26-08-2004 23:50									#61
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Yes, that's nice, but GDP is the gross domestic product. That determines if the economy is doing better. You could have less poverty numbers, but the economy could still be in the shitter. However, with a rise in GDP, the economy, by definition, gets better. So nominal poverty numbers are irrelevant to determine if the economy is better. GDP is the number to look at.

I thought the economy was there to help people, not the other way around. It's remarkable to see today that Economy = God for certain people I know. You might have more money in total, but if that money is not reasonably divided amongst the population that means nothing.

	26-08-2004 23:55									#62
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Japher Your the one who wants comparisons. I show you a comparison of post post-recession economies and you just blow it off. Obviously you care not for the facts, and are being very shortsighted on the issue.

Let me simplify what is relevant and what is nbot politically.

Today most people are not subsistance farmers anymore-that simple macro-economic changes. To say that our great leader today is great becuase people are not subsistance farmers like they were back in 1700 is a non-sensical comparison.

Your basic point seems to be that poverty numbers were higher in the 1991 recession than today- fine, wich would matter if it were not for the fact we had 10 years of economic changes in the interim. People don;t care if the base unemployment rate in 1985 was much higher than that of 2003- they care the rate in 2003 was higher than in 1999. That is what matters- remember what Reagan said, when he made this question in 1984, "are you better off today than you were 4 years ago". Do you think he would have asked "are you better of today than in 1970?" You know why? Cause he wasn't president since 1970.

So, are we better of today than in 2000? That is the question.

	26-08-2004 23:56									#63
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Japher "Restructuring"

I prefer "organizational re-alignment to provide better overall synergies"

	27-08-2004 00:03									#64
	Put an end to popups!

This isn't just about Bush. In the highest levels of government, we need to have a serious discussion about economic policies... who they should be tailored for, and who should have the best chance to build wealth. Bush is definitely part of the problem, but the problem won't go away with him after the election.

	27-08-2004 00:06									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Vote for team Arrian for real change






in Ogie's pocket that is

	27-08-2004 00:07									#66
	Increase Your PM Length

I'd vote for Arrian.

	27-08-2004 00:09									#67
	Remove this text

Sava

quote: Today most people are not subsistance farmers anymore-that simple macro-economic changes. To say that our great leader today is great becuase people are not subsistance farmers like they were back in 1700 is a non-sensical comparison.

And noone is saying that, so stopping putting words into ppl's mouths.

quote: Your basic point seems to be that poverty numbers were higher in the 1991 recession than today- fine, wich would matter if it were not for the fact we had 10 years of economic changes in the interim.

No, my point is that after a recession ends there are years following in which poverty spikes. It occured then and it is occuring now, and no economic reform that I have seen has changed that.

quote: People don;t care if the base unemployment rate in 1985 was much higher than that of 2003

I am not arguing about what "the people" care about or what "they see". They are idiots. What I am arguing is that as an informed individual you cannot possibly hold Bush entirely responsible for a) the recession and b) the levels on poverity which has since occured. It is economic FACT, not opinion, that this occurs.

And stop looking at my comparisons to mean 1970, 1700, or any other year. They are comparissons between two economies which are VERY much the same and very much closer in time. What occured after 1991 is EXACTLY what is occuring now.

quote: So, are we better of today than in 2000? That is the question.

Not according to the polls.

	27-08-2004 00:11									#68
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Or for Vel's Gridlock Campaign!

IMO, arguing for or against Bush's economic policies is a waste of time.

The guy's a moron. Why should we expect his policies to be anything other than a reflection of self.

Likewise, comparisons between Bush and Kerry are a waste of time. They both suck. That's like asking "which is better to have in your back yard...a toxic waste dump or "newclear" reactor with a ruptured core?



-=Vel=-

	27-08-2004 00:12									#69
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Vote for team Arrian for real change in Ogie's pocket that is

I am a river to my people.

Remember, though, I need Guy onboard. Gotta have more cowbell! Without that, the campaign is doomed.

-Arrian

	27-08-2004 00:13									#70
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Tough one but I'm gonna say the toxic waste one is better, at least you don't have to contend with the glow keeping you up all night.

	27-08-2004 00:15									#71
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx That's like asking "which is better to have in your back yard...a toxic waste dump or "newclear" reactor with a ruptured core? -=Vel=-

no, it's nukewler

	27-08-2004 00:15									#72
	Suffering from ads?

I'd go with the reactor in hopes that I grow an extra arm or gain some sort of superpowers.

	27-08-2004 00:16									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Toxic waste wins easily, yeah. We actually know how to clean that up. Nucular waste is one of those things we just try to seal up with lots and lots and lots of concrete and hope it stays where we put it. For a loooong time.

Damnit. That's the job talkin, sorry.

-Arrian

	27-08-2004 00:17									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

thanks Sava...I stand corrected!

as a less-than-wise-man once said....

"fool me once....shame on.....shame on you....fool me twice....I ghe .....y...you can't get fooled again!"



-=Vel=-

	27-08-2004 00:19									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Japher No, my point is that after a recession ends there are years following in which poverty spikes. It occured then and it is occuring now, and no economic reform that I have seen has changed that.

Except unlike previous recessions, we were going in with a massive government curplus, meaning the state for once had the money to do something about it. We didn't do it. That was Bush's decision.

quote: I am not arguing about what "the people" care about or what "they see". They are idiots. What I am arguing is that as an informed individual you cannot possibly hold Bush entirely responsible for a) the recession and b) the levels on poverity which has since occured. It is economic FACT, not opinion, that this occurs.

I don't hold Bush responsible for the recession- I hold him responsible for the "recovery" and for undertaking government policies that did not do much at all to help invidials at a time the Federal government had a golden opportunity it never really had before.

quote: And stop looking at my comparisons to mean 1970, 1700, or any other year. They are comparissons between two economies which are VERY much the same and very much closer in time. What occured after 1991 is EXACTLY what is occuring now.

Except in 1991 and throughout the government was running massive deficits already. In 2000 we had massive surpluses with which something could have been done- that recession we had an 9/11 were in no way responsible for going from record surpluses to record deficits.

quote: Not according to the polls.

Not one single poll says people today think we are better off than four years ago- the vast mayority of Bush's support come from people who support him in cultural issues or on his foreign policy- only fools support him for his economic stewardship.

	27-08-2004 00:22									#76
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Good answers, all 'round on the waste dump/reactor question.

Sadly, of course, the best answer would be "neither" just like it is when contemplating the question of Bush/Kerry.

My choice...I'd rather have neither of them, and honestly, I don't think we can GET into much more shallow water in the ol' gene pool.

In fact, based on this election's crop of presidential hopefuls, I'm ALL FOR putting healthy doses of chlorine into said gene pool....clean it up a little. Maybe then we can get some REAL candidates.

Somebody who's got a real handle on the issues relevant to the times.

Like the need for more cowbell....

-=Vel=-

	27-08-2004 00:22									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Japher Who doesn't answer to Bush, and who wasn't even appointed by Bush... How does Greenspan sucking = Bush sucking?

He was reappointed by Bush before the latest rate increase. Bush should have let him go and appointed someone new.

quote: Ignited by both Dems and Repugs alike.

Yeah, they both suck. It was Bush's initiative. The Democrats just rolled over and pissed on themselves, opportunistically think that it wasn't good to stand up to the Prez on that and that they'd have the next two months of campaign time to hammer Bush on the economy. It back fired by so disgusting their base that they refused to turn out to vote.

	27-08-2004 00:24									#78
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Not one single poll says people today think we are better off than four years ago- the vast mayority of Bush's support come from people who support him in cultural issues or on his foreign policy- only fools support him for his economic stewardship.

That's exactly what I said.

	27-08-2004 00:30									#79
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Japher That's exactly what I said.

You essentially say he has no effect- he does have an effect insofar as how government policy helps.

Look at this Clinton numbers:
The average household income barely changed at all- so while what the normal household earned remain fairly constant, poverty declined. You know what? That drop in poverty had to come from somewhere other than people getting dividends from their 401K (since that is the real source of most stock ownership in the US).

	27-08-2004 00:37									#80
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: You know what? That drop in poverty had to come from somewhere other than people getting dividends from their 401K

Tech boom... Do the words economic cycle mean anything to you? Or are you going to accredit that to gov. policy?

	27-08-2004 00:52									#81
	Get a bigger avatar today!

"Tech boom"?

Right, cause the people on the bottom of the scale coming out of the poverty line were being hired as software developers....and a million secretaries for the new offices.....

Tech boom is fine for the stock numbers, but if you note, stocks rose in 2003, but so did poverty. Also,

	27-08-2004 01:07									#82
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Now, you said outright you don;t care about poverty numbers -fine by me, but I do care about poverty numbers, becuase those numbers are about people, unlike GDP numbers, which simply consider things, not human beings.

Good - you donate to the poor, and have fun doing it. I'll look at the GDP, and tell them to get a job

	27-08-2004 01:08									#83
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Right, cause the people on the bottom of the scale coming out of the poverty line were being hired as software developers....and a million secretaries for the new offices.....

Those ppl were being hired to build the facilities in which the techs were made, to make the actual techs (oh yes), to pave the roads that went to these building, to build the cars that those wealthy people drove from the houses they built, and grew the food that they ate, and served it to them, on napkins the washed so that it wouldn't get on the new clothes that they wore...

Don't be so narrow minded man.

When stocks rise with poverty levels that is because productivity is increasing (something that the president does not control). This did not occur in the 1990s... obviously.

According to the ILO:

quote: There is a close relationship between poverty and the informal economy in most countries, although not all informal operators or workers are poor. But holding a job in the formal economy does not always guarantee that one escapes from poverty. Nevertheless, the informalization of the economy in many countries through outsourcing, expansion of global value chains and casualization of the workforce most often are linked to increased vulnerability and poverty.

