My new name for Nemesis is 'Old Man Black and White'. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> The best answer is to let both mediums (private and military) due their work and research and let what happens happen. The way the US has been for the past few hundred years with excellent results. Shades of gray, Nem, shades of gray!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are right, necessity is the mother of invention, but why do you feel that the only area offering such necessities is the military? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Please show me your numbers that have the US defense industry getting more research money than the university and private sector. So far we're still going off your unsupported opinion. I'll get you started:
Total US Defense R&D budget for DARPA, 2003 - $2.68 Billion dollars Total research budget in 2002 for <i>just</i> the Microsoft Corporation - $5.3 Billion dollars.
That's just one single company (which has a paltry R&D budget compared to say, IBM, GE, or Pfizer) having double the R&D budget of the entire US Armed Forces. In the capitalist society we have in the US, private companies handle most R&D. Having miltary spinoffs is a nice side-effect of DARPA research, but there's no reason to take money away from the military to help the already massive R&D industry that is the US.
So... I'm Mr. 'Black and White' and Mr. 'Yes, but...' at the same time? Didn't know my Zen was <i>that</i> good <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Note that a companies R&D budget consists of much more than what we two would agree to be acceptable 'scientific research' - the Microsoft R&D budget you cited there, for example, includes large sums for quasi-marketing purposes (testing whether a new GUI is accepted by the audience, focus group research on what new features IEs next version should have, and so on). If you follow the thread, you'll notice that we were already two tangents away from my initial point when you joined in. Add this to the fact that i slept for three hours in the last two days, and you'll excuse me for not having the patience of rifling through the web for numerical prove right now. I'll get back to that tomorrow.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Jan 12 2004, 03:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 12 2004, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So... I'm Mr. 'Black and White' and Mr. 'Yes, but...' at the same time? Didn't know my Zen was <i>that</i> good <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You never fail to amaze! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Note that a companies R&D budget consists of much more than what we two would agree to be acceptable 'scientific research' - the Microsoft R&D budget you cited there, for example, includes large sums for quasi-marketing purposes (testing whether a new GUI is accepted by the audience, focus group research on what new features IEs next version should have, and so on). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Note that I will only allow you to use a single company to an extent. To be fair, you need to add together all US non-defense R&D budgets and compare them to DARPA. I was using MS simply as an example of how completely out in left field you were with those numbers. Otherwise you'll nickle and dime me to death like above with unprovable 'marketing research' rather than admit you pulled everything out of your heinie (pun intended <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Add this to the fact that i slept for three hours in the last two days, and you'll excuse me for not having the patience of rifling through the web for numerical prove right now. I'll get back to that tomorrow. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Alrighty. Take all the time in the world, I am quite confident that you will for the first time ever, admit you were wrong without adding "yes, but...". <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<span style='color:red'>Wilson, that's twice. Do not post in the Discussion forums unless you have the brains to actually discuss. The next violation will result in loss of posting rights - no more warnings.</span>
Back on topic... now that nem got pwnt <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Bush could very well alienate his loyal conservative voters. To all peoples who live outside of the US:
Conservative in your country is our liberal, and vice versa.
Just another term the USA has backwords, like our number system. I don't know why we strayed from the greek definations of liberal and conservative, but in todays world they mean opposite in America.
The reason Bush could alienate conservatives is that he's done more to promote liberal agenda more than he has done to promote conservative agenda, such as smaller government, harsher penalties for breaking the law (cough Illegal immigration cough)
Next, nem;
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 'no centralistic powers, strong individualism, free enterprise' one, or the 'we need a strong man like ol' Reaggan, let's add more "security" agencies, subsidize large portions of the high tech industry' kind?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do believe they mean both. Regan was perhaps the last great conservative president America might ever have. Don't say he was a failure either; the proof is in the textbooks...
<!--QuoteBegin--Sizer+Jan 14 2004, 12:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Jan 14 2004, 12:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Do these textbooks mention Savings and Loan, the Contras, and the failure of deregulation and supply side policies? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Unsure. They do mention the victory in the Cold War and the end of the nuclear arms race which threatened the annihilation of the human race though.
And I'm not even a Reagan fan, for your reasons. I just like to keep an open mind. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Sizer+Jan 13 2004, 11:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Jan 13 2004, 11:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Do these textbooks mention Savings and Loan, the Contras, and the failure of deregulation and supply side policies? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. And supply-side policies was one of his highlights.
My AP US History book called the contra incidents "remarkable in the fact that Regan was able to shrug them off."
And by "Proof is in the textbooks," I am talking about the fact he isn't listed as a failure and has done some great things for this country, and is still rather popular today.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Jan 13 2004, 10:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jan 13 2004, 10:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The reason Bush could alienate conservatives is that he's done more to promote liberal agenda more than he has done to promote conservative agenda, such as smaller government, <b>harsher penalties for breaking the law</b> (cough Illegal immigration cough) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, lets look at one thing and generalize it across the board... Wasn't it the Bush administration that has received ALOT of flak for reviewing and/or making it harder for federal judges to give out sentences for crimes less than federally mandated sentences?
