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

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

 

[samjones]

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

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

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

 

[editec]

You're misapplying the term SUPPLE SIDER, here, Ed.

I suspect you know it, too.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're misapplying the term SUPPLE SIDER, here, Ed.

I suspect you know it, too.

no idea why you say that? Why is the liberal so afraid to share? Jobs and supply siders in Congress are devoted to increasing the supply of new goods and services llike the kind that got us from the stone age to here.

Those that encourage demand for existing goods are merely churning the economy to make it look productive.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Supply side would eschew subsidy. Subsidy means the government assigns money to good ideas. Supply siders regard that concept as anathema

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Supply side would eschew subsidy. Subsidy means the government assigns money to good ideas. Supply siders regard that concept as anathema

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

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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

Allowing people to keep their own money is not subsidy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

that???????????????

Allowing people to keep their own money is not subsidy.

who said it was?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Supply side would eschew subsidy. Subsidy means the government assigns money to good ideas. Supply siders regard that concept as anathema

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

I thought that is what you were saying. Supply side means people get to keep their own money. Which is in no way manner shape or form a subsidy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I thought that is what you were saying. Supply side means people get to keep their own money. Which is in no way manner shape or form a subsidy.

******agreed

 

[samjones]

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


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

Oh - a Mac isn't really "Unix".... it's built on Unix, but OS X is a different animal.

I hope one day that when people talk about the computing/information revolution they think of it more as a revolution of thought than as a way for some guys to make a whole bunch of money. In my mind the change to the way people reason and the standards that we have for proof have changed dramatically over the last 30 years. There's an army of people responsible for that, but some people, like Dennis Ritchie and Alan Kay and others really stand out.

Steve Jobs just bought stuff other people invented and sold it for a profit. I don't know why anybody would consider him to be anything other than a figurehead and a really rich guy. And yes, I would say the same about Bill Gates too.

If justice is done, Dennis Ritchie, et al will be credited with advancing human thought and enriching human experience in the same way that the Medicis and Socrates have been.

Steve Jobs... meh... iPods. They made a great Christmas gift back in the Bush era.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Uh, not a good example. Jobs is one of the most unethical business people in modern history.

I'm a capitalist, but jobs was a crook.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

No, that isn't what it means at all.

"Supply Side" is based on the economic laws of Jean Baptiste Say, i.e. Say's law. "Supply gives rise to demand."

{It is not the abundance of money but the abundance of other products in general that facilitates sales... Money performs no more than the role of a conduit in this double exchange. When the exchanges have been completed, it will be found that one has paid for products with products.}

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

As example, let's use Job's iPod. Prior to Apple stealing the concept of a portable music player from Creative Labs, what was the demand for portable MP3 players? The answer is, there was none. Until a supply of the devices was offered to the market, no demand existed.

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

This is supply side, that offering a supply of good in the market drives economic activity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh - a Mac isn't really "Unix".... it's built on Unix, but OS X is a different animal.

It's built on PC-BSD, which is "Unix Like," but it isn't Unix.

I hope one day that when people talk about the computing/information revolution they think of it more as a revolution of thought than as a way for some guys to make a whole bunch of money. In my mind the change to the way people reason and the standards that we have for proof have changed dramatically over the last 30 years. There's an army of people responsible for that, but some people, like Dennis Ritchie and Alan Kay and others really stand out.

C ended up being the foundation for the syntax of most modern languages. But even with C#, shedding the procedural roots is very difficult, even as we understand that encapsulation is a superior model.

Steve Jobs just bought stuff other people invented and sold it for a profit. I don't know why anybody would consider him to be anything other than a figurehead and a really rich guy. And yes, I would say the same about Bill Gates too.

Jobs was a master marketer. Apple usually steals rather than buys technology.

Microsoft had a smart phone that merged a PDA and a cell phone years before Apple did. The Compaq iPaq predates the iPhone by a good 5 years. Still, Hewlett Packard and Microsoft couldn't generate enough buzz to sell the things.

It wasn't until Apple stole the design and Jobs hyped it that the concept caught on.

If justice is done, Dennis Ritchie, et al will be credited with advancing human thought and enriching human experience in the same way that the Medicis and Socrates have been.

Uh, yeah..

Ritchie will always be remembered. Is he more important than Bob Metcalf, Dan Bricklin or Marc Andreessen?

Not really, they are all pioneers that advanced computing.

Steve Jobs... meh... iPods. They made a great Christmas gift back in the Bush era.

Jobs and Wozniak ushered in the era of the personal computer. They are founding fathers just as much as Kernighan and Ritchie.

 

[samjones]

If justice is done, Dennis Ritchie, et al will be credited with advancing human thought and enriching human experience in the same way that the Medicis and Socrates have been.

Uh, yeah..

Ritchie will always be remembered. Is he more important than Bob Metcalf, Dan Bricklin or Marc Andreessen?

Not really, they are all pioneers that advanced computing.

So, my "et al" means that Dennis Ritchie doesn't stand alone in the advancement of human thought, but he is the only one who was found dead within a week of Steve Jobs, which is why his name is being mentioned.

I don't know that I woudl say tha Metcalfe or Bricklin did much for though per se. They were pioneers in the advancement of computing, but I'm not really sure that the change from, say, Token Ring to Ethernet really changed the way people thought.

I'll give a passing nod to Andreesen, because his contribution to computing was so profound that it changed everything including the way we think about things.

I believe that Dennis Ritch and Alan Kay and of course many others literally change the way we (all of us) think in response to problems and solutions. That's one heckuva thing to say you did.

Steve Jobs... meh... iPods. They made a great Christmas gift back in the Bush era.

Jobs and Wozniak ushered in the era of the personal computer. They are founding fathers just as much as Kernighan and Ritchie.

Ermmmm - yeah, I guess..... include Jack Tramiel in there too.

I think that young people today have this terrible misconception that Apple Computer was started in the 1970s and has dominated the computing landscape fromt that point on. Not true. Apple Computer has always been a distant second to computers running a Microsoft OS and Apple essentially is a non-competitor with Microsoft in many other technology spaces including server software and line-of-business apps and desktop office automation software..

What Apple did was handheld devices. I can hardly see how it really matters, what second-rate computing platform they had 10 years ago. The handheld devices are what matter to them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uh, yeah..
So, my "et al" means that Dennis Ritchie doesn't stand alone in the advancement of human thought, but he is the only one who was found dead within a week of Steve Jobs, which is why his name is being mentioned.

I don't know that I woudl say tha Metcalfe or Bricklin did much for though per se. They were pioneers in the advancement of computing, but I'm not really sure that the change from, say, Token Ring to Ethernet really changed the way people thought.

I'll give a passing nod to Andreesen, because his contribution to computing was so profound that it changed everything including the way we think about things.

I believe that Dennis Ritch and Alan Kay and of course many others literally change the way we (all of us) think in response to problems and solutions. That's one heckuva thing to say you did.

Without Metcalf, there would be no internet. That's pretty big in my book. Ritchie didn't change the way I think. Dr. Dave Fulton and Charles Moore (Forth) did more to change my thinking by promoting the OOP concepts of true encapsulation, inheritance and reputability that C will never posses.

C was the second language I learned, after Basic. I have a fondness for it, hell the C# I use today is roughly based on the syntax of C. I would have never bothered to learn Assembly if not for needing to write Stucts using in-line assembly. But the concept used in modern systems don't derive from C or the work of Ritchie. Instead we've kludged C to create pseudo relevance in an world of objects. C++ is procedural code masked to look a little like OOP. C# is 90% OOP.

Ermmmm - yeah, I guess..... include Jack Tramiel in there too.

I think that young people today have this terrible misconception that Apple Computer was started in the 1970s and has dominated the computing landscape fromt that point on. Not true. Apple Computer has always been a distant second to computers running a Microsoft OS and Apple essentially is a non-competitor with Microsoft in many other technology spaces including server software and line-of-business apps and desktop office automation software..

What Apple did was handheld devices. I can hardly see how it really matters, what second-rate computing platform they had 10 years ago. The handheld devices are what matter to them.

In 1978, no one knew who Microsoft was. Apple dominated between 78 and 82. But then as now, they were proprietary machines that didn't play well with others. I needed to be able to sell my work - which meant that it needed to work on as wide a range of machines as possible.

For me, that meant Clipper, then FoxPro and then C# - business development. I became an OOP fanatic under FoxPro and still find C# inferior in the object model. once you've used true encapsulation, it's hard to accept less. But times change...

 

[samjones]

Uh, yeah..
So, my "et al" means that Dennis Ritchie doesn't stand alone in the advancement of human thought, but he is the only one who was found dead within a week of Steve Jobs, which is why his name is being mentioned.

I don't know that I woudl say tha Metcalfe or Bricklin did much for though per se. They were pioneers in the advancement of computing, but I'm not really sure that the change from, say, Token Ring to Ethernet really changed the way people thought.

I'll give a passing nod to Andreesen, because his contribution to computing was so profound that it changed everything including the way we think about things.

I believe that Dennis Ritch and Alan Kay and of course many others literally change the way we (all of us) think in response to problems and solutions. That's one heckuva thing to say you did.

Without Metcalf, there would be no internet. That's pretty big in my book. Ritchie didn't change the way I think. Dr. Dave Fulton and Charles Moore (Forth) did more to change my thinking by promoting the OOP concepts of true encapsulation, inheritance and reputability that C will never posses.

C was the second language I learned, after Basic. I have a fondness for it, hell the C# I use today is roughly based on the syntax of C. I would have never bothered to learn Assembly if not for needing to write Stucts using in-line assembly. But the concept used in modern systems don't derive from C or the work of Ritchie. Instead we've kludged C to create pseudo relevance in an world of objects. C++ is procedural code masked to look a little like OOP. C# is 90% OOP.

Ermmmm - yeah, I guess..... include Jack Tramiel in there too.

I think that young people today have this terrible misconception that Apple Computer was started in the 1970s and has dominated the computing landscape fromt that point on. Not true. Apple Computer has always been a distant second to computers running a Microsoft OS and Apple essentially is a non-competitor with Microsoft in many other technology spaces including server software and line-of-business apps and desktop office automation software..

What Apple did was handheld devices. I can hardly see how it really matters, what second-rate computing platform they had 10 years ago. The handheld devices are what matter to them.

In 1978, no one knew who Microsoft was. Apple dominated between 78 and 82. But then as now, they were proprietary machines that didn't play well with others. I needed to be able to sell my work - which meant that it needed to work on as wide a range of machines as possible.

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

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

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

So, the Internet would certainly have existed without Ethernet and I don't think that Ethernet per se really contributed much to the Internet explosion of, say, '04-05. Netscape did. Microsoft Internet Explorer did. Dirt cheap USR modems did. Ethernet - not so much. I don't really think that I saw Ethernet as being a superior technology until maybe '97, '98 when the low-cost 100M switches started emerging. By then we all already had bought a book on amazon.com.

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

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Steve Jobs just bought stuff other people invented and sold it for a profit. I don't know why anybody would consider him to be anything other than a figurehead and a really rich guy. And yes, I would say the same about Bill Gates too.

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

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

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

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

Hope the liberal understands now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

No, that isn't what it means at all.

"Supply Side" is based on the economic laws of Jean Baptiste Say, i.e. Say's law. "Supply gives rise to demand."

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

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

{It is not the abundance of money but the abundance of other products in general that facilitates sales... Money performs no more than the role of a conduit in this double exchange. When the exchanges have been completed, it will be found that one has paid for products with products.}

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

As example, let's use Job's iPod. Prior to Apple stealing the concept of a portable music player from Creative Labs, what was the demand for portable MP3 players? The answer is, there was none. Until a supply of the devices was offered to the market, no demand existed.

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

This is supply side, that offering a supply of good in the market drives economic activity.

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