Outsourcing?!

Still, poverty is equatable with economic growth.

quote: What creates economic growth are billions of decisions all over the world, made according to a timeline that only vaguely coincides with the political calendar.

Interesting Article explaing how it is not the president that determines economic swings, nor poverty levels...

	27-08-2004 01:15									#84
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Japher Those ppl were being hired to build the facilities in which the techs were made, to make the actual techs (oh yes), to pave the roads that went to these building, to build the cars that those wealthy people drove from the houses they built, and grew the food that they ate, and served it to them, on napkins the washed so that it wouldn't get on the new clothes that they wore... Don't be so narrow minded man. When stocks rise with poverty levels that is because productivity is increasing (something that the president does not control). This did not occur in the 1990s... obviously.

Only if stock prices have some correlation to reality (the meaning of a bubble being prices that are inflated well beyond the facts on the ground). You could have a bubble in prices without any effects on poverty.

I think the last "recovery" is informative- while GDP has rebounded, employment has not to anywhere the same degree-that makes this recovery different from that in 1992-3. As I said, Bush 2 is still at a net job loss, unlike poppa Bush. Maybe he has nothing to do with that, maybe he does- but what we know for certain he does have to bear responsibility for is failing to provide aide to states in order to avoid massive cuts to aide budgets that have hurt millions of families terribly, cause he found tax cuts for the rich more important a priority.

	27-08-2004 01:24									#85
	Remove this text

quote: but what we know for certain he does have to bear responsibility for is failing to provide aide to states in order to avoid massive cuts to aide budgets that have hurt millions of families terribly, cause he found tax cuts for the rich more important a priority

I agree, and he should address jobs being sent over seas as well. He IS ignoring the financial stability of the American people.

	27-08-2004 01:52									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

One of the basic differences in the two parties is that the Democrats want to redistribute the wealth by stealing from the rich to give to the poor, and the Republicans don't want to do that. So you are welcome to your continued outrage, and your desire to move our country to more of a socialist state, but some of us don't see that as the way to go.

And again, before you lay out your normal guilt trips... I personally give money to charities that help people improve their situations in life, and give my free time to help poor disadvantaged kids survive school and to help them make something out of their lives. I personally think the current welfare system is a joke, and is money poorly spent. More taxes isn't the answer. Better programs and people who WILLINGLY give their time and money to such causes is far more effective.

	27-08-2004 01:58									#87
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ming More taxes isn't the answer. Better programs and people who WILLINGLY give their time and money to such causes is far more effective.

Or cowbell!!

	27-08-2004 02:54									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ming One of the basic differences in the two parties is that the Democrats want to redistribute the wealth by stealing from the rich to give to the poor, and the Republicans don't want to do that. So you are welcome to your continued outrage, and your desire to move our country to more of a socialist state, but some of us don't see that as the way to go. And again, before you lay out your normal guilt trips... I personally give money to charities that help people improve their situations in life, and give my free time to help poor disadvantaged kids survive school and to help them make something out of their lives. I personally think the current welfare system is a joke, and is money poorly spent. More taxes isn't the answer. Better programs and people who WILLINGLY give their time and money to such causes is far more effective.

mmmmmm I think you are taking that to an extreme. Democrats want stable, productive social services. But yes, they do believe in progressive taxation. Progressive taxation isn't some commie pipe dream. It is an American value that arose during the "progressive" era in American history. Personally, I think Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin FDR (as two of the most prominent progressive thinkers in American history) had the right idea.

Personally, I don't understand how anyone can disagree with the notion of using tax money to fund education and health care. And since the strong usually protect the weak in society, the "strongest" individuals when it comes to wealth and productivity need to have more of the burden. In such a system, more people are able to build wealth, and hence, more people become "rich", and therefore the burden is spread out.

The middle class exists because of Progressive thinking. Do you really long for the days when there was only a working class and a rich elite? I just don't understand why anyone would think that kind of social system is better.

Wealth distribution exists no matter what tax policies or market policies exist. It's just a matter of who controls the distribution of wealth, and who it benefits. Now, do you want a democratic process controlling it? Or private interests? Personally, I like Democracy and the idea of a democratic society engineering policies that benefit the largest possible group of people.

	27-08-2004 02:55									#89
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Japher I'd go with the reactor in hopes that I grow an extra arm or gain some sort of superpowers.

*Doctor walks in*
"you have terminal cancer."

	27-08-2004 04:48									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: why in the hell would you use the phrase "turned the corner"?

Look at GDP numbers and their growth.

quote: He was reappointed by Bush before the latest rate increase. Bush should have let him go and appointed someone new.

Yeah, that would have worked. There were rumblings that he was going to replace Greenspan and the Dems almost went off their rocker. I can imagine what would have happened if Bush replaced the "Economic God of the 90s" as a ton of people were calling him back then.