This illegal immigration issue is far more complicated than just a crime... There's far more to it. Trying to make it seem black or white is an injustice to everyone trying to solve the issue. I really dont care for illegal immigrants either, but its not as black or white as you're trying to make it seem.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes. And supply-side policies was one of his highlights.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A highlight? Please. According to Reagan's kook supply side economics, tax cuts would free up more money for entrepreneurs, letting them increase productivity and create jobs. But, of course, that didn't happen and we hit a monster recession in '82. In fact, private investment went down 1.2% for 1980-1992. This shows that that entrepreneurs simply pocketed their savings. When Reagan swatted regulations, productivity did not accelerate; indeed, heavily regulated Western European countries have seen productivity growing faster than ours.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My AP US History book called the contra incidents "remarkable in the fact that Regan was able to shrug them off."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was one of the people responsible for the incidents, and your history book does not absolve him.
You do know that most economists consider that anything done by an organization to try to influence the economy (cutting/raising taxes, Treasury lowering/raising interest percents...stuff like that) take a few years to manifest their [full] effects, yes? <a href='http://www.insultsunpunished.com/archives/003048.php' target='_blank'>bleh</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, private investment went down 1.2% for 1980-1992. This shows that that entrepreneurs simply pocketed their savings<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A general statement like that really doesn't say much. Do you have a link to the information, with a breakdown of how the money was invested? 1.2% doesn't excite me very much.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sizer+Jan 14 2004, 04:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Jan 14 2004, 04:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes. And supply-side policies was one of his highlights.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A highlight? Please. According to Reagan's kook supply side economics, tax cuts would free up more money for entrepreneurs, letting them increase productivity and create jobs. But, of course, that didn't happen and we hit a monster recession in '82. In fact, private investment went down 1.2% for 1980-1992. This shows that that entrepreneurs simply pocketed their savings. When Reagan swatted regulations, productivity did not accelerate; indeed, heavily regulated Western European countries have seen productivity growing faster than ours.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My AP US History book called the contra incidents "remarkable in the fact that Regan was able to shrug them off."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was one of the people responsible for the incidents, and your history book does not absolve him. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Telling me regonomics had a negative effect is stupid.
Look at the economy during the 60-70's, it was being trashed.
By the end of the eighties, became much healthier, and today you can easily find tons of articles suggesting that the 90's prosperity was all in due to regonomics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A general statement like that really doesn't say much. Do you have a link to the information, with a breakdown of how the money was invested? 1.2% doesn't excite me very much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It says plenty. Investment is supposed to increase after a tax cut according to supply side theory, but that didn't happen.
<i>Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1994), pp. 126-127.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Look at the economy during the 60-70's, it was being trashed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Inflation started to grow in 1965, and would do so for the next 15 years. This had nothing to do with Carter but Reagan blamed him for it anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the end of the eighties, became much healthier, and today you can easily find tons of articles suggesting that the 90's prosperity was all in due to regonomics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Paul Volcker, a Keynesian, is the man who brought forth the economic expansion by expanding the money supply, not Reagan.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sizer+Jan 14 2004, 09:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Jan 14 2004, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Paul Volcker, a Keynesian, is the man who brought forth the economic expansion by expanding the money supply, not Reagan. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_paulvolcker.html' target='_blank'>an interesting interview with the man himself</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->INTERVIEWER: Can you in general terms explain what you did?
PAUL VOLCKER: That's a complicated story, but what we did, against a background of increasing unease about inflation and increasing unease about the performance of the economy, was to face up to the need and [take charge of] monetary policy and control of the money supply, to accept the proposition that at the end of the day inflation is dependent upon inflationary monetary growth, too much money growth, too much credit growth, and we set out to make that point and say that we've just got to stop this and draw some kind of a line in the sand about how much money and credit growth was appropriate. In doing so, the effect was to push interest rates up in the short run, because people were expecting inflation; they were perfectly willing to borrow. It was a good thing to borrow when you expect inflation, and the borrowing came up against a limited supply of money and credit. Interest rates were way up, and sooner or later that was bound to have an effect on the economy. It did, and we had a severe recession, but we came out of that recession with a very strong movement called price stability and also with strong economic growth.
Now my view always was, and has remained, that the way the economy was behaving, sooner or later you were probably going to have a recession. There was a feeling that the Federal Reserve created the recession. I think economic conditions created the recession. That created the underlying conditions and imbalances that sooner or later were going to give you a recession. Better to deal with it sooner rather than later. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, anyway. We've gone way offtopic, and if someone wants to debate Reaganomics, start another thread.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A general statement like that really doesn't say much. Do you have a link to the information, with a breakdown of how the money was invested? 1.2% doesn't excite me very much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It says plenty. Investment is supposed to increase after a tax cut according to supply side theory, but that didn't happen.
