Pages: 1 2

 

2008-10-02 11:43:51
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7020|132 and Bush

As if computers didn't hurt by putting a lot of workers out of business by dramatically simplifying everyday jobs and increasing productivity.

Why would you say the internet should not be attributed to Reagan? Did I say that? My point was that if you are going to start looking in detail as to what was going on outside of economic policy try to be just a llliiiittttllle bit inclusive. You aren't.. no way, no how.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-10-02 11:56:15
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7000|SE London

Kmarion wrote:

Why would you say the internet should not be attributed to Reagan? Did I say that? My point was that if you are going to start looking in detail as to what was going on outside of economic policy try to be just a llliiiittttllle bit inclusive. You aren't.. no way, no how.
Because the Internet as we know it, the aspects of the Internet that brought about the online retail boom and suchlike, had not been invented until after Reagan left office (the world wide web, invented March '89 - Reagan left office January '89).
2008-10-02 12:00:13
topal63
. . .
+533|7137
I thought we were having a shorthand-type conversation. You know I said a point - that's the former = PC revolution. Clinton's era saw the birth of AL Gore's Internet, that'd = the latter.

I never made or attempted to make a connection of the Internet to Reagan or Reagan's era.

PS: I never thought the 80's were a shinning example of prosperity anyways - at least not for all.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … A964958260

Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-02 12:06:32)

2008-10-02 12:03:40
max
Vela Incident
+1,652|6986|NYC / Hamburg

It seems to me all presidents increased the debt. Not exactly an ideal situation

https://i33.tinypic.com/xmpfmb.png
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot  xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
2008-10-02 12:05:40
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7020|132 and Bush

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Why would you say the internet should not be attributed to Reagan? Did I say that? My point was that if you are going to start looking in detail as to what was going on outside of economic policy try to be just a llliiiittttllle bit inclusive. You aren't.. no way, no how.
Because the Internet as we know it, the aspects of the Internet that brought about the online retail boom and suchlike, had not been invented until after Reagan left office (the world wide web, invented March '89 - Reagan left office January '89).
You guys seem to have completely misunderstood what I was trying to say. Again, I am not giving credit to anyone. What I am saying is that the convenience of online shopping and the ability to feed the desire to spend 24 hours a day was a definite boost. This became a reality in the early to mid 90's.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-10-02 12:07:10
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7000|SE London

max wrote:

It seems to me all presidents increased the debt. Not exactly an ideal situation

http://i33.tinypic.com/xmpfmb.png
As a percentage of GDP. That's the whole idea with national debt, at least it's the stupid model most of the world follows. You borrow more and increase GDP faster because of this, this means your debt is smaller as a percentage of GDP. Unfortunately it is all too easy for this model to go horribly wrong.
2008-10-02 13:40:16
PureFodder
Member
+225|6704

Bertster7 wrote:

max wrote:

It seems to me all presidents increased the debt. Not exactly an ideal situation

http://i33.tinypic.com/xmpfmb.png
As a percentage of GDP. That's the whole idea with national debt, at least it's the stupid model most of the world follows. You borrow more and increase GDP faster because of this, this means your debt is smaller as a percentage of GDP. Unfortunately it is all too easy for this model to go horribly wrong.
The number of dollars of debt can happily go up with inflation. Assuming that nothing unusual happens with the economy, every year for all countries will be the highest value of debt ever. The numerical number that represents the debt is totally meaningless without also knowing the size of the GDP.
2008-10-02 14:25:34
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6961|Texas - Bigger than France

Bertster7 wrote:

Pug wrote:

Looking at the deficit is interesting, but what about comparing the other economic measurements?
What, like inflation?

That throws the trend a little, since Reagan kept inflation down and Carter managed to push it up, but overall the Dems have the better record there too. GDP/capita growth has been fairly consistent too, with the biggest gains under Clinton.

PureFodder wrote:

The number of dollars of debt can happily go up with inflation. Assuming that nothing unusual happens with the economy, every year for all countries will be the highest value of debt ever. The numerical number that represents the debt is totally meaningless without also knowing the size of the GDP.
Inflation, GDP, debt, unemployment, government spending, tax collected, growing segments, trading partners, interest rates, personal income, currency futures, weather, small wing'ed creatures, breast size, number of teeth, whether the Cowboys are winning, number of soccer milfs you'd bang, what foods make you fart....the list is endless.

What?  You think debt is the only issue?  That's like saying you choose a wife based on her bone density...errr bad example Spoiler (highlight to read):
wait for it...you'll get it in a second

Fodder's quote is an example how all economists are full o' crap.  He's right, but give me a figure and I'll skew it for you.
2008-10-02 15:41:06
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7134|US
Simple...the Republican party has abandoned its roots.  They only selectively portray themselves as "fiscal conservatives."

The Libertarian party actually IS fiscally conservative, but they don't have the power to change anything nationally.

So who is going to win?  Big government democrats, or big government republicans?  (I'm voting for neither.)

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard