quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The only problem here is that you and a few others continually insist on comparing apples and oranges and cling to either/or extremes as the only "reality."

That people have options is not the same as saying they all have the same opportunities, or even attractive ones. Microeconomic issues are not the same as international economics. Helping people better use their resources to create income streams that serve customers isn't the same as ignoring global economic realities. And so forth.

Nor is anyone selling the path to wealth here. But y'all continue to read everything as only fitting into your pre-conceived boxes. As soon as "business" comes up, instead of realizing that the *majority* of businesses are small, independent operations, you jump to Wal-Mart, China, etc.

Others trot out warnings that many businesses fail (though Lookie is right--often they just move on to other projects), as if this is inherent to business, without even considering the reality that a lot of people march into businesses with very crappy plans and practices. They don't have to do it that way.

So why the insistence on disputing what so many people are demonstrating in their daily lives, from the plumber down the street to the dairy farmer with 1000 head to the private consultant to the web page entrepreneur?

* you're apparently desperate to shoot down anything that challenges your comfortable excuses so that you can remain in your comfort zone
* your ego cannot embrace the possibility that perhaps you weren't entirely correct.

Unfortunately, those two factors make learning impossible for you in any meaningful way. All you can do is continually recreate your current situation.

And then the continual silly assumption that anyone able to create business must be a right wing big-party Republican.

Not that it matters for the economic discussion, but I'm a progressive hawk on social issues. I'm for far greater regulation of Wall St. I believe the future of our security and well-being rests with addressing global problems successfully, that difficult as this is, it's essential. I believe Reagan was a douche for not stamping out diseases we had on the run simply because he wanted to save a few bucks in third world counties. And I know that poverty in those countries is far more complicated than sending aid--not that I'm against that, I'm not, but that the political and social realities there severely complicate matters. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be involved -- means it will take more complex solutions. And we have solutions that are working -- ones posters here have ridiculed, but not refuted. Ones that get entire communities on their feet again.

I'm an environmental protection hawk. I'm for corporate taxes, and progressive income tax structures. I'm for tighter regulation of lending policies. I think what used to be called usury is now called banking. I'm for prosecution of financial criminals. I think social programs are essential.

On the other hand, I advocate free trade, and believe the solutions to world economy issues need to embrace world solutions, not nationalistic protectionism, which would do incredible damage to the economy at all economic levels.

And that "trickle-down" is the biggest bullshit ever spoken.

You want to live in a world with no options, fine. But closing your eyes doesn't make them vanish. It just means you've cut off your access to them.

Yup, they aren't always rosy options. But it's where to start.

And yes, I see the attitudes portrayed here as pretty defeatist -- by definition, in fact.

So enjoy -- go off on another tangent. Figure out another way people who have found solutions are clueless about reality. Build another wall around your cave.

Or, as some posters do, create another story about how bloodshed in the streets is going to resolve this.

Granted, the current macroeconomic model is outdated and unsustainable. Already, new ways are sprouting. But solutions need to be grounded in reality--not attitude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
I am not worried about how much math these kids are learning, not in the least. I wouldn't have gotten through 3/4 of my math and statistics courses with out the more advanced of them. What I am worried about is that these 100s of thousands of Chinese university students are seeing firsthand the completely fucked up attitude existing in the US about how good for business it is to keep Indonesians and Malaysians and Chinese and Mexicans completely in the dirt as workers. Believe me, that's going to come back and bite us in a major way 20-30 years from now.

I'm not 'wringing my hands' about a damn thing. I'm telling people to wake up to world reality as it exists and quit being so insanely stupid.

Excellent points and a well-written post all the way around. There's a bigger picture to the global economy that a few posters in this thread just aren't seeing. They think that it all comes down to "choices" and that if someone is poor and down-and-out, then it's their own fault because of the choices they've made in life. That may be partially true to some extent, but the bottom line is that such talk is used to misdirect and deflect any discussion which might entail criticism of the ruling class and the current political system. I expect someone to play the "love it or leave it" card here pretty soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The only problem here is that you and a few others continually insist on comparing apples and oranges and cling to either/or extremes as the only "reality."

