll try my best to shift through this train wreck, so I can destroy you even further.

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:

Again with the monolouging? Do you really think highly of yourself that you believe people honestly hang on your words? Well maybe they do. There are a ton of idiots on this forum.

And no, I don't want to make anyone believe anything. I explained how capital gains word because you clearly don't understand them. Not even the basics. As a stock broker, I am trained to know and what better person to actually learn about these things than someone like me.

You're welcome.

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.

No shit. Then again, other than ad homeniens and make-believe nothing is real your 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.

If you have a claim, you support said claim with evidence (or in this case, since it is an economic discussion, data). Your idea of backing up your claims is citing a source from someone who is merely spouting the same thing you are spouting. That's not how a debate works. That's is an intellectual fallacy called "Argumentum Ad Populum." Simplified not to confuse you, Appeal To Consensus.

Debates are not won by who else you can get to agree with you or which sources you like, which can back up what you say. They are won by the evidence presented. I have tons of evidence which supports majority of my claims. You have zero which supports any of yours. If your idea of gathering evidence is citing blog sources, then it's no secret why you are having a difficult time.

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.

Four months is long enough. In Four Months, you get a GDP calculation and from that calculation (negative or positive GDP growth), economist can determine (or guess as some of them do) whether or not the economy is going from an upward or downward trend. It does not take 8 or 12 months for economist to determine the trends. That's far too long, and wouldn't make any kind of sense regardless.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. For whatever reason (the reason being you don't understand economics) you have decided that you should substitute your personal opinions, rather than to understand how economic projects are computed in the first place. Sorry, that isn't going to work here..

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

I probably did choose not to. That doesn't change the fact that I don't have to response to anything regarding the Clinton Capital Gains tax because majority of that paragraph was rooted in the lie that the cuts started in 1998. Whether or not you believe that unemployment was already heading towards 4% is your personal opinion. The fact remains it wasn't spending or any sort of stimulus that got it there.

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:

I don't need to know anything about Dave Manual. The fact remains that he is a blogger, and you didn't provide any sort of statistical data from any statistical websites. You are also playing into another intellectual fallacy: Appeal To Authority. This isn't a game of cards. You are not automatically correct simply because you choose to provide your evidence from some well known blogger.

You are debating me, and I am debating you. I provide my own facts and figures, and I expect you to do the same when presenting your arguments. If I want to debate Dave Manual, I might as well do it directly.

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)

The Britannica the oldest and most English-language encyclopaedia still being produced, and a study has shown that Wikipedia is just as accurate as Britannica. This is less than 4 serious errors in the average article for both Encyclopedia. It's really not my fault that my evidence refutes yours. You need a better education, that's all...

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News

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.

There is only one definition of a bubble, and that is an economic cycle characterized by a rapid expansion followed by a contraction. You must mean another type of bubble. The kind that you blow with your playset. Sorry, this is an economic discussion. If you are going to change course and move the goal post at every opportunity, then maybe this isn't the topic for you.

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.[/COLOR]

Aside from the fact that none of those sources support what you are saying, they are no more credible than Wikipedia. My wikipedia article cites its sources and all of them do work. There are no citations on any of your sources. Why exactly should they be considered more credible than my reference? Simply because you don't agree? Yeah, that makes alot of sense.

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.

There was no stimulus in the beginning of Clinton's first term. All of the Government Spending happened before Clinton even was inaugurated. Government expenditures was cut by 6% in 1993, and was cut by 1% in 1993. You either believe:

1. Government Expenditures is the same as Federal Outlays
2. Any good economy is the result of Government Spending

With such narrow and binary logic, it is a wonder why you have a hard time with basic research.

Too easy to lie with statistics.

You just said in your last response that you do research for fun and you have a background in economics. If you truly do research for fun and you understand what you are looking at, then it would be hard for anyone to lie using statistics.

Your real problem with statistics is that you really don't have any to prove your case. So you'd rather link a blog instead of looking up the evidence yourself.

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. [/COLOR]

I make charts because I understand the data. I know what the data represents and I know what the relationship between two or more different data series means. This is what REAL research is. Not Googling blogs, hoping to find something or someone who agrees with me. That's to easy. You're so close-minded from reality that you actually believe their aren't any impartial sources who believe the Dot Com bubble started in 1997.

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, that is what below average means. If 15% is the average and 10% is the other data point, then 10% is low simply because it's 'below average.' Regardless of whether or not you personally believe that 10% is low is irrelevant. Math doesn't care for what your opinions are. It only cares about the results.

Well, lets take a look at ue rates in general, my economic expert:

You're still calling him an economic expert? His is just a political blogger.

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.

Hey genius, you are just cherry picking different points in history and neglected others. That is not how you calculated the average unemployment rate in US History. You calculate the average simply by adding up all the data points, and dividing them by the number of data points. Simplified: You add up all the unemployment rates and you divide them by the number of rates you have.

This is also why I said you need learn how to do REAL research, because if you were to go to the Bureau Labour of Statistics or the St. Louis Federal Reserve Database you would find that the average is not 6% - 7%.

The BLS records unemployment statistics as early as January 1948, and this is what I have found:

• On a monthly average, the historical US unemployment rate is 5.8%
• On a quarterly average, the historical US unemployment rate is 5.8%
• On a semi-annual average, the historical US unemployment is 5.8%
• On a annual average, the historical US unemployment is 5.8%

Now, I didn't skew the statistics or anything. I can even direct you on where I obtained the data and instruct you on how to compute the averages quickly on excel (=average(First Cell:Second Cell). But why do you think no matter whether or not I calculated the averages monthly or annual, that the numbers were the same?

Like I said before. Math doesn't care what your personal opinions are. It only cares about the results. What are the results? If you calculate the unemployment rate average throughout history, you will find that the historical unemployment rate for the US is 5.8%

Feel free to respond stating that I didn't get my data from a source you believe that is 'impartial,' or that I simply made up my data, or that 6% will really be the average if you round up 5.8%. As if any of this changes the fact that you are wrong.

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???

What is the BLM?

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.

I merely used Singapore as an example, and if you didn't understand, the perhaps you don't know as much about unemployment rates as you think you do. The labour force is a component of the unemployment rate. Certain countries will have a lower or higher unemployment rate simply due to their labour force participation (also due to some economic conditions in the region).

Now like what I said with my Singapore example, their highest unemployment rate is 6%, but somehow you would consider this average simply because you just believe that 6% is a low enough number to be considered average. That's not how averages work. You compute the unemployment rates throughout history to find your historical averages. You don't decide for yourself what the average is.

Only to tanya, who is an economic idiot.

According to math as well. You do understand that economic majors requires mathematical understanding as well, right? Funny how you have all of this economic background, and very little math skills...

I consider 5% very low. I would consider 6% low. See above, dipshit.

And of course, you would be wrong. The average unemployment rate is 5.8%. That is not low and 6% is higher than 5.8% so that cannot be considered low either (It's not high either. It's just 'above average.) You may personally believe that 5% is a low number but that doesn't change the fact that historically the unemployment rate as been much lower.

Really. You consider going to 10.8% nothing. Are you saying the ue rate did not rise?????

The unemployment rate did increase, but not as a result to any tax policy as I initially stated. The tightening of the monetary base crashed the economy in Paul Volcker's efforts to keep inflation under control.

Yup. That would be it. Decreasing spending did it. Jesus. What a joke.

I never said decreasing spending did it. I said nothing happened when spending increased. The fact that growth occurred when spending decrease is purely inconsequential. But just know that you are wrong when you said stimulus is what helped the unemployment rate.

So your charts would say. But then, they are cherry picked, and of no real value.

How are they cherry picked? You are crediting the decrease in unemployment with federal spending (stimulus). So I showed you the relationship between Federal Spending and Job Growth (on a monthly basis). Nothing cherry picked about it. If you don't like that data I have presented, the do your own research, look up the data and we can discuss the merits of your evidence like adults (well, like an adult explaining things to a child anyway).

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.

I caught you rewriting history four different times already so I don't think you are aware of what the real history is suppose to be. As I have said, if you believe that I am lying then look up the data for yourself.

Also, if you truly had an educational background in economics (like you said at the end of your last response), then you would understand all of the data I'm giving to you. The fact that you don't tells me (and everyone else) something. You haven't taken an economics course in your entire life.

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.

Supply Side is nothing like Keynesianism. It looks like you took my advice and Google Supply Side, only to be directed to faulty information.

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.

Didn't work because it wasn't implemented. The only thing Reagan did was cut taxes.

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.

And how is that working out for the world. Also, keep in mind (since you are so hooked on consensus in winning debates) that more Austrian economist have won Noble Laureates in the field of Economist than any other type economic theorist.

Check how european austerity is working. And get after the fed to tighten the money supply. How damned profound is that.[/COLOR]

Only one country in the EU actually used Austerity, and that is Lithuania. And it worked. The rest of the EU countries cuts were too small relative to the size of their budgets. Then again, anything is austerity compared to what the US is doing.

But I love that Austerity when the spending actually increases and doesn't stop. Moody's downgrading the UK for a uncontrollable debt. Spain having the EU's largest budget deficit. Yep. They have austerity. And George Bush was a fiscal hawk.

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.

My theories, as you would call them, as my analysis. My graphs, as you would call them, are my backing. That's how a debate works. I understand this is unfamiliar to you because you are not use to actually doing research. You'll learn someday, although, I'm not sure when that day will be.

Again, my lying con, it is not a blog.

Yeah, sure. Not a blog...

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.

Your first two examples are primary sources. Your last example is a secondary source. The purpose of a primary source is to give you the data straight from the horses mouth. It's not white washed or watered down. It's just straight as it is data.

The secondary

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

You are saying that I am partial but you have been spouting this 'bat shit crazy right wing' rhetoric from the beginning as if you are not partial. You're right. Thank you for providing me with that stupid sentence.

And even if I was partial, are you saying that you can't take my evidence into consideration because of this? I've never heard of such a stupid reason to dismiss evidence I didn't like in my entire life. Facts are something about the world which is true. Facts don't bend to the will of any particular person or ideology simply because you like certain points of view better than others.

You need to grow up. In more ways than one.

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.

I create charts because I have limitations with the data provided for me. There is nothing wrong with that. All I do is download the data from a primary source, put it on an excel spreadsheet and create the chart. All economic and financial experts do it (and it's really easy, as there are videos on how to do it on YouTube). It's already a given that you are far from an economic or financial expert.

I really don't care if you don't trust the data I present. That is not my concern. I present data from primary sources which backs up my claims. You have yet to do the same.

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.[/COLOR]

I never said the Clinton economy was based on a capital gains tax decrease. You used Clinton as an example and I corrected you with the facts. The biggest success with the Clinton economy as due to an asset bubble. Was this good? No. Asset bubbles are seen as phony prosperity. It doesn't change the fact that none of it was due to stimulus and good portion of the growth was Capital Gains tax cut.

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.

Reagan ran up deficits to aggressively expand the military. The borrowing was the result of the deficit (as they are with every deficit in American history). The taxes were (not necessarily a Reagan plan, but the Democratically controlled congress plan) were an initiative to balance the budget. All of this was Reagan's plan to compete with the Soviet union in producing a military superpower which they could not keep up with, and eventually collapsed. Did you sleep under a rock during the world war?

No amount of Reagan spending was stimulus, as it was only for the military. It did nothing to help the economy. Except grant the United States the title of Debtor Nation or the first time in history. Congratulation...

No, not necessarily. Not, for instance for the last couple years of the Clinton admin.

The national debt increased in the last few years of the Clinton Administration. You don't know what you are saying.

They started, and the borrowing started, as soon as the deficit and ue problem was understood.

I don't know how you think deficits work, but borrowing is always going on as long as the country is running a deficit. There was no starting period in the Reagan administration.

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%

Before, you said that it was the result of borrowing, taxing and stimulus which made the unemployment rate decrease. Now you are saying that never does. It doesn't take stimulus 3 years to effect the economy. That only happens when it clearly isn't working.

Mathematically, there are only two ways you are going to get the unemployment rate down:

1. If the unemployed civilians leave the labour force.
2. If the unemployed civilians find jobs.

The first option is what happened in 1982 -1983. People were leaving the labour force. If people are leaving, then this is not a sign of a recovering job market. The second option is what happened in 1986 onward. People were entering the labour force and finding work. As a result, the unemployment rate dropped. I showed you a chart illustrating this. Perhaps you missed it.

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%.

Again, Government spending didn't stop and it did nothing for unemployment. Government spending had very little relationship on Job Growth.

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.


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.

\

I'm not even Keynesian and I can't even tell you how stupid that sounds. That's not how stimulus works. Stimulus spending remains consistent overtime and is concentrated in longer periods, not in just one financial quarter. It's meant to be spent in portions, not as much as possible early. The idea is to MAINTAIN economy growth, not just to have it all shoved in one fiscal quarter. If anyone did that, the economic growth would be maintained more than two financial quarters, and the economy would just go back into a recession.

For example, the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act was spent over the course of two years. The idea is to keep the rate of spending steady. As you can see from 2009 to 2011, spending increased, then it leveled off at a steady rate, then it decreased dramatically once it expired. This pattern is typical of stimulus spending:

But what happened in the 90's was nothing similar. Most of the biggest spending happened before Clinton even got there. Then Clinton got into office and the rate of spending decrease dramatically. No amount of spending was consistent or prolonged.


Government spending was 40% of GDP when Clinton took Office. It was less than 40% of GDP the following year, even though spending did grow.

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.

Private sector spending and Gross personal investments grew much Government spending. Compared to those components of GDP, government spending barely budged. Government spending barely a factor at all.

It's quite clear you don't understand what you are talking about, and are just making things up. As usual.

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.

But they support my 'distorted analysis.' The data doesn't care about ideology or political alignment. All that matters are the facts.

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.

Oh of course, you not Dave Manuel. I forgot, you do know an economist (ie, he is not an economist).

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

Anyone can be an economist. Just talk about nothing but economics all day. It might make you an economist, but it's not the same as being competent.

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.

My degree wasn't in Economics. Along with this I have a Series 7. It was in Finance. Your money doesn't mean much to me. I make a very good living already. Credentials doesn't matter at all when it comes to a debate. All that matters are the facts that are presented. I have refuted loads of people in the financial community who though they were right simply because they were older or more experienced. I am able to read between the lines because I have a fundamental understanding of Economics.

The same level of understanding as not helped you. You simply believe you are correct because you have found someone else in authority who agrees with you. Again, that's too easy, old and tired.

And yes you are a joke.

The joke is on you. You have provided me with loads of internet entertainment. It's also a good thing that I don't have to spend much time writing these because this would have consumed most of my time. Other than your bitching about verifiable primary sources, lying about evidence presented, making up your own opinions, facts and history, this has been a big source of entertainment around here. It would be really fun, if only you were so incredibility ignorant. Ignorance is never good. You need some school. I can't always be there to give it to you...

 

[Rshermr]

Wow, you really have nothing else. This is even a bigger mess than your previous two responses. I'll try my best to shift through this train wreck, so I can destroy you even further.

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:

Again with the monolouging? Do you really think highly of yourself that you believe people honestly hang on your words? Well maybe they do. There are a ton of idiots on this forum.

And no, I don't want to make anyone believe anything. I explained how capital gains word because you clearly don't understand them. Not even the basics. As a stock broker, I am trained to know and what better person to actually learn about these things than someone like me.

You're welcome.

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.

No shit. Then again, other than ad homeniens and make-believe nothing is real your specialty.



If you have a claim, you support said claim with evidence (or in this case, since it is an economic discussion, data). Your idea of backing up your claims is citing a source from someone who is merely spouting the same thing you are spouting. That's not how a debate works. That's is an intellectual fallacy called "Argumentum Ad Populum." Simplified not to confuse you, Appeal To Consensus.

Debates are not won by who else you can get to agree with you or which sources you like, which can back up what you say. They are won by the evidence presented. I have tons of evidence which supports majority of my claims. You have zero which supports any of yours. If your idea of gathering evidence is citing blog sources, then it's no secret why you are having a difficult time.



Four months is long enough. In Four Months, you get a GDP calculation and from that calculation (negative or positive GDP growth), economist can determine (or guess as some of them do) whether or not the economy is going from an upward or downward trend. It does not take 8 or 12 months for economist to determine the trends. That's far too long, and wouldn't make any kind of sense regardless.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. For whatever reason (the reason being you don't understand economics) you have decided that you should substitute your personal opinions, rather than to understand how economic projects are computed in the first place. Sorry, that isn't going to work here..



I probably did choose not to. That doesn't change the fact that I don't have to response to anything regarding the Clinton Capital Gains tax because majority of that paragraph was rooted in the lie that the cuts started in 1998. Whether or not you believe that unemployment was already heading towards 4% is your personal opinion. The fact remains it wasn't spending or any sort of stimulus that got it there.




I don't need to know anything about Dave Manual. The fact remains that he is a blogger, and you didn't provide any sort of statistical data from any statistical websites. You are also playing into another intellectual fallacy: Appeal To Authority. This isn't a game of cards. You are not automatically correct simply because you choose to provide your evidence from some well known blogger.

You are debating me, and I am debating you. I provide my own facts and figures, and I expect you to do the same when presenting your arguments. If I want to debate Dave Manual, I might as well do it directly.




The Britannica the oldest and most English-language encyclopaedia still being produced, and a study has shown that Wikipedia is just as accurate as Britannica. This is less than 4 serious errors in the average article for both Encyclopedia. It's really not my fault that my evidence refutes yours. You need a better education, that's all...

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News



There is only one definition of a bubble, and that is an economic cycle characterized by a rapid expansion followed by a contraction. You must mean another type of bubble. The kind that you blow with your playset. Sorry, this is an economic discussion. If you are going to change course and move the goal post at every opportunity, then maybe this isn't the topic for you.



Aside from the fact that none of those sources support what you are saying, they are no more credible than Wikipedia. My wikipedia article cites its sources and all of them do work. There are no citations on any of your sources. Why exactly should they be considered more credible than my reference? Simply because you don't agree? Yeah, that makes alot of sense.




There was no stimulus in the beginning of Clinton's first term. All of the Government Spending happened before Clinton even was inaugurated. Government expenditures was cut by 6% in 1993, and was cut by 1% in 1993. You either believe:

1. Government Expenditures is the same as Federal Outlays
2. Any good economy is the result of Government Spending

With such narrow and binary logic, it is a wonder why you have a hard time with basic research.




You just said in your last response that you do research for fun and you have a background in economics. If you truly do research for fun and you understand what you are looking at, then it would be hard for anyone to lie using statistics.

Your real problem with statistics is that you really don't have any to prove your case. So you'd rather link a blog instead of looking up the evidence yourself.



I make charts because I understand the data. I know what the data represents and I know what the relationship between two or more different data series means. This is what REAL research is. Not Googling blogs, hoping to find something or someone who agrees with me. That's to easy. You're so close-minded from reality that you actually believe their aren't any impartial sources who believe the Dot Com bubble started in 1997.



Yes, that is what below average means. If 15% is the average and 10% is the other data point, then 10% is low simply because it's 'below average.' Regardless of whether or not you personally believe that 10% is low is irrelevant. Math doesn't care for what your opinions are. It only cares about the results.




You're still calling him an economic expert? His is just a political blogger.



Hey genius, you are just cherry picking different points in history and neglected others. That is not how you calculated the average unemployment rate in US History. You calculate the average simply by adding up all the data points, and dividing them by the number of data points. Simplified: You add up all the unemployment rates and you divide them by the number of rates you have.

This is also why I said you need learn how to do REAL research, because if you were to go to the Bureau Labour of Statistics or the St. Louis Federal Reserve Database you would find that the average is not 6% - 7%.

The BLS records unemployment statistics as early as January 1948, and this is what I have found:

• On a monthly average, the historical US unemployment rate is 5.8%
• On a quarterly average, the historical US unemployment rate is 5.8%
• On a semi-annual average, the historical US unemployment is 5.8%
• On a annual average, the historical US unemployment is 5.8%

Now, I didn't skew the statistics or anything. I can even direct you on where I obtained the data and instruct you on how to compute the averages quickly on excel (=average(First Cell:Second Cell). But why do you think no matter whether or not I calculated the averages monthly or annual, that the numbers were the same?

Like I said before. Math doesn't care what your personal opinions are. It only cares about the results. What are the results? If you calculate the unemployment rate average throughout history, you will find that the historical unemployment rate for the US is 5.8%

Feel free to respond stating that I didn't get my data from a source you believe that is 'impartial,' or that I simply made up my data, or that 6% will really be the average if you round up 5.8%. As if any of this changes the fact that you are wrong.



What is the BLM?




I merely used Singapore as an example, and if you didn't understand, the perhaps you don't know as much about unemployment rates as you think you do. The labour force is a component of the unemployment rate. Certain countries will have a lower or higher unemployment rate simply due to their labour force participation (also due to some economic conditions in the region).

Now like what I said with my Singapore example, their highest unemployment rate is 6%, but somehow you would consider this average simply because you just believe that 6% is a low enough number to be considered average. That's not how averages work. You compute the unemployment rates throughout history to find your historical averages. You don't decide for yourself what the average is.




According to math as well. You do understand that economic majors requires mathematical understanding as well, right? Funny how you have all of this economic background, and very little math skills...



And of course, you would be wrong. The average unemployment rate is 5.8%. That is not low and 6% is higher than 5.8% so that cannot be considered low either (It's not high either. It's just 'above average.) You may personally believe that 5% is a low number but that doesn't change the fact that historically the unemployment rate as been much lower.



The unemployment rate did increase, but not as a result to any tax policy as I initially stated. The tightening of the monetary base crashed the economy in Paul Volcker's efforts to keep inflation under control.



I never said decreasing spending did it. I said nothing happened when spending increased. The fact that growth occurred when spending decrease is purely inconsequential. But just know that you are wrong when you said stimulus is what helped the unemployment rate.

How are they cherry picked? You are crediting the decrease in unemployment with federal spending (stimulus). So I showed you the relationship between Federal Spending and Job Growth (on a monthly basis). Nothing cherry picked about it. If you don't like that data I have presented, the do your own research, look up the data and we can discuss the merits of your evidence like adults (well, like an adult explaining things to a child anyway).

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.

I caught you rewriting history four different times already so I don't think you are aware of what the real history is suppose to be. As I have said, if you believe that I am lying then look up the data for yourself.

Also, if you truly had an educational background in economics (like you said at the end of your last response), then you would understand all of the data I'm giving to you. The fact that you don't tells me (and everyone else) something. You haven't taken an economics course in your entire life.

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.

Supply Side is nothing like Keynesianism. It looks like you took my advice and Google Supply Side, only to be directed to faulty information.



Didn't work because it wasn't implemented. The only thing Reagan did was cut taxes.





And how is that working out for the world. Also, keep in mind (since you are so hooked on consensus in winning debates) that more Austrian economist have won Noble Laureates in the field of Economist than any other type economic theorist.

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).



Only one country in the EU actually used Austerity, and that is Lithuania. And it worked. The rest of the EU countries cuts were too small relative to the size of their budgets. Then again, anything is austerity compared to what the US is doing.

But I love that Austerity when the spending actually increases and doesn't stop. Moody's downgrading the UK for a uncontrollable debt. Spain having the EU's largest budget deficit. Yep. They have austerity. And George Bush was a fiscal hawk.




My theories, as you would call them, as my analysis. My graphs, as you would call them, are my backing. That's how a debate works. I understand this is unfamiliar to you because you are not use to actually doing research. You'll learn someday, although, I'm not sure when that day will be.



Yeah, sure. Not a blog...

Your first two examples are primary sources. Your last example is a secondary source. The purpose of a primary source is to give you the data straight from the horses mouth. It's not white washed or watered down. It's just straight as it is data.

The secondary



You are saying that I am partial but you have been spouting this 'bat shit crazy right wing' rhetoric from the beginning as if you are not partial. You're right. Thank you for providing me with that stupid sentence.

And even if I was partial, are you saying that you can't take my evidence into consideration because of this? I've never heard of such a stupid reason to dismiss evidence I didn't like in my entire life. Facts are something about the world which is true. Facts don't bend to the will of any particular person or ideology simply because you like certain points of view better than others.

You need to grow up. In more ways than one.

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.[/quote]

I create charts because I have limitations with the data provided for me. There is nothing wrong with that. All I do is download the data from a primary source, put it on an excel spreadsheet and create the chart. All economic and financial experts do it (and it's really easy, as there are videos on how to do it on YouTube). It's already a given that you are far from an economic or financial expert.

I really don't care if you don't trust the data I present. That is not my concern. I present data from primary sources which backs up my claims. You have yet to do the same.



I never said the Clinton economy was based on a capital gains tax decrease. You used Clinton as an example and I corrected you with the facts. The biggest success with the Clinton economy as due to an asset bubble. Was this good? No. Asset bubbles are seen as phony prosperity. It doesn't change the fact that none of it was due to stimulus and good portion of the growth was Capital Gains tax cut.



Reagan ran up deficits to aggressively expand the military. The borrowing was the result of the deficit (as they are with every deficit in American history). The taxes were (not necessarily a Reagan plan, but the Democratically controlled congress plan) were an initiative to balance the budget. All of this was Reagan's plan to compete with the Soviet union in producing a military superpower which they could not keep up with, and eventually collapsed. Did you sleep under a rock during the world war?

No amount of Reagan spending was stimulus, as it was only for the military. It did nothing to help the economy. Except grant the United States the title of Debtor Nation or the first time in history. Congratulation...


No, not necessarily. Not, for instance for the last couple years of the Clinton admin.[/quote]

The national debt increased in the last few years of the Clinton Administration. You don't know what you are saying.





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

They started, and the borrowing started, as soon as the deficit and ue problem was understood.

I don't know how you think deficits work, but borrowing is always going on as long as the country is running a deficit. There was no starting period in the Reagan administration.

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%

Before, you said that it was the result of borrowing, taxing and stimulus which made the unemployment rate decrease. Now you are saying that never does. It doesn't take stimulus 3 years to effect the economy. That only happens when it clearly isn't working.

Mathematically, there are only two ways you are going to get the unemployment rate down:

1. If the unemployed civilians leave the labour force.
2. If the unemployed civilians find jobs.

The first option is what happened in 1982 -1983. People were leaving the labour force. If people are leaving, then this is not a sign of a recovering job market. The second option is what happened in 1986 onward. People were entering the labour force and finding work. As a result, the unemployment rate dropped. I showed you a chart illustrating this. Perhaps you missed it.




Again, Government spending didn't stop and it did nothing for unemployment. Government spending had very little relationship on Job Growth.

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.


\

I'm not even Keynesian and I can't even tell you how stupid that sounds. That's not how stimulus works. Stimulus spending remains consistent overtime and is concentrated in longer periods, not in just one financial quarter. It's meant to be spent in portions, not as much as possible early. The idea is to MAINTAIN economy growth, not just to have it all shoved in one fiscal quarter. If anyone did that, the economic growth would be maintained more than two financial quarters, and the economy would just go back into a recession.

For example, the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act was spent over the course of two years. The idea is to keep the rate of spending steady. As you can see from 2009 to 2011, spending increased, then it leveled off at a steady rate, then it decreased dramatically once it expired. This pattern is typical of stimulus spending:

But what happened in the 90's was nothing similar. Most of the biggest spending happened before Clinton even got there. Then Clinton got into office and the rate of spending decrease dramatically. No amount of spending was consistent or prolonged.


Government spending was 40% of GDP when Clinton took Office. It was less than 40% of GDP the following year, even though spending did grow.



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.

Private sector spending and Gross personal investments grew much Government spending. Compared to those components of GDP, government spending barely budged. Government spending barely a factor at all.

It's quite clear you don't understand what you are talking about, and are just making things up. As usual.

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.

But they support my 'distorted analysis.' The data doesn't care about ideology or political alignment. All that matters are the facts.

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.

Oh of course, you not Dave Manuel. I forgot, you do know an economist (ie, he is not an economist).

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

Anyone can be an economist. Just talk about nothing but economics all day. It might make you an economist, but it's not the same as being competent.

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.

My degree wasn't in Economics. Along with this I have a Series 7. It was in Finance. Your money doesn't mean much to me. I make a very good living already. Credentials doesn't matter at all when it comes to a debate. All that matters are the facts that are presented. I have refuted loads of people in the financial community who though they were right simply because they were older or more experienced. I am able to read between the lines because I have a fundamental understanding of Economics.

The same level of understanding as not helped you. You simply believe you are correct because you have found someone else in authority who agrees with you. Again, that's too easy, old and tired.

And yes you are a joke.

The joke is on you. You have provided me with loads of internet entertainment. It's also a good thing that I don't have to spend much time writing these because this would have consumed most of my time. Other than your bitching about verifiable primary sources, lying about evidence presented, making up your own opinions, facts and history, this has been a big source of entertainment around here. It would be really fun, if only you were so incredibility ignorant. Ignorance is never good. You need some school. I can't always be there to give it to you...[/QUOTE]
Wow. You have a high opinion of yourself. For a completely ignorant con tool. Which is normal.
I thought that analysis you did on the costs of the ACA before it has really even started was one of the most entertaining. Not sure if I ever saw a more ignorant effort at analysis, or fake analysis, in my adult life. Jesus, that was ignorant. But then, so were the rest of your little charts. But then, the sources below may help you. I know it is not your fault. You are a con tool. You are just like all of the other con tools. Stupid people, you will read, always believe that they are really smart. Wrongly, of course. But it is entertaining.

Here. Try these, They may help you.

Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience


New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) : Gene Expression

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

And always remember how much I respect your opinion.

 

[Rshermr]

Wow, you really have nothing else. This is even a bigger mess than your previous two responses. I'll try my best to shift through this train wreck, so I can destroy you even further.

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:

Again with the monolouging? Do you really think highly of yourself that you believe people honestly hang on your words? Well maybe they do. There are a ton of idiots on this forum.

And no, I don't want to make anyone believe anything. I explained how capital gains word because you clearly don't understand them. Not even the basics. As a stock broker, I am trained to know and what better person to actually learn about these things than someone like me.

You're welcome.

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.

No shit. Then again, other than ad homeniens and make-believe nothing is real your specialty.



If you have a claim, you support said claim with evidence (or in this case, since it is an economic discussion, data). Your idea of backing up your claims is citing a source from someone who is merely spouting the same thing you are spouting. That's not how a debate works. That's is an intellectual fallacy called "Argumentum Ad Populum." Simplified not to confuse you, Appeal To Consensus.

Debates are not won by who else you can get to agree with you or which sources you like, which can back up what you say. They are won by the evidence presented. I have tons of evidence which supports majority of my claims. You have zero which supports any of yours. If your idea of gathering evidence is citing blog sources, then it's no secret why you are having a difficult time.



Four months is long enough. In Four Months, you get a GDP calculation and from that calculation (negative or positive GDP growth), economist can determine (or guess as some of them do) whether or not the economy is going from an upward or downward trend. It does not take 8 or 12 months for economist to determine the trends. That's far too long, and wouldn't make any kind of sense regardless.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. For whatever reason (the reason being you don't understand economics) you have decided that you should substitute your personal opinions, rather than to understand how economic projects are computed in the first place. Sorry, that isn't going to work here..



I probably did choose not to. That doesn't change the fact that I don't have to response to anything regarding the Clinton Capital Gains tax because majority of that paragraph was rooted in the lie that the cuts started in 1998. Whether or not you believe that unemployment was already heading towards 4% is your personal opinion. The fact remains it wasn't spending or any sort of stimulus that got it there.




I don't need to know anything about Dave Manual. The fact remains that he is a blogger, and you didn't provide any sort of statistical data from any statistical websites. You are also playing into another intellectual fallacy: Appeal To Authority. This isn't a game of cards. You are not automatically correct simply because you choose to provide your evidence from some well known blogger.

You are debating me, and I am debating you. I provide my own facts and figures, and I expect you to do the same when presenting your arguments. If I want to debate Dave Manual, I might as well do it directly.




The Britannica the oldest and most English-language encyclopaedia still being produced, and a study has shown that Wikipedia is just as accurate as Britannica. This is less than 4 serious errors in the average article for both Encyclopedia. It's really not my fault that my evidence refutes yours. You need a better education, that's all...

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News



There is only one definition of a bubble, and that is an economic cycle characterized by a rapid expansion followed by a contraction. You must mean another type of bubble. The kind that you blow with your playset. Sorry, this is an economic discussion. If you are going to change course and move the goal post at every opportunity, then maybe this isn't the topic for you.



Aside from the fact that none of those sources support what you are saying, they are no more credible than Wikipedia. My wikipedia article cites its sources and all of them do work. There are no citations on any of your sources. Why exactly should they be considered more credible than my reference? Simply because you don't agree? Yeah, that makes alot of sense.




There was no stimulus in the beginning of Clinton's first term. All of the Government Spending happened before Clinton even was inaugurated. Government expenditures was cut by 6% in 1993, and was cut by 1% in 1993. You either believe:

1. Government Expenditures is the same as Federal Outlays
2. Any good economy is the result of Government Spending

With such narrow and binary logic, it is a wonder why you have a hard time with basic research.




You just said in your last response that you do research for fun and you have a background in economics. If you truly do research for fun and you understand what you are looking at, then it would be hard for anyone to lie using statistics.

Your real problem with statistics is that you really don't have any to prove your case. So you'd rather link a blog instead of looking up the evidence yourself.



I make charts because I understand the data. I know what the data represents and I know what the relationship between two or more different data series means. This is what REAL research is. Not Googling blogs, hoping to find something or someone who agrees with me. That's to easy. You're so close-minded from reality that you actually believe their aren't any impartial sources who believe the Dot Com bubble started in 1997.



Yes, that is what below average means. If 15% is the average and 10% is the other data point, then 10% is low simply because it's 'below average.' Regardless of whether or not you personally believe that 10% is low is irrelevant. Math doesn't care for what your opinions are. It only cares about the results.




You're still calling him an economic expert? His is just a political blogger.



Hey genius, you are just cherry picking different points in history and neglected others. That is not how you calculated the average unemployment rate in US History. You calculate the average simply by adding up all the data points, and dividing them by the number of data points. Simplified: You add up all the unemployment rates and you divide them by the number of rates you have.

This is also why I said you need learn how to do REAL research, because if you were to go to the Bureau Labour of Statistics or the St. Louis Federal Reserve Database you would find that the average is not 6% - 7%.

The BLS records unemployment statistics as early as January 1948, and this is what I have found:

• On a monthly average, the historical US unemployment rate is 5.8%
• On a quarterly average, the historical US unemployment rate is 5.8%
• On a semi-annual average, the historical US unemployment is 5.8%
• On a annual average, the historical US unemployment is 5.8%

Now, I didn't skew the statistics or anything. I can even direct you on where I obtained the data and instruct you on how to compute the averages quickly on excel (=average(First Cell:Second Cell). But why do you think no matter whether or not I calculated the averages monthly or annual, that the numbers were the same?

Like I said before. Math doesn't care what your personal opinions are. It only cares about the results. What are the results? If you calculate the unemployment rate average throughout history, you will find that the historical unemployment rate for the US is 5.8%

Feel free to respond stating that I didn't get my data from a source you believe that is 'impartial,' or that I simply made up my data, or that 6% will really be the average if you round up 5.8%. As if any of this changes the fact that you are wrong.



What is the BLM?




I merely used Singapore as an example, and if you didn't understand, the perhaps you don't know as much about unemployment rates as you think you do. The labour force is a component of the unemployment rate. Certain countries will have a lower or higher unemployment rate simply due to their labour force participation (also due to some economic conditions in the region).

Now like what I said with my Singapore example, their highest unemployment rate is 6%, but somehow you would consider this average simply because you just believe that 6% is a low enough number to be considered average. That's not how averages work. You compute the unemployment rates throughout history to find your historical averages. You don't decide for yourself what the average is.




According to math as well. You do understand that economic majors requires mathematical understanding as well, right? Funny how you have all of this economic background, and very little math skills...



And of course, you would be wrong. The average unemployment rate is 5.8%. That is not low and 6% is higher than 5.8% so that cannot be considered low either (It's not high either. It's just 'above average.) You may personally believe that 5% is a low number but that doesn't change the fact that historically the unemployment rate as been much lower.



The unemployment rate did increase, but not as a result to any tax policy as I initially stated. The tightening of the monetary base crashed the economy in Paul Volcker's efforts to keep inflation under control.



I never said decreasing spending did it. I said nothing happened when spending increased. The fact that growth occurred when spending decrease is purely inconsequential. But just know that you are wrong when you said stimulus is what helped the unemployment rate.

How are they cherry picked? You are crediting the decrease in unemployment with federal spending (stimulus). So I showed you the relationship between Federal Spending and Job Growth (on a monthly basis). Nothing cherry picked about it. If you don't like that data I have presented, the do your own research, look up the data and we can discuss the merits of your evidence like adults (well, like an adult explaining things to a child anyway).

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.

I caught you rewriting history four different times already so I don't think you are aware of what the real history is suppose to be. As I have said, if you believe that I am lying then look up the data for yourself.

Also, if you truly had an educational background in economics (like you said at the end of your last response), then you would understand all of the data I'm giving to you. The fact that you don't tells me (and everyone else) something. You haven't taken an economics course in your entire life.

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.

Supply Side is nothing like Keynesianism. It looks like you took my advice and Google Supply Side, only to be directed to faulty information.



Didn't work because it wasn't implemented. The only thing Reagan did was cut taxes.





And how is that working out for the world. Also, keep in mind (since you are so hooked on consensus in winning debates) that more Austrian economist have won Noble Laureates in the field of Economist than any other type economic theorist.

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).



Only one country in the EU actually used Austerity, and that is Lithuania. And it worked. The rest of the EU countries cuts were too small relative to the size of their budgets. Then again, anything is austerity compared to what the US is doing.

But I love that Austerity when the spending actually increases and doesn't stop. Moody's downgrading the UK for a uncontrollable debt. Spain having the EU's largest budget deficit. Yep. They have austerity. And George Bush was a fiscal hawk.




My theories, as you would call them, as my analysis. My graphs, as you would call them, are my backing. That's how a debate works. I understand this is unfamiliar to you because you are not use to actually doing research. You'll learn someday, although, I'm not sure when that day will be.



Yeah, sure. Not a blog...

Your first two examples are primary sources. Your last example is a secondary source. The purpose of a primary source is to give you the data straight from the horses mouth. It's not white washed or watered down. It's just straight as it is data.

The secondary



You are saying that I am partial but you have been spouting this 'bat shit crazy right wing' rhetoric from the beginning as if you are not partial. You're right. Thank you for providing me with that stupid sentence.

And even if I was partial, are you saying that you can't take my evidence into consideration because of this? I've never heard of such a stupid reason to dismiss evidence I didn't like in my entire life. Facts are something about the world which is true. Facts don't bend to the will of any particular person or ideology simply because you like certain points of view better than others.

You need to grow up. In more ways than one.

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.[/quote]

I create charts because I have limitations with the data provided for me. There is nothing wrong with that. All I do is download the data from a primary source, put it on an excel spreadsheet and create the chart. All economic and financial experts do it (and it's really easy, as there are videos on how to do it on YouTube). It's already a given that you are far from an economic or financial expert.

I really don't care if you don't trust the data I present. That is not my concern. I present data from primary sources which backs up my claims. You have yet to do the same.



I never said the Clinton economy was based on a capital gains tax decrease. You used Clinton as an example and I corrected you with the facts. The biggest success with the Clinton economy as due to an asset bubble. Was this good? No. Asset bubbles are seen as phony prosperity. It doesn't change the fact that none of it was due to stimulus and good portion of the growth was Capital Gains tax cut.



Reagan ran up deficits to aggressively expand the military. The borrowing was the result of the deficit (as they are with every deficit in American history). The taxes were (not necessarily a Reagan plan, but the Democratically controlled congress plan) were an initiative to balance the budget. All of this was Reagan's plan to compete with the Soviet union in producing a military superpower which they could not keep up with, and eventually collapsed. Did you sleep under a rock during the world war?

No amount of Reagan spending was stimulus, as it was only for the military. It did nothing to help the economy. Except grant the United States the title of Debtor Nation or the first time in history. Congratulation...


No, not necessarily. Not, for instance for the last couple years of the Clinton admin.[/quote]

The national debt increased in the last few years of the Clinton Administration. You don't know what you are saying.





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

They started, and the borrowing started, as soon as the deficit and ue problem was understood.

I don't know how you think deficits work, but borrowing is always going on as long as the country is running a deficit. There was no starting period in the Reagan administration.

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%

Before, you said that it was the result of borrowing, taxing and stimulus which made the unemployment rate decrease. Now you are saying that never does. It doesn't take stimulus 3 years to effect the economy. That only happens when it clearly isn't working.

Mathematically, there are only two ways you are going to get the unemployment rate down:

1. If the unemployed civilians leave the labour force.
2. If the unemployed civilians find jobs.

The first option is what happened in 1982 -1983. People were leaving the labour force. If people are leaving, then this is not a sign of a recovering job market. The second option is what happened in 1986 onward. People were entering the labour force and finding work. As a result, the unemployment rate dropped. I showed you a chart illustrating this. Perhaps you missed it.




Again, Government spending didn't stop and it did nothing for unemployment. Government spending had very little relationship on Job Growth.

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.


\

I'm not even Keynesian and I can't even tell you how stupid that sounds. That's not how stimulus works. Stimulus spending remains consistent overtime and is concentrated in longer periods, not in just one financial quarter. It's meant to be spent in portions, not as much as possible early. The idea is to MAINTAIN economy growth, not just to have it all shoved in one fiscal quarter. If anyone did that, the economic growth would be maintained more than two financial quarters, and the economy would just go back into a recession.

For example, the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act was spent over the course of two years. The idea is to keep the rate of spending steady. As you can see from 2009 to 2011, spending increased, then it leveled off at a steady rate, then it decreased dramatically once it expired. This pattern is typical of stimulus spending:

But what happened in the 90's was nothing similar. Most of the biggest spending happened before Clinton even got there. Then Clinton got into office and the rate of spending decrease dramatically. No amount of spending was consistent or prolonged.


Government spending was 40% of GDP when Clinton took Office. It was less than 40% of GDP the following year, even though spending did grow.



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.

Private sector spending and Gross personal investments grew much Government spending. Compared to those components of GDP, government spending barely budged. Government spending barely a factor at all.

It's quite clear you don't understand what you are talking about, and are just making things up. As usual.

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.

But they support my 'distorted analysis.' The data doesn't care about ideology or political alignment. All that matters are the facts.

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.

Oh of course, you not Dave Manuel. I forgot, you do know an economist (ie, he is not an economist).

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

Anyone can be an economist. Just talk about nothing but economics all day. It might make you an economist, but it's not the same as being competent.

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.

My degree wasn't in Economics. Along with this I have a Series 7. It was in Finance. Your money doesn't mean much to me. I make a very good living already. Credentials doesn't matter at all when it comes to a debate. All that matters are the facts that are presented. I have refuted loads of people in the financial community who though they were right simply because they were older or more experienced. I am able to read between the lines because I have a fundamental understanding of Economics.

The same level of understanding as not helped you. You simply believe you are correct because you have found someone else in authority who agrees with you. Again, that's too easy, old and tired.

And yes you are a joke.

The joke is on you. You have provided me with loads of internet entertainment. It's also a good thing that I don't have to spend much time writing these because this would have consumed most of my time. Other than your bitching about verifiable primary sources, lying about evidence presented, making up your own opinions, facts and history, this has been a big source of entertainment around here. It would be really fun, if only you were so incredibility ignorant. Ignorance is never good. You need some school. I can't always be there to give it to you...[/QUOTE]
Wow. You have a high opinion of yourself. For a completely ignorant con tool. Which is normal.
I thought that analysis you did on the costs of the ACA before it has really even started was one of the most entertaining. Not sure if I ever saw a more ignorant effort at analysis, or fake analysis, in my adult life. Jesus, that was ignorant. But then, so were the rest of your little charts. But then, the sources below may help you. I know it is not your fault. You are a con tool. You are just like all of the other con tools. Stupid people, you will read, always believe that they are really smart. Wrongly, of course. But it is entertaining.

Here. Try these, They may help you.

Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience


New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) : Gene Expression

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

And always remember how much I respect your opinion.

 

[AmazonTania]

Seeing as you responded rather quickly -- but none of it in regards to what I have actually said -- I'm going to assume I completely destroyed all of your points. Then again, what exactly can you do when you don't have a single case to build off of.

Wow. You have a high opinion of yourself. For a completely ignorant con tool. Which is normal.

Well, I'm a rather successful, knowledgeable individual. I don't see why anyone who was me wouldn't have a high opinion.

I thought that analysis you did on the costs of the ACA before it has really even started was one of the most entertaining.

There is no cost really. There is only an impact. Part-time employment as surged and full-time employment as stagnated, as businesses with more than 50 full-time employees wil forced to provide health care to their employees.

Not sure if I ever saw a more ignorant effort at analysis, or fake analysis, in my adult life. Jesus, that was ignorant.

Yeah, it's an ignorantly fake analysis that somehow no one disputes. Funny how that works.

Obamacare Putting Millions Of Part-Time Workers At Risk Of Seeing Cut Hours: Study

More Part-Time Jobs Ahead Under Obamacare: Critics

And of course, the fact that mostly everyone agrees with this analysis doesn't mean that I'm right. It's just that these claims are indisputable. A fact is simply something about the world which is true, and what I said was nothing short of that.

But then, so were the rest of your little charts. But then, the sources below may help you. I know it is not your fault. You are a con tool. You are just like all of the other con tools. Stupid people, you will read, always believe that they are really smart. Wrongly, of course. But it is entertaining.

Here. Try these, They may help you.

Brock University Study Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience


New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) : Gene Expression

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

I fail to see what this has to do with me, seeing that I am not a conservative and I don't align most on the right. I fail to see what this has to do with any of the topics regarding the affordable healthcare act. My guess is that you want to show how intellectually superior you are to me by ignoring the topic all together and resorting to cheap shots. You know, the best tactic when you have nothing left.

And what am I suppose to learn from your links that you have presented? That there are people who hate conservatives as much as you? That's a given. That really tells me nothing to be honest. I'm sure if I try hard enough I will find studies and articles about liberals and their mental disorders and how watching MSNBC makes your children less likely to graduate from high school.

I'm sure you have a point. I'm just not sure what it is.

And always remember how much I respect your opinion.

I really don't care if you respect my opinion. You will never be that important. I really don't care if you think I'm right once. At this point, it really only matters as long as everyone else sees how wrong you are and how much I embarrass you.

 

[Rshermr]

And how is that working out for the world. Also, keep in mind (since you are so hooked on consensus in winning debates) that more Austrian economist have won Noble Laureates in the field of Economist than any other type economic theorist.

Did you notice that you just put the above in the past tense. I just stated a truth. That would be that we have now had a good chance to try austerity and it has not been a real hit. And, me dear, that supply siders, and Austrian economists, are about as popular as turds in a punch bowl. Read a little. Get out of the bat shit crazy con sites you inhabit.

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).

Only one country in the EU actually used Austerity, and that is Lithuania. And it worked. The rest of the EU countries cuts were too small relative to the size of their budgets. Then again, anything is austerity compared to what the US is doing.

Lithuania's austerity government voted out
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ithuanias-austerity-government-voted-out.html
IMF Backs Lithuania Fiscal Shift From Austerity Focus
IMF Backs Lithuania Fiscal Shift From Austerity Focus - Businessweek

As I keep telling you, you need to get your head out of those bat shit crazy con sites. And don't get shitty with me. They lied to you. I did not. If you cared to read actual impartial reports, by the hundreds, lithuania has been doing poorly economically. And the people got really angry watching a few folks make a bunch of money, while they starved.
See how it helps, Tanya, to actually RESEARCH the information. Instead of creating graphs on selected data. Jesus, that was a stupid statement.
And NO, Tanya, unlike what you read in the bat shit crazy con sites, there is austerity all over europe. A number of countries. Books have been written about the subject. Sorry you are being lied to, but jesus that was another ignorant statement.





So Tanya says:

My theories, as you would call them, as my analysis. My graphs, as you would call them, are my backing. That's how a debate works. I understand this is unfamiliar to you because you are not use to actually doing research. You'll learn someday, although, I'm not sure when that day will be.

Depends on how you pick your data sets. For instance, the above analysis about Lithuania was great, except there are about a hundred articles out there telling you, should you care, that your data is WRONG. Or your brilliant charts on the cost of the aca. Jesus, that was a hoot. Just can not get over it. Yet a team of respected economists and statisticians tell you something totally different. But there is Tanya. Picking the fly crap out of the pepper, trying to prove what she WANTS TO BELIEVE.

Here is another example of your chart data:

Government spending was 40% of GDP when Clinton took Office. It was less than 40% of GDP the following year, even though spending did grow.

You charted gov spending as a percentage of gdp. Which is meaningless. Because even the simple concept of including spending is not shown. And, it is not only the spending, but where it was spent year to year. Your chart, me dear, is useless. Tells you NOTHING. But then you tell me what it means. Stupid. I have been around way to long to buy off on that kind of poor effort.

So, Tanya says:

Oh of course, you not Dave Manuel. I forgot, you do know an economist (ie, he is not an economist).

Was this sentence meant to have meaning?? Look, it is you who is always pushing the wonders of good english. But you obviously do not go back and read what you say.

Then, there is this one:

Anyone can be an economist. Just talk about nothing but economics all day. It might make you an economist, but it's not the same as being competent.

Yes, I suppose. But anyone can be an analyst. Hell, seems to me I have seen someone lately telling me that they are great data analysts. But then, that would be more than a little questionable. Eh, Tanya. But I consider an economist to be someone with a phd in economics or commensurate experience.

Now, I assume that you are proud of this paragraph. If I wrote it, I would have to at least cut off my hand:

My degree wasn't in Economics.

OBVIOUSLY

Along with this I have a Series 7. It was in Finance.

Good for you. I have a grad degree in bus, but did not think it was an issue. Apparently you are trying to tell me something important to you.

Your money doesn't mean much to me.

Did someone say something about my money??? It definitely was not me.

I make a very good living already.

Good for you. Money changers generally do.

Credentials doesn't matter at all when it comes to a debate. All that matters are the facts that are presented. I have refuted loads of people in the financial community who though they were right simply because they were older or more experienced. I am able to read between the lines because I have a fundamental understanding of Economics.

Right. Whatever. So you believe.

The same level of understanding as not helped you. You simply believe you are correct because you have found someone else in authority who agrees with you. Again, that's too easy, old and tired.

Hardly. I never look at a person in authority and believe him. How stupid are you. Evidence is based by finding people with sufficient proof of a subject. Not just simple charts, but actual impartial analysis. And organizations that have the capability to actually study a subject. You see, i would never, ever come to the conclusion that Lithuania was a case of successful austerity actions, because I actually read a good deal about it. From people who had no skin in the game.

And that is where you fail. You have all sorts of skin in the game, and it is obvious where your information comes from.

Then there is this one:

Private sector spending and Gross personal investments grew much Government spending. Compared to those components of GDP, government spending barely budged. Government spending barely a factor at all.

It's quite clear you don't understand what you are talking about, and are just making things up. As usual.

So you keep saying. But you have proven the value of your charts. Over and over. You need way more ability to analyze the data than you have. The whole issue with the economy under Clinton was complex. You could learn something if you cared to read scholarly information. There is a lot of it out there. You seem to take advantage of none of it. Charts just do not get you there. But they WILL get you where you want to be. Which they do for you. Really, really obviously.

Once more, you bring out a new chart to prove NOTHING.

I'm not even Keynesian and I can't even tell you how stupid that sounds. That's not how stimulus works. Stimulus spending remains consistent overtime and is concentrated in longer periods, not in just one financial quarter. It's meant to be spent in portions, not as much as possible early. The idea is to MAINTAIN economy growth, not just to have it all shoved in one fiscal quarter. If anyone did that, the economic growth would be maintained more than two financial quarters, and the economy would just go back into a recession.

Tanya, what I said is that the stimulus was spent as fast as they could. It took some time for projects to be ready to use the money. So, about 80% of the stimulus was spent in 2009. The first spending was in feb 2009, and the spending dwindled thereafter rather quickly.
Your analysis about what a stimulus is is very, very wrong. The stimulus money must be passed in a bill through congress. The sooner you can get money into the economy, in the form of projects, the better. Those projects will be of varying lengths, but the whole idea is to STIMULATE PRIVATE ECONOMIC GROWTH. As in get companies hiring. Based on where the money is spent, the multiplier will determine the time and hiring impact that will result. So, spreading out the spending over several years is counterproductive, normally. The best results in fast stimulus with lots of impact through multipliers that jump start a "normal" economy. You are not trying to place dollars into the economy to be used as received with no additional results. That is the con view of what a stimulus is, which has NOTHING to do with what economists want a stimulus to accomplish.

For example, the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act was spent over the course of two years. The idea is to keep the rate of spending steady. As you can see from 2009 to 2011, spending increased, then it leveled off at a steady rate, then it decreased dramatically once it expired. This pattern is typical of stimulus spending:

It did not last just two years. Money from the stimulus (which has increased recently) is continuing to be spent. But by far, the majority of the money was spent in 2009, with a fair sized spending total in 2010, and a small amount in 2011. So, yes, we agree, at least that it lasted primarily for two or three years for the most part.
But the issue is greater than that. All that you are showing with your graphs (or at least trying to show) is actual spending. Tax decreases do not show up, and about 1/3 of this stimulus was not spending but tax decreases (which, per the cbo, did little). But the gin up of the economy needs to be measured also. And that is much harder. Though the cbo continues to do so.

So, enough. I had a partial knee replacement on thurs, and have been sleeping and drugged. Not as good as those of the 60;s and early 70's, but free. But in the interim, I am not doing well at trying to follow all of your posts. And your charts are simply funny to me. Have seen the attempt many times before. You need to do some actual fact based economic research, or you will simply look like a conservative hack.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

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

Predictive indications are fairly clear. It will be awhile before socioeconomic conditions in America deteriorate sufficiently as to provoke the kind of political revolution I advocate. And because I'm seventy-six years old it isn't likely I'll be around when the People finally wake up to what's been happening to their Country. So you needn't be concerned about me playing a decisive role in the radical reforms I'm recommending.

I'm merely one of an increasing number of observers who understand what is and has been happening and who know what needs to be done to resolve the situation. The only reason more Americans aren't similarly aware of what is happening to their Nation is they are still complacent. They still are able to pay the bills and think of themselves as middle class, so they don't want to look more closely at the big picture. But, as the saying goes, things will have to get worse before they get better -- and they will.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm financially comfortable and if I were alone in the world I'd be content to quietly live out the remainder of my life and wave goodbye with a sympathetic smile. But I have three married daughters and five grandchildren whose futures I am seriously concerned about. This is the first time in my memory when average Americans are anticipating a future in which their children are not likely to do as well as they've done. And the reason for that is the rise of a category of greedy bastards who have managed to maneuver and manipulate the system in ways which enable them to hoard exceptional amounts of the Nation's wealth resources thereby depriving the average American of his/her fair share.

I know you don't believe any of this. Actually you can't believe it because it exists in conflict with your essential mindset, which is tolerant of and predisposed to greed. But those who might be interested in having a clearer picture of the present economic situation in the U.S. will find this video interesting: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM]Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AmazonTania]

Did you notice that you just put the above in the past tense. I just stated a truth. That would be that we have now had a good chance to try austerity and it has not been a real hit. And, me dear, that supply siders, and Austrian economists, are about as popular as turds in a punch bowl.

How is that working out for the world? Not too good. Especially in America. Another failed Keynesian experiment waiting to happen.

Read a little. Get out of the bat shit crazy con sites you inhabit.

You mean DaveManuel.com?

Lithuania's austerity government voted out
Lithuania's austerity government voted out - Telegraph
IMF Backs Lithuania Fiscal Shift From Austerity Focus
IMF Backs Lithuania Fiscal Shift From Austerity Focus - Businessweek

As I keep telling you, you need to get your head out of those bat shit crazy con sites. And don't get shitty with me. They lied to you. I did not. If you cared to read actual impartial reports, by the hundreds, lithuania has been doing poorly economically.

Your articles are pretty late to the table. You do realize that their economy recovered LONG before 2012. About a year and a half to be exact. The austerity Government was voted out simply because there is no need for austerity in Lithuania. They can pursue whatever reckless policies they want.

And the people got really angry watching a few folks make a bunch of money, while they starved.
See how it helps, Tanya, to actually RESEARCH the information. Instead of creating graphs on selected data. Jesus, that was a stupid statement.

I did research the information, and none of your articles refutes what I have said. Also, I can pretty much tell you didn't bother reading any of your sources. It turns out that one of your sources actually supports my initial claims. The idea of presenting a counter argument in a debate is not present evidence which helps the opposing side. Talk about a backfire....

When the crisis struck, the banks stopped lending. Economic output dropped by 15 per cent in 2009. Unemployment shot up. Thousands of young Lithuanians went abroad to seek work.

Mr Kubilius, elected after the crisis began, cut pensions and public sector wages. To save money, only every third street lamp in Vilnius was lit, and fuel for police cars was rationed. This discipline helped the economy rebound. Gross domestic product grew 5.8 per cent last year, one of the fastest rates of any EU economy. The budget deficit has been tamed.

Lithuania's austerity government voted out - Telegraph

Yes, that austerity did help the economy rebound (as I have shown in my chart). And the budget deficit has been tamed.

​

Yes, the citizens don't necessarily feel that they are better off, but that is the point of Austerity. Short term pain in exchange for long term real prosperity. There still have a long way to go, but they are better off than their EU counterparts.

I guess by doing research, you mean desperately Google whatever you want without clearly reading what you are presenting as evidence. But thanks for providing those sources. How I don't have to work as hard.

And NO, Tanya, unlike what you read in the bat shit crazy con sites, there is austerity all over europe. A number of countries.

Point out the Austerity, because I'm having a hard time finding it. Is it in Spain?

Budget deficits reflectively increasing as a share of their GDP. No Austerity there.

What about Greece?

Budget deficits are also increasing relative to GDP. No Austerity there, either.

What about Portugal?

Close, but still no austerity to be found.

Maybe I'll find it if I look at the Czech Republic:

Denmark?

Hardly.

Books have been written about the subject. Sorry you are being lied to, but jesus that was another ignorant statement.

Books have been written about upcoming economic collapse which have never happened. No different from your books about European Austerity which have never happened. Do you see the relation? Your problem is you believe what you read in books, as long as you agree with the content and material of what is in the book. I'm not sure if you are aware, but books are not entirely accurate, especially when you are covering the topic of economics. It's no different from news articles or even blogs for that matter. I prefer to get my information straight from the horse's mouth, instead of being told what should be the truth and what isn't the truth. As long as you keep doing things this way, you will effectively never learn anything.

Depends on how you pick your data sets. For instance, the above analysis about Lithuania was great, except there are about a hundred articles out there telling you, should you care, that your data is WRONG.

Yeah, and you just happened to pick to two sources which proves my case for me. What are the odds?

Or your brilliant charts on the cost of the aca. Jesus, that was a hoot. Just can not get over it. Yet a team of respected economists and statisticians tell you something totally different. But there is Tanya. Picking the fly crap out of the pepper, trying to prove what she WANTS TO BELIEVE.

Appealing to authority again? What team of economist or statisticians told me something different? You haven't used any of them in an attempt to refute me.

You charted gov spending as a percentage of gdp. Which is meaningless. Because even the simple concept of including spending is not shown. And, it is not only the spending, but where it was spent year to year. Your chart, me dear, is useless. Tells you NOTHING. But then you tell me what it means. Stupid. I have been around way to long to buy off on that kind of poor effort.

Out of this poorly phrased response, I gathered that you believing spending as a percentage of GDP is meaningless. Well, it's only meaningless to those who don't understand the concept. You probably don't know, but Government spending is a component of GDP (C+I+G+NX). You said that the Clinton Economy was successful with the help of Government Stimulus. If this is true, then you should see a sharp increase in the percentage of Government Spending. But there is none.

So now that you have better understanding of the chart, you can't possibly say that it tells you nothing. Private Sector Spending (the Red bar) grew twice as fast. Investments (green bar) caught up to the level of Government Spending. And Government spending (Blue bar) was pretty much stagnant for all 8 years. Again, there was no stimulus during the Clinton administration. You made it up.

Was this sentence meant to have meaning?? Look, it is you who is always pushing the wonders of good english. But you obviously do not go back and read what you say.

It's a typo. A spelling mistake is not the same as making grammatical errors in almost every sentence.

Then, there is this one:

Yes, I suppose. But anyone can be an analyst. Hell, seems to me I have seen someone lately telling me that they are great data analysts. But then, that would be more than a little questionable. Eh, Tanya. But I consider an economist to be someone with a phd in economics or commensurate experience.

That's your opinion. Funny how that Dave Manuel nobody you have been sourcing all day doesn't have a PhD in Economics, and you considered him to be an economics expert.

Your coherency is all over the map and your logic is practically non-existent.

Now, I assume that you are proud of this paragraph. If I wrote it, I would have to at least cut off my hand:
OBVIOUSLY

You do understand the Finance and economics are relatively the same, correct?

Good for you. I have a grad degree in bus, but did not think it was an issue.

What's a Grad degree in bus? Bus driving? That's cool I guess.

Apparently you are trying to tell me something important to you. Did someone say something about my money??? It definitely was not me.

You were the one who desperately wanted to bet me that I wouldn't be able to show a degree in economics. How sad can a person be.

Good for you. Money changers generally do.

That's because we understand markets and economics. Something you have yet to grasp.

Right. Whatever. So you believe.

So I know, and I've made lots of money doing so.

Hardly. I never look at a person in authority and believe him. How stupid are you. Evidence is based by finding people with sufficient proof of a subject. Not just simple charts, but actual impartial analysis.

The charts are the same as impartial analysis. You don't like the charts because they simply refutes what you say.

And organizations that have the capability to actually study a subject. You see, i would never, ever come to the conclusion that Lithuania was a case of successful austerity actions, because I actually read a good deal about it. From people who had no skin in the game.

Not enough reading apparently. Barely any reading at all, considering you two sources which actually supports my claim. This suggest you didn't even read your sources before presenting it, which makes you more ill equipped to debate with me than I already thought.

Aside from your ill preparation, you have missed a ton of things. You missed the fact that the Lithuania economy recovered in 2010. You missed the fact that GDP is growing at an annualized rate of 5% a year. You missed the fact that budget deficits have gotten back under control. Is the economy booming. The economy is experiencing a mild restructure.

And that is where you fail. You have all sorts of skin in the game, and it is obvious where your information comes from.

Then there is this one:

So you keep saying. But you have proven the value of your charts. Over and over. You need way more ability to analyze the data than you have. The whole issue with the economy under Clinton was complex. You could learn something if you cared to read scholarly information. There is a lot of it out there. You seem to take advantage of none of it. Charts just do not get you there. But they WILL get you where you want to be. Which they do for you. Really, really obviously.

You have Zero credibility over what is scholarly and what is not. Majority of your sources are not scholarly nor peer reviewed. They're either from blogs or news articles. Until you actually present something more than that, I don't have to consider anything you have said.

And if you believe the economy under Clinton was more complex, why don'y you explain it? So far, all you have done was narrow it down to stimulus. That's not complex at all. I have a feeling you don't understand what you are talking about, and you biting off more than you can chew.

Once more, you bring out a new chart to prove NOTHING.

Once more, the chart shows that the Clinton economy wasn't the result of any stimulus. It's one thing not to understand what you are looking at. It's another to lie about the evidence present. Then again, you've been lying about evidence since the gecko when you claimed that the Capital Gains tax cuts took effect in 1998. You have zero credibility thus far.

Tanya, what I said is that the stimulus was spent as fast as they could. It took some time for projects to be ready to use the money.

And still, that doesn't make sense. Spending is recorded as a final consumption in a good or service. Whatever spending anyone does in an economy, it is going to be accounted in that Financial Quarter. What ever spending the Government does is going to be accounted for in the quarter the money was spent. Whatever grants, loans or other projects which took place later would be accounted for in an entirely different quarter. That would have slowed GDP growth, which is not what any economist wanted to happen.

You clearly don't have any understand of how GDP works, which is why you probably think spending as a percentage of GDP is meaningless.

First get a crash course in economics. Then all of these things will make more sense to you. I promise.

So, about 80% of the stimulus was spent in 2009. The first spending was in feb 2009, and the spending dwindled thereafter rather quickly.

No, the first stimulus bill was $787.8 Billion dollars. Government Spending increased from $3.230 Trillion to $3.546.8 from Q1 to Q4 in 2009. That $316.8 Billion dollars Government Spent in the entire year from the stimulus. $316.8 Billion is not 80% of $787.8 Billion. Stop making things up.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/FGEXPND.txt

Your analysis about what a stimulus is is very, very wrong. The stimulus money must be passed in a bill through congress. The sooner you can get money into the economy, in the form of projects, the better. Those projects will be of varying lengths, but the whole idea is to STIMULATE PRIVATE ECONOMIC GROWTH. As in get companies hiring. Based on where the money is spent, the multiplier will determine the time and hiring impact that will result. So, spreading out the spending over several years is counterproductive, normally. The best results in fast stimulus with lots of impact through multipliers that jump start a "normal" economy. You are not trying to place dollars into the economy to be used as received with no additional results. That is the con view of what a stimulus is, which has NOTHING to do with what economists want a stimulus to accomplish.

You do realize that Recovery.gov has quarterly statements of when the money was being spent and how much of it was being spent. It's there on the website, clear as day. And guess what? 80% of the Stimulus bill was not spent in 2009.

Quarterly Summary

It would be better if you actually knew what you were talking about before you wrote anything. It's pretty sad when I have to correct your own talking points for you. If you are not aware of what the facts are, you would be better off not writing anything at all.

It did not last just two years. Money from the stimulus (which has increased recently) is continuing to be spent. But by far, the majority of the money was spent in 2009, with a fair sized spending total in 2010, and a small amount in 2011. So, yes, we agree, at least that it lasted primarily for two or three years for the most part.

No, it lasted for two years. And no, most of it was not spent in 2009. Not even half of it was spent in that year.

But the issue is greater than that. All that you are showing with your graphs (or at least trying to show) is actual spending. Tax decreases do not show up, and about 1/3 of this stimulus was not spending but tax decreases (which, per the cbo, did little). But the gin up of the economy needs to be measured also. And that is much harder. Though the cbo continues to do so.

Those tax cuts were tax credits. That's money being spent by the government and being given to those who qualified individuals. Those are nothing more than transfer payments. That still shows up in Government Expenditures. You are wrong, again.

So, enough. I had a partial knee replacement on thurs, and have been sleeping and drugged. Not as good as those of the 60;s and early 70's, but free. But in the interim, I am not doing well at trying to follow all of your posts. And your charts are simply funny to me. Have seen the attempt many times before. You need to do some actual fact based economic research, or you will simply look like a conservative hack.

You have no credibility in the area of fact based economic research. You have yet to present any facts of your own, and so far my evidence dwarfs yours.

 

[Boss]

[...]

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

Predictive indications are fairly clear it will be awhile before socioeconomic conditions in America deteriorate sufficiently as to provoke the kind of political revolution I advocate. And because I'm seventy-six years old it isn't likely I'll be around when the People finally wake up to what's been happening to their Country. So you needn't be concerned about me playing a decisive role in the radical reforms I'm recommending.

You are the stupidest old person I have ever talked to, just so you know.

I'm merely one of an increasing number of observers who understand what is and has been happening and who know what needs to be done to resolve the situation.

The gap between wealthy and poor has always grown and always will. I explained all of this in the OP, which you seem to just completely ignore as you continue spewing nonsense. You are one of an increasing number of IDIOTS who failed world history, who don't have a clue that what you are promoting is failed Socialism and Communism.

The only reason more Americans aren't similarly aware of what is happening to their Nation is they are still complacent.

No, the reason there isn't more, is because most people are not as stupid as you.

They still are able to pay the bills and think of themselves as middle class, so they don't want to look more closely at the big picture. But, as the saying goes, things will have to get worse before they get better -- and they will.

Things are getting worse because we continue going down the path to Socialism! We have been implementing Socialist policies for 70 years, and the results are disastrous... now you want to blame it on the capitalists.

ANY PERSON who lives in THIS country, is free to go out there and accomplish whatever level of wealth they desire. You make it sound as if middle class people have no choice but to get up every morning and go to the same old job and do the same old thing. But this isn't 1920s Europe, where kings and rulers mandated what you could and couldn't do, and there was never any opportunity to do more. This is AMERICA, and we have the freedom to achieve whatever our hearts desire.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm financially comfortable and if I were alone in the world I'd be content to quietly live out the remainder of my life and wave goodbye with a sympathetic smile. But I have three married daughters and five grandchildren whose futures I am seriously concerned about. This is the first time in my memory when average Americans are anticipating a future in which their children are not likely to do as well as they've done.

And all we've done for 70 years, is pass one Socialist liberal policy after another, to "help people" and make life better. If you are the least bit concerned about the future of your grandchildren, why are you advocating a system of government that will destroy ANY opportunity they ever have to succeed? Why do you want to enslave them to Communism? Why would you not want them to enjoy free market capitalism and use it to better their station in life?

And the reason for that is the rise of a category of greedy bastards who have managed to maneuver and manipulate the system in ways which enable them to hoard exceptional amounts of the Nation's wealth resources thereby depriving the average American of his/her fair share.

We've already covered this, most of it is in the OP. You have been brainwashed by Communists, and believe that capitalists are "greedy" but that is simply untrue. Free market capitalism self-moderates greed. It can't exist in a pure free market system.

You are ALWAYS going to have people who use the system to their greatest advantage. You are always going to have a few who break the law and have to be punished. There is no system you can enact, or law you can pass, to keep this from happening. The rival system of free market capitalism, creates an iron curtain between the people and the cronies who have all the wealth AND power. ALL of these 'fear mongering' cliches you are spewing, which don't actually exist in a free market system, will be a FACT OF LIFE under your Commie system, and there won't be a damn thing you can do about it.

I know you don't believe any of this. Actually you can't believe it because it exists in conflict with your essential mindset, which is tolerant of and predisposed to greed.

Why the hell would I be predisposed to greed? Just try to articulate why you think I believe greed is a good thing and we should have more of it? It is actually the rival system to free market capitalism, which GUARANTEES greed, corruption and graft, on a scale we have never even imagined before. ALL of this shit you keep telling us is a problem, from wealth disparity to middle class income and opportunity, will be considerably WORSE in a Communist, Socialist, or Maoist system.

 

[Rshermr]

And how is that working out for the world. Also, keep in mind (since you are so hooked on consensus in winning debates) that more Austrian economist have won Noble Laureates in the field of Economist than any other type economic theorist.

Did you notice that you just put the above in the past tense. I just stated a truth. That would be that we have now had a good chance to try austerity and it has not been a real hit. And, me dear, that supply siders, and Austrian economists, are about as popular as turds in a punch bowl. Read a little. Get out of the bat shit crazy con sites you inhabit.

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).

Only one country in the EU actually used Austerity, and that is Lithuania. And it worked. The rest of the EU countries cuts were too small relative to the size of their budgets. Then again, anything is austerity compared to what the US is doing.

Lithuania's austerity government voted out
Lithuania's austerity government voted out - Telegraph
IMF Backs Lithuania Fiscal Shift From Austerity Focus
IMF Backs Lithuania Fiscal Shift From Austerity Focus - Businessweek

As I keep telling you, you need to get your head out of those bat shit crazy con sites. And don't get shitty with me. They lied to you. I did not. If you cared to read actual impartial reports, by the hundreds, lithuania has been doing poorly economically. And the people got really angry watching a few folks make a bunch of money, while they starved.
See how it helps, Tanya, to actually RESEARCH the information. Instead of creating graphs on selected data. Jesus, that was a stupid statement.
And NO, Tanya, unlike what you read in the bat shit crazy con sites, there is austerity all over europe. A number of countries. Books have been written about the subject. Sorry you are being lied to, but jesus that was another ignorant statement.





So Tanya says:



Depends on how you pick your data sets. For instance, the above analysis about Lithuania was great, except there are about a hundred articles out there telling you, should you care, that your data is WRONG. Or your brilliant charts on the cost of the aca. Jesus, that was a hoot. Just can not get over it. Yet a team of respected economists and statisticians tell you something totally different. But there is Tanya. Picking the fly crap out of the pepper, trying to prove what she WANTS TO BELIEVE.

Here is another example of your chart data:



You charted gov spending as a percentage of gdp. Which is meaningless. Because even the simple concept of including spending is not shown. And, it is not only the spending, but where it was spent year to year. Your chart, me dear, is useless. Tells you NOTHING. But then you tell me what it means. Stupid. I have been around way to long to buy off on that kind of poor effort.

So, Tanya says:

Was this sentence meant to have meaning?? Look, it is you who is always pushing the wonders of good english. But you obviously do not go back and read what you say.

Then, there is this one:

Yes, I suppose. But anyone can be an analyst. Hell, seems to me I have seen someone lately telling me that they are great data analysts. But then, that would be more than a little questionable. Eh, Tanya. But I consider an economist to be someone with a phd in economics or commensurate experience.

Now, I assume that you are proud of this paragraph. If I wrote it, I would have to at least cut off my hand:
OBVIOUSLY Good for you. I have a grad degree in bus, but did not think it was an issue. Apparently you are trying to tell me something important to you. Did someone say something about my money??? It definitely was not me. Good for you. Money changers generally do.
Right. Whatever. So you believe.


Hardly. I never look at a person in authority and believe him. How stupid are you. Evidence is based by finding people with sufficient proof of a subject. Not just simple charts, but actual impartial analysis. And organizations that have the capability to actually study a subject. You see, i would never, ever come to the conclusion that Lithuania was a case of successful austerity actions, because I actually read a good deal about it. From people who had no skin in the game.

And that is where you fail. You have all sorts of skin in the game, and it is obvious where your information comes from.

Then there is this one:


So you keep saying. But you have proven the value of your charts. Over and over. You need way more ability to analyze the data than you have. The whole issue with the economy under Clinton was complex. You could learn something if you cared to read scholarly information. There is a lot of it out there. You seem to take advantage of none of it. Charts just do not get you there. But they WILL get you where you want to be. Which they do for you. Really, really obviously.

Once more, you bring out a new chart to prove NOTHING.

I'm not even Keynesian and I can't even tell you how stupid that sounds. That's not how stimulus works. Stimulus spending remains consistent overtime and is concentrated in longer periods, not in just one financial quarter. It's meant to be spent in portions, not as much as possible early. The idea is to MAINTAIN economy growth, not just to have it all shoved in one fiscal quarter. If anyone did that, the economic growth would be maintained more than two financial quarters, and the economy would just go back into a recession.

Tanya, what I said is that the stimulus was spent as fast as they could. It took some time for projects to be ready to use the money. So, about 80% of the stimulus was spent in 2009. The first spending was in feb 2009, and the spending dwindled thereafter rather quickly.
Your analysis about what a stimulus is is very, very wrong. The stimulus money must be passed in a bill through congress. The sooner you can get money into the economy, in the form of projects, the better. Those projects will be of varying lengths, but the whole idea is to STIMULATE PRIVATE ECONOMIC GROWTH. As in get companies hiring. Based on where the money is spent, the multiplier will determine the time and hiring impact that will result. So, spreading out the spending over several years is counterproductive, normally. The best results in fast stimulus with lots of impact through multipliers that jump start a "normal" economy. You are not trying to place dollars into the economy to be used as received with no additional results. That is the con view of what a stimulus is, which has NOTHING to do with what economists want a stimulus to accomplish.

For example, the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act was spent over the course of two years. The idea is to keep the rate of spending steady. As you can see from 2009 to 2011, spending increased, then it leveled off at a steady rate, then it decreased dramatically once it expired. This pattern is typical of stimulus spending:

It did not last just two years. Money from the stimulus (which has increased recently) is continuing to be spent. But by far, the majority of the money was spent in 2009, with a fair sized spending total in 2010, and a small amount in 2011. So, yes, we agree, at least that it lasted primarily for two or three years for the most part.
But the issue is greater than that. All that you are showing with your graphs (or at least trying to show) is actual spending. Tax decreases do not show up, and about 1/3 of this stimulus was not spending but tax decreases (which, per the cbo, did little). But the gin up of the economy needs to be measured also. And that is much harder. Though the cbo continues to do so.

So, enough. I had a partial knee replacement on thurs, and have been sleeping and drugged. Not as good as those of the 60;s and early 70's, but free. But in the interim, I am not doing well at trying to follow all of your posts. And your charts are simply funny to me. Have seen the attempt many times before. You need to do some actual fact based economic research, or you will simply look like a conservative hack.

By the way, it is hard to respond to all of your small statements. But I forgot this one, because it shows so well the state of your effort to prove your statements, stupidly:

Yeah, sure. Not a blog.

You then show a shot of the davemanual.com home page, with a red circle around the word daves blogs. Now, again, tanya, please pay attention. You circled a LINK. I said that the site is what it is, a web site. And I said that he also had blogs. You proved the point that I had made.
You try way to hard. You are looking like a total joke to anyone, and there are hundreds of thousands, who use davemanual, by working so hard to belittle it. The data that davemanual.com serves up is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS EXACTLY CORRECT. NEVER IN ANY CASE IS IT INCORRECT. Ya think you look like a con tool???????????????????

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Why the hell would I be predisposed to greed? Just try to articulate why you think I believe greed is a good thing and we should have more of it? It is actually the rival system to free market capitalism, which GUARANTEES greed, corruption and graft, on a scale we have never even imagined before. ALL of this shit you keep telling us is a problem, from wealth disparity to middle class income and opportunity, will be considerably WORSE in a Communist, Socialist, or Maoist system.

In terms of raw animal impulse, greed is a normal disposition. We see it even in domesticated animals who are inclined to push others out of the way so to "hog" all the food at feeding time. But in the example of civilized, intelligent humans, i.e., behavior expressed in academic terms as normative humanism, this impulse, referred to as greed, is pathological. Abnormal.

Why would you be predisposed to greed? I am not a psychoanalyst, so I can't tell you why. But the fact that you are not consciously aware of your affliction is typical of most behavioral aberrations. I suggest the simple and logical approach to self-examination would be to give some thought to the primary objective of the situation you aspire to. Look at your avatar and think about what it is you emulate. What is its ultimate objective?

Offhand I would suggest you are a weak, insignificant individual who longs for power. And excessive wealth is the contemporary standard of power. So maybe it's as simple as that.

And that's all I have to say to you, "Boss."