dot com era, end of cold war yup all bad things

Post #294,182 by boxley 10/4/07 11:23:14 AM Reply	dot com era, end of cold war yup all bad things Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,184 by CRConrad 10/4/07 11:46:29 AM Reply	Like the other Bill(Hmm,has anyone seen them both together?) ...you are perfectly correct on all points you make, except two: 1: Reagan had zippy-zilch-nada to do with the "dot com era", and 2: It wasn't his doing that it happened to be his watch when the sclerotic Soviet Empire finally ran out of wind. But, as I said, on all the other things you mentioned you are perfectly correct. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,197 by Seamus 10/4/07 4:36:27 PM Reply	Reagan had nothing to do with the dot com era Who sponsored the legislation that funded the creation of the internet? Oh yeah, Al Gore: [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_and_Communication_Act_of_1991\|wikipedia] As to how much Reagan's military spending increases led to the fall of the Soviet Union and whether it could have accomplished with costing American taxpayers as much as it did, that's a whole different argument. Seamus
Post #294,209 by boxley 10/4/07 9:02:14 PM Reply	of course lowering taxes hurt the economy...right Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,221 by Seamus 10/4/07 9:52:35 PM Reply	Reading for comprehension - try it some time The issues being discussed are your mistaken impression that Reagan caused the dot com era and collapse of the Soviet Union. Lowering taxes wasn't mentioned. But then again, when has irrelevance keep you from posting. Seamus
Post #294,222 by bepatient 10/4/07 9:54:29 PM Reply	Macroeconomics - study it sometime. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,224 by Seamus 10/4/07 9:56:00 PM Reply	Wasn't the issue Seamus
Post #294,255 by boxley 10/5/07 9:12:41 AM Reply	reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the sovs right, it wasnt his insistance on star wars and defence spending that pushed the sov economy over the edge the nobel folks were wrong as well as all contemporary historians and you the mighty seamus was right. the dot com bubble was a product of rising middle class incomes and the 401k both attributable to reagan's tax cuts and rewriting the 401k guidelines. People had money to invest in the market like never before and did so against all common sense. People tend to blame presidents for faltering economies, as Im sure you blame bush for the current one, so good economies should also be "blamed " on the presidents that caused them. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,259 by Seamus 10/5/07 9:28:35 AM Reply	Did you even read the paper by Yegor Gaidar? He was there and he has presented a strong case in his paper. What evidence do you have? On to Reagan: the dot com bubble was a product of rising middle class incomes and the 401k both attributable to reagan's tax cuts and rewriting the 401k guidelines. People had money to invest in the market like never before and did so against all common sense. No, without the baby boomers, a strong dollar and the so-called peace dividend Reagan's tax-cuts would have looked like Bush's taxcuts are looking now. Seamus
Post #294,272 by bepatient 10/5/07 10:01:45 AM Reply	You must have something against full employment and increasing fed collections. The taxes don't look that bad. Its the SPENDING that is the problem. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,283 by Seamus 10/5/07 12:40:59 PM Reply	No, its believing that you can cut taxes, increase spending for an ill conceived war and get an economic expansion as happened in the 90s without the same flukes of history as point out by [link\|http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/bilmes_reagan_wp_021004.htm\|Linda Bilmes] Seamus
Post #294,287 by Seamus 10/5/07 1:05:44 PM Reply	HOW ROBUST IS THE CURRENT ECONOMIC EXPANSION? (new thread) Created as new thread #294286 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=294286\|HOW ROBUST IS THE CURRENT ECONOMIC EXPANSION?] Seamus
Post #294,230 by Seamus 10/4/07 10:21:15 PM Reply	The issue was did Reagan cause the collapse of the USSR According to [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yegor_Gaidar\|Yegor Gaidar] the main cause was Saudi Oil policy: In the 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet leadership, however, was not intellectually prepared to heed lessons from the School of Salamanca. The shortest quotation about the intellectual capacity of the Soviet leadership came from the Politburo minutes: "Mr. Zasiadko has stopped binge drinking. Resolution: nominate Mr. Zasiadko as a minister to Ukraine." While intellectual capacity was not the strongest quality of the Soviet leadership, they still understood the need to manipulate the oil market. Excerpts from Politburo materials indicate that the head of the Committee for State Security (KGB), Yury Andropov, facilitated contacts between the KGB and the Arab terrorists, who sought assistance for terrorist attacks on oil fields in order to keep energy prices high.[5] The general resolution was that the Soviet Union should support the Arab terrorists in this battle.[6] Yet one of the Soviet leadership's biggest blunders was to spend a significant amount of additional oil revenues to start the war in Afghanistan. The war radically changed the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. In 1974, Saudi Arabia decided to impose an embargo on oil supplies to the United States. But in 1979 the Saudis became interested in American protection because they understood that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a first step toward--or at least an attempt to gain--control over the Middle Eastern oil fields. The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms. As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive. The Soviet leadership was confronted with a difficult decision on how to adjust. There were three options--or a combination of three options--available to the Soviet leadership. From [link\|http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25991,filter.all/pub_detail.asp\|AEI] . If the Reagan administration hadn't tried to force the USSR to keep up with our military build up, maybe his deficits wouldn't have been so big. Seamus
Post #294,257 by boxley 10/5/07 9:17:38 AM Reply	can you say disinformatsya? probably not Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,261 by Seamus 10/5/07 9:36:19 AM Reply	I forgot the AEI is all about spreading Russian disinformation. The talk was about what the current Russian government is doing to keep from repeating past mistakes, so it has got to be disinformation. Couldn't possibly be anything else. Seamus
Post #294,263 by boxley 10/5/07 9:45:24 AM Reply	if they are trying not to repeat past mistakes they are hiding that activity very well while appearing to rebuild the apparachik machine the invasion of afghanistan had fuck all to do with the price of oil, if you had studies history you would know that. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,269 by Seamus 10/5/07 9:55:39 AM Reply	A fear of Soviet control of the middle east wasn't a big concern for the Saudis? And they certainly have never used oil prices as a political weapon. Get real. It makes more sense than the arms race made the USR collapse. The USSR had options in the arms race, it didn't when it came to the price of oil and a loss of market share. The power of the free market causing the collapse of the USR, I would have thought you would have appreciated the irony in that. Seamus
Post #294,271 by boxley 10/5/07 9:59:33 AM Reply	not for the saudis the oil options for the Sovs were wasted by refusing to invest in infrastructure and exploration until AFTER the collapse of the communist system. It was the arms race that broke them, not oil prices. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,276 by Seamus 10/5/07 10:44:45 AM Reply	Yeah the huge loss of oil revenue which they couldn't do anything about didn't cause the collapse, but spending on the arms race which they could choose how to respond to did cause the collapse. Boy, you sold me on that one. Seamus
Post #294,278 by boxley 10/5/07 10:48:01 AM Reply	hate to break it to you but in the 70's and 80's russia was a net importer of energy, not a producer, but hey, dont let facts bother your worldview thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,281 by Seamus 10/5/07 12:31:18 PM Reply	The idea is that the fall of oil prices and loss of market share cost them hard currency without which they couldn't buy grain, let alone guns or other forms of energy: The Search for Loans The money was suddenly gone. The Soviet Union tried to create a consortium of 300 banks to provide a large loan for the Soviet Union in 1989, but was informed that only five of them would participate and, as a result, the loan would be twenty times smaller than needed. The Soviet Union then received a final warning from the Deutsche Bank and from its international partners that the funds would never come from commercial sources. Instead, if the Soviet Union urgently needed the money, it would have to start negotiations directly with Western governments about so-called politically motivated credits. In 1985 the idea that the Soviet Union would begin bargaining for money in exchange for political concessions would have sounded absolutely preposterous to the Soviet leadership. In 1989 it became a reality, and Gorbachev understood the need for at least $100 billion from the West to prop up the oil-dependent Soviet economy. According to chairman of the State Planning Committee Yury Maslyukov: We understand that the only source of hard currency is, of course, the source of oil. . . . If we do not make all the necessary decisions now, next year may turn out to be beyond our worst nightmares. . . . As for the socialist countries, they may all end up in a most critical situation. All this will lead us to a veritable collapse, and not only us, but our whole system.[7] Ryzhkov commented at the same meeting: The Vneshekonombank's [Soviet Foreign Trade Bank] guarantees are needed, but it cannot provide them. . . . If there is no oil, there will be no national economy.[8] It is fascinating to hear now the opinion that Eduard Shevardnadze, then foreign minister, "betrayed" the interest of the Soviet Union--especially when documents that were prepared for him at the time are available. In reality, a number of Soviet agencies urged him to secure at any cost these "politically motivated credits."[9] In the meantime, the Soviet Union started to have severe food shortages, and grain deliveries were not being made to large cities. One of Gorbachev's closest associates, Anatoly Cherniayev, described the situation in Moscow in March 1991: If [the grain] cannot be obtained somewhere, famine may come by June. . . . Moscow has probably never seen anything like that throughout its history--even in its hungriest years.[10] From the Soviet Collapse article. Seamus