That people have options is not the same as saying they all have the same opportunities, or even attractive ones. Microeconomic issues are not the same as international economics. Helping people better use their resources to create income streams that serve customers isn't the same as ignoring global economic realities. And so forth.

Nor is anyone selling the path to wealth here. But y'all continue to read everything as only fitting into your pre-conceived boxes. As soon as "business" comes up, instead of realizing that the *majority* of businesses are small, independent operations, you jump to Wal-Mart, China, etc.

Others trot out warnings that many businesses fail (though Lookie is right--often they just move on to other projects), as if this is inherent to business, without even considering the reality that a lot of people march into businesses with very crappy plans and practices. They don't have to do it that way.

So why the insistence on disputing what so many people are demonstrating in their daily lives, from the plumber down the street to the dairy farmer with 1000 head to the private consultant to the web page entrepreneur?

* you're apparently desperate to shoot down anything that challenges your comfortable excuses so that you can remain in your comfort zone
* your ego cannot embrace the possibility that perhaps you weren't entirely correct.

Unfortunately, those two factors make learning impossible for you in any meaningful way. All you can do is continually recreate your current situation.

And then the continual silly assumption that anyone able to create business must be a right wing big-party Republican.

Not that it matters for the economic discussion, but I'm a progressive hawk on social issues. I'm for far greater regulation of Wall St. I believe the future of our security and well-being rests with addressing global problems successfully, that difficult as this is, it's essential. I believe Reagan was a douche for not stamping out diseases we had on the run simply because he wanted to save a few bucks in third world counties. And I know that poverty in those countries is far more complicated than sending aid--not that I'm against that, I'm not, but that the political and social realities there severely complicate matters. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be involved -- means it will take more complex solutions. And we have solutions that are working -- ones posters here have ridiculed, but not refuted. Ones that get entire communities on their feet again.

I'm an environmental protection hawk. I'm for corporate taxes, and progressive income tax structures. I'm for tighter regulation of lending policies. I think what used to be called usury is now called banking. I'm for prosecution of financial criminals. I think social programs are essential.

On the other hand, I advocate free trade, and believe the solutions to world economy issues need to embrace world solutions, not nationalistic protectionism, which would do incredible damage to the economy at all economic levels.

And that "trickle-down" is the biggest bullshit ever spoken.

You want to live in a world with no options, fine. But closing your eyes doesn't make them vanish. It just means you've cut off your access to them.

Yup, they aren't always rosy options. But it's where to start.

And yes, I see the attitudes portrayed here as pretty defeatist -- by definition, in fact.

So enjoy -- go off on another tangent. Figure out another way people who have found solutions are clueless about reality. Build another wall around your cave.

Or, as some posters do, create another story about how bloodshed in the streets is going to resolve this.

Granted, the current macroeconomic model is outdated and unsustainable. Already, new ways are sprouting. But solutions need to be grounded in reality--not attitude.

Gawd....someone who speaks the truth.

People think that ALL Republicans (or conservatives) think Reagan was some kind of God.

Most rational thinking Republicans (those that don't think Rush Limbaugh is direct lineage of Jesus Christ) are VIBRANTLY clear that Reagan was if not the first, at least the child at least of those that felt that debt is a wonderful thing. Reagan came on to the scene exclaiming "DEBT is Baaaaaaaaaaad" and added more debt than any President before him.....by every calculation and mathematically...every President COMBINED that preceded him.

Yet conservatives to this day revere him....(thinking people do not).

Reagan came to office with a devotion to "ELIMINATE THE DEFICIT" (not the debt).

We owed 900 billion dollars when he got the lift pass for Air Force One.

When he left, we owed 3.5 trillion.

I remember when the news came on that we owed a "Trillion dollars".

That so shocked me. I didn't even comprehend it.

John Anderson (who ran against Reagan as an Independent) wanted to raise the gas tax 50 cents a gallon and spend EVERY dime of same to wipe out the DEBT (not the deficit) and he lost because....the public couldn't adjust to that (so that gas would be $1.35 a gallon) and was eviscerated in the polls and of course lost.

Two years later, gasoline was 2 bucks a gallon.

Who got that money? OPEC.

Reagan opened the floodgates to debt. You all think that (all) Republicans think that all Republicans are faultless.

Every (rational thinking) Republican knows that, but for Obama, debt has risen far faster under Republican reign.

Most (irrational thinking) Democrats think that Clinton lowered the debt....he didn't. Nor did he lower the deficit but, the deficit fell under his Presidency.

How did that happen?

It fell because the President just before him raised taxes by a larger amount than any President before him in all of history and money flowed in like the Nile.....all at the exact same time that most people realized (and software became available for) that computers could be used for something more than playing asteroids, but SSI and other costs continued the unending divestiture into debt.

Excel arrived. Windows 1.1 arrived shortly thereafter and when win 3.1 arrived and GUI was the standard, the world opened up.

Greenspan was quoted as saying "we don't know why productivity is rising as fast as it is" and it was because companies eliminated secretaries, we were able to write programs (I did) that enabled us to write bids for contracts that had no mathematical errors (like 3 part carbonless did).

Clinton was the recipient of new income and increased productivity but, if you look at the facts, the debt STILL rose under Clinton (and the deficit did as well when you include SSI among other things)....it just rose slower.

Since then, Bush spent on wars, LOWERED taxes when the wealthy said "NO....PLEASE....we'd PREFER to pay more" and destroyed our income base and, to be fair to Obama, he was just catching up, and trying to put out fires.

(GAWD I wish you people would actually read history).

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The only problem here is that you and a few others continually insist on comparing apples and oranges and cling to either/or extremes as the only "reality."

That people have options is not the same as saying they all have the same opportunities, or even attractive ones. Microeconomic issues are not the same as international economics. Helping people better use their resources to create income streams that serve customers isn't the same as ignoring global economic realities. And so forth.

Nor is anyone selling the path to wealth here. But y'all continue to read everything as only fitting into your pre-conceived boxes. As soon as "business" comes up, instead of realizing that the *majority* of businesses are small, independent operations, you jump to Wal-Mart, China, etc.

Others trot out warnings that many businesses fail (though Lookie is right--often they just move on to other projects), as if this is inherent to business, without even considering the reality that a lot of people march into businesses with very crappy plans and practices. They don't have to do it that way.

So why the insistence on disputing what so many people are demonstrating in their daily lives, from the plumber down the street to the dairy farmer with 1000 head to the private consultant to the web page entrepreneur?

* you're apparently desperate to shoot down anything that challenges your comfortable excuses so that you can remain in your comfort zone
* your ego cannot embrace the possibility that perhaps you weren't entirely correct.

Unfortunately, those two factors make learning impossible for you in any meaningful way. All you can do is continually recreate your current situation.

And then the continual silly assumption that anyone able to create business must be a right wing big-party Republican.

Not that it matters for the economic discussion, but I'm a progressive hawk on social issues. I'm for far greater regulation of Wall St. I believe the future of our security and well-being rests with addressing global problems successfully, that difficult as this is, it's essential. I believe Reagan was a douche for not stamping out diseases we had on the run simply because he wanted to save a few bucks in third world counties. And I know that poverty in those countries is far more complicated than sending aid--not that I'm against that, I'm not, but that the political and social realities there severely complicate matters. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be involved -- means it will take more complex solutions. And we have solutions that are working -- ones posters here have ridiculed, but not refuted. Ones that get entire communities on their feet again.

I'm an environmental protection hawk. I'm for corporate taxes, and progressive income tax structures. I'm for tighter regulation of lending policies. I think what used to be called usury is now called banking. I'm for prosecution of financial criminals. I think social programs are essential.

On the other hand, I advocate free trade, and believe the solutions to world economy issues need to embrace world solutions, not nationalistic protectionism, which would do incredible damage to the economy at all economic levels.

And that "trickle-down" is the biggest bullshit ever spoken.

You want to live in a world with no options, fine. But closing your eyes doesn't make them vanish. It just means you've cut off your access to them.

Yup, they aren't always rosy options. But it's where to start.

And yes, I see the attitudes portrayed here as pretty defeatist -- by definition, in fact.

So enjoy -- go off on another tangent. Figure out another way people who have found solutions are clueless about reality. Build another wall around your cave.

Or, as some posters do, create another story about how bloodshed in the streets is going to resolve this.

Granted, the current macroeconomic model is outdated and unsustainable. Already, new ways are sprouting. But solutions need to be grounded in reality--not attitude.

Gawd....someone who speaks the truth.

People think that ALL Republicans (or conservatives) think Reagan was some kind of God.

Most rational thinking Republicans (those that don't think Rush Limbaugh is direct lineage of Jesus Christ) are VIBRANTLY clear that Reagan was if not the first, at least the child at least of those that felt that debt is a wonderful thing. Reagan came on to the scene exclaiming "DEBT is Baaaaaaaaaaad" and added more debt than any President before him.....by every calculation and mathematically...every President COMBINED that preceded him.

Yet conservatives to this day revere him....(thinking people do not).

Reagan came to office with a devotion to "ELIMINATE THE DEFICIT" (not the debt).

We owed 900 billion dollars when he got the lift pass for Air Force One.

When he left, we owed 3.5 trillion.

I remember when the news came on that we owed a "Trillion dollars".

That so shocked me. I didn't even comprehend it.

John Anderson (who ran against Reagan as an Independent) wanted to raise the gas tax 50 cents a gallon and spend EVERY dime of same to wipe out the DEBT (not the deficit) and he lost because....the public couldn't adjust to that (so that gas would be $1.35 a gallon) and was eviscerated in the polls and of course lost.

Two years later, gasoline was 2 bucks a gallon.

Who got that money? OPEC.

Reagan opened the floodgates to debt. You all think that (all) Republicans think that all Republicans are faultless.

Every (rational thinking) Republican knows that, but for Obama, debt has risen far faster under Republican reign.

Most (irrational thinking) Democrats think that Clinton lowered the debt....he didn't. Nor did he lower the deficit but, the deficit fell under his Presidency.

How did that happen?

It fell because the President just before him raised taxes by a larger amount than any President before him in all of history and money flowed in like the Nile.....all at the exact same time that most people realized (and software became available for) that computers could be used for something more than playing asteroids, but SSI and other costs continued the unending divestiture into debt.

Excel arrived. Windows 1.1 arrived shortly thereafter and when win 3.1 arrived and GUI was the standard, the world opened up.

Greenspan was quoted as saying "we don't know why productivity is rising as fast as it is" and it was because companies eliminated secretaries, we were able to write programs (I did) that enabled us to write bids for contracts that had no mathematical errors (like 3 part carbonless did).

Clinton was the recipient of new income and increased productivity but, if you look at the facts, the debt STILL rose under Clinton (and the deficit did as well when you include SSI among other things)....it just rose slower.

Since then, Bush spent on wars, LOWERED taxes when the wealthy said "NO....PLEASE....we'd PREFER to pay more" and destroyed our income base and, to be fair to Obama, he was just catching up, and trying to put out fires.

(GAWD I wish you people would actually read history).

Pretty good but not completely factual.

OPEC AND the oil multi-nationals both...got the extra money for gas. Not a large distinction but one that like corporate tax reductions...did not bring in a slew of jobs as we are most often told to believe.

Clinton did in fact pay down some federal debt. and required no increase in the debt ceiling for 3 of his 8 years.

To include SS as a factor under Clinton is disingenuous at best as EVERY budget after the 83 reform includes the SS over payment to obscure the federal deficit.

H. W. Bush raised the top rate from 28% to 31% while Clinton raised it to 39.6%.

Clinton in a mere 15 months after his election granted (maintained MFN) Most favored trading nation status to China where much of the increase in productivity was realized. Add in NAFTA from 1992 and even the business publications began to admit that most of the increase in profits (productivity...still holds today) was directly as a result of lowered labor costs over all. It wasn't as simple as just Windows software.

The over all debt did still rise under Clinton yet some estimate it was several $trillion less than it would have otherwise been had it not been for the tax increase and the ensuing economic boom.

Then W squandered what was a projected $5 trillion surplus over the next 10 years...in less than 6 years with 3 tax cuts and 2 wars and a drug benefit. (part D)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpWmlRNfLck