And companies are heavily dependent on consumers. Guess what happens
to your beloved stocks when consumer confidence plummets? Why should
politicians stimulate some markets at the expense of the labor market?
For example, overseas profit centers are taxed at a lower rate. Do you
really need to provide companies with incentives to purchase labor
This is hard to answer without boring the socks off you. Right after
college, I worked in accounts receivable. From there I became the AS/
400 guru. Then into IT. Now I design enterprise UNIX solutions. I
want to be clear: economics wasn't my major. It was my concentration
within my major. We were required to take 24 credits in a related
discipline. I still do a lot of statistical analysis so I suppose it
wasn't a complete waste of money. In fact Mason and Lind sit on my
desk as we speak...
So the Dot.com bust, the Enron & Electric deregulation fiasco and the
telecommunication melt down/corruption were not fruits of the 90's
"prosperity"? Incidentally recessions happen every 7 to 10 years, almost
like clockwork and have for over a century......politicians come and go but
get credit when the economy is good and blame when bad but realistically
have little to do with it. Certain legislation may impact niche products or
industries i.e the 1993 luxury tax killed big boats or the 1996
telecommunication bill gave us the telecommunication corruption or the 1979
saving & loan deregulation gave us the late 1980's bailout but the aggregate
economic whole is bigger and more powerful than any politician can ever
aspire to...... Rod
It may be worth noting that we've had troops in Germany and Japan 65 plus
years...and yet last I heard the hostilities have ceased. It serves our
strategic and security interests to place troops and bases around the world,
Iraq would simply be another of those places....understanding often requires
context. Incidentally while such a world wide presence is expensive in both
coin and often world opinion, power detests a vacuum, if we withdrew from
the world stage the world wide defense or military build-up would be
staggering and ever increasingly unstable and violent. Rod
You'll note that I said I didn't believe Clinton and Obama. They won't
be able to leave on short order. But I want US civilian leadership
with that mindset. We can't allow the Iraqis to string us along.
The experience in Germany and Japan is not really comparable to Iraq.
Both countries were pretty homogeneous. In Iraq we have three large
groups that refuse to reconcile differences. US troops have done a
fine job but their mission relies on people who operate outside the US
chain of command. In order to achieve political stability, the Iraqis
must achieve political compromise. The US army can blow the shit out
of anything the civilian leadership asks it to, but it can't make the
Shia, Sunni and Kurds get along.
It pays to remember when the U.S. entered WWII, in December 1941, and
when it emerged, victorious, before the end of 1945, actually just a
shade under four years later. Now, check the dates of the Iraqi mess.
Check the readiness of the Iraqi troops. Check the readiness of the
Iraqi political system.
We had the advantage of starting WWII with a sane political system,
something the Iraqis don't (and probably will never) have, but they
are now five years into a U.S. supported war with virtually no
territory under true Iraqi control.
I know damned well our troops can train their troops if the troops are
told, by their Iraqi leaders, to pay attention. These youngsters in
our military are quite probably the best soldiers we've ever fielded.
But they are still doing 99% of the fighting, when most should be
packing their bags and getting ready to leave forever.
It is not going to happen. The Iraqis themselves have an expressed
interest in democracy, but no experience and no cultural conditioning
to make it truly acceptable on a long term basis. What they do have is
more than 1,000 years of hate, for each other (Shia, Sunni, Kurds),
for anyone who differs from them culturally or religiously, and a host
of ignorant leaders (Sadr, et al) leading a horde of ignorant
followers in any way that increases the power of the leader. Tribalism
We can't get out immediately, for sure, but a deadline is essential,
with definite steps to the deadline--to be met by the Iraqis, in that,
"We're moving xxx troops out of this province and sending them to the
U.S. on such and such a date. Be ready to take over or suffer the
consequences, 'cause we ain't comin' back." Then do it.
Let them wipe their own asses, even if they keep doing it with their
All GWB has done, other than waste U.S. lives and money, is step up
the date for a massive dissolution in the Middle East. What might have
teetered along for another 20 or or 25 years, or even 50, is now going
to erupt within a decade. Personally, I think the eruption is going to
break the entire area up on ancient tribal lines, with, unfortunately,
almost all having access to modern weaponry.
Effectively, we're almost certainly training these people to kill more
of us later, just as we did in Afghanistan when supplying guerillas
with weapons to fight the Soviets.
PS.. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you earlier... I was busy signing
pay-cheques for my crews. I realize how important you are Bill, but I
got back to you as soon as I could. I hope it is not too late.
Ohhh it's YOU! (Kinda thought so... nothing to contribute, just loose
diatribe when you don't have a clue what's being discussed.... )
It's bad enough that you've reduced yourself to nothing but trolling in
recent times. But if you must spend all your time OT maybe you could spend
it criticizing your own government instead of ours. Your opinion of our
politics is of no importance. Regardless which party I may hold to, as an
outsider your criticisms are an insult.
So, F_CK Y_ _
Would you like to buy a vowel?
So that makes it all better? Since the rest of the world is taxing the
bejeebers out of its citizens, we should follow along?
A little clarification here. I think the fed bailout of Bear-Stearns is
equally as bad as bailing out people who took out home loans they knew they
couldn't afford. Both actions promote irresponsibility. There is nothing
written anywhere that says people have to be successful all the time.
My comment was more in line with your comment relative to stocks vs. jobs.
Yeah, the dems talk a good game about jobs, but in the end, who really
provides the jobs? It's the businesses, the corporations, the
entrepreneurs who are creating jobs and wealth. Many of those businesses
are publicly traded on the stock market. The government only taxes wealth
and the dems especially could be considered anti-job with their strong
emphasis on penalizing those who create jobs through higher taxes, more
regulation, and other anti-business policies. You don't promote prosperity
by piling more and more weights on the elements of society contributing to
I'm sure the next comment will be the exorbitant salaries of the CEO's vs.
the workers. Guess what? I agree that there is a problem here, but the
solution is not more government oversight,but stockholders, particularly
the institutional investors exerting their weight on the boards.
What flavor of economics was in favor at the time of your major? Those I
knew when I was in school were equally divided between Marxism and
Keynesian economic theory. Adam Smith capitalism was in short supply.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.