Post #294,231 by Seamus 10/4/07 10:40:54 PM Reply	The other issue was that Reagan caused the dot com era It has already been shown that Al Gore sponsored the legislation that created the funding that led to the creation of the internet. But, on the off chance that you mean to imply that Reagan's policies created the economic boom of the Clinton years, don't bother. [link\|http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/bilmes_reagan_wp_021004.htm\|The historical flukes that caused the Clinton era boom] . Seamus
Post #294,234 by Seamus 10/4/07 10:52:41 PM Reply	Maybe a more neutral source For one thing, the Reagan tax cuts were offset by a series of subsequent tax hikes, implemented by Congress in the early 1980s, by the first President Bush in the late 1980s and by President Clinton in the early 1990s. Contrary to the fears of supply-side economists, who have supported the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, the economy grew despite these tax hikes, while spending discipline in the 1990s helped turn deficits into surpluses. And an April 2000 study by Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman for the National Bureau of Economic Research said Commerce Department data showed that, contrary to popular belief, the Reagan deficit did not lead to an investment boom -- all rates of domestic investment actually slowed down in the 1980s. "The familiar conclusion that sustained government deficits at full employment depress private capital formation has stood up well," Friedman wrote. [link\|http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/02/news/economy/budget/index.htm\|CNNMoney] Seamus
Post #294,250 by bepatient 10/5/07 7:32:41 AM Reply	Wow, a complete ignorance of globalization I'd expect better from Harvard. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,252 by CRConrad 10/5/07 7:58:11 AM Reply	So, what is it you're saying here? That President Reagan personally invented globalization and thereby ushered in an era of prosperity? And if that's not what you're saying, then what does (whatever it is you are saying about) globalization have to do with Seamus' point, namely (to remind you) that the American economic prosperity of the nineties was not necessarily Reagan's personal doing? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #294,270 by bepatient 10/5/07 9:59:06 AM Reply	Re: So, what is it you're saying here? Ok, here is the quote And an April 2000 study by Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman for the National Bureau of Economic Research said Commerce Department data showed that, contrary to popular belief, the Reagan deficit did not lead to an investment boom -- all rates of domestic investment actually slowed down in the 1980s. "The familiar conclusion that sustained government deficits at full employment depress private capital formation has stood up well," Friedman wrote. And this is being used to support a claim that the econ policies of the late 80s had nothing to do with the boom in the 90s. The only indicator mentioned is >private< capital formation on a domestic basis. It ignores the HUGE impact that the credit facility put in place invited unprecedented foreign investment in the US. During that time, all major asian auto manufacturers build facilities in the US, it ignores the influx of billions in foreign real estate investment etc. It also ignores, and I can't imagine it being anything but purposefully, PUBLIC capital formation, which is what deficit government spending gives you. More guns, more government jobs, more infrastructure etc. Was the prosperity the direct result of one act of cutting taxes? Absolutely not. Did Al Gore have something to do with it by helping fund tech? Sure...him and everyone who made sure it passed. Did the massive gov't spending programs make sure it happened. You bet. Does any of that have anything at all to do with private capital formation. No. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #294,274 by Seamus 10/5/07 10:40:47 AM Reply	The claim was that the Reagan deficits produced the dot com era. That is what I was refuting. Before you decide what the author ignores and what he is claiming you should read the [link\|http://www1.worldbank.org/wbiep/fiscalpolicy/friedman.pdf\|whole paper] Seamus
Post #294,256 by Seamus 10/5/07 9:16:46 AM Reply	A chaired professor and former Dept chairman is completely ignorant of globalization? Much easier to hand wave then to try to show that he was wrong. Seamus
Post #294,258 by boxley 10/5/07 9:23:57 AM Reply	dunno, alternate theories by walter williams are offered he is also a prof especial. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,264 by Seamus 10/5/07 9:47:12 AM Reply	Yes, a supply-sider. There the only ones left who argue the deficits don't matter. Seamus
Post #294,277 by boxley 10/5/07 10:45:49 AM Reply	well listening to hillary giving away money if she is elected she must be a supply sider as well. that 5k per kid has to come from somewhere. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,284 by Seamus 10/5/07 12:44:35 PM 10/5/07 1:24:23 PM Reply	A supply sider is someone who thinks stimulating the suppliers will somehow increase demand. She is not talking about giving to the supply side. Seamus Edited by Seamus Oct. 5, 2007, 01:24:23 PM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!