<i>Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1994), pp. 126-127.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Look at the economy during the 60-70's, it was being trashed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Inflation started to grow in 1965, and would do so for the next 15 years. This had nothing to do with Carter but Reagan blamed him for it anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the end of the eighties, became much healthier, and today you can easily find tons of articles suggesting that the 90's prosperity was all in due to regonomics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Paul Volcker, a Keynesian, is the man who brought forth the economic expansion by expanding the money supply, not Reagan. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This had nothing to do with Carter but Reagan blamed him for it anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Never did I blame it on Carter either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Paul Volcker, a Keynesian, is the man who brought forth the economic expansion by expanding the money supply, not Reagan.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what? Without regan these policies would have never been given a chance.
I apologize for not replying sooner, and I realize that this topic is starting to become stagnant, but there are just a couple of points I wanted to make on the various issues brought up in this topic. (The poor thing has been hijacked beyond recognition.)
First, a couple of individuals were debating the meaning of extremism in reference to the Green party. Extremism is a relative term. For example, a Democrat probably doesn't view a member of the Green Party as "extreme" as a Republican word. A European would view a Green as "normal" as opposed to "extreme". SO it is best to simply abstain from using the word in that context at all.
On my original thesis. I am not saying if Bush will win or lose, but that he could lose because of the lack of support by a significant part of his conservative base. Please do not take it for more or less than what it is.
Liberals and conservatives almost unianimously agree that Bush is governing from the center. It really isn't subject to debate, especially from outsiders who do not understand the American political system. There are apologists who make claims that Bush is still mostly a conservative and there are Democratic party loyalists who will also support the idea that Bush is a strong conservative for purposes of differentiating Democractic policies from those of Bush.
It doesn't take a political scientist to understand that the aformentioned policies of the Bush administration are liberal in origin. I honestly didn't think that would even be debatable, except that maybe Bush had not gone far enough in said policies.
Are there policies in which Bush is certainly not on the same page is liberal minded individuals. OF COURSE! I mentioned two of them, being the Iraq war and the spending of the Clinton surplus. Excuse me for not listing his environmental policies or whatever else was brought up. My intention wasn't to produce a laundry list of the Administration's policies and their "liberalness" and "conservativeness".
As a generalization, most of Bush's well known policies that I did mention are socialist in origin, for better or worse. Defecit spending is <b>supposed</b> to be and absolute "no no" for a conservative. Think of it in terms of a personal bank account. A financially conservative person does not spend money they do not have, very simply.
Someone mentioned that Bush has a lot of money. That is true, and since there is a direct correlation between money spent on elections and chances of being elected, this gives a huge advantage to Bush, again for better or worse.
Just a quick economic lesson on inflation and supply side. Infaltion occurs for two major reasons. First, increasing the money supply means the value of a currency is reduced, which makes things more expensive. Money supply should never be increased artificially, which is a huge mistake of the 20th century, inflation is not really a problem of any particular President, but it was really a collective effort by almost every American President since Wilson. The institution that created this artificial money supply just before the great depression was the infamous Federal Reserve.
Second, inflation occurse because when a currency is used to buy goods and services, the value of that currency is only as good as the confidence of the people using it. This confidence is very important to modern economics because without it, the means of exchange through a print currency would be impossible. The mass psychology of inflation explains this phenomenon, but I really don't feel like typing it all out.
Now, supply side economics works if confidence in the value of a currency is high. In times of depression or recession, no amount of tax cuts will significantly improve investement. You may hear about "consumer confidence" on the news. The reason why Bush's tax cuts have succeeded in reviving the economy is because consumer confidence, and therefore coroporate confidence has been high for whatever reason. Just a side note, the tax cuts have increased productivity and coroporate and domestic spending, but it hasn't created the jobs Mr. Bush promised because the coroporations did not invest their money in to hiring more labor forces. Although it is entirely possible that investement in the hiring of more labor will come later.
Now, on that whole military R&D thing. Kudos To M. Evil for so skillfully defending that point. Anywho, that's it for now I think, I really do detest talking about politics because the humanity of the individual always seems to be ingored whenever such discussions come up.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are right, necessity is the mother of invention, but why do you feel that the only area offering such necessities is the military?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please show me your numbers that have the US defense industry getting more research money than the university and private sector. So far we're still going off your unsupported opinion. I'll get you started:
Total US Defense R&D budget for DARPA, 2003 - $2.68 Billion dollars
Total research budget in 2002 for <i>just</i> the Microsoft Corporation - $5.3 Billion dollars.
That's just one single company (which has a paltry R&D budget compared to say, IBM, GE, or Pfizer) having double the R&D budget of the entire US Armed Forces. In the capitalist society we have in the US, private companies handle most R&D. Having miltary spinoffs is a nice side-effect of DARPA research, but there's no reason to take money away from the military to help the already massive R&D industry that is the US.
Sources - <a href='http://www.darpa.mil/body/pdf/FY03BudEst.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.darpa.mil/body/pdf/FY03BudEst.pdf</a>, <a href='http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20010726S0016' target='_blank'>http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20010726S0016</a>
Update: <a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-5138578.html?tag=nefd_top' target='_blank'>Speaking of IBM R&D...</a>
Note that a companies R&D budget consists of much more than what we two would agree to be acceptable 'scientific research' - the Microsoft R&D budget you cited there, for example, includes large sums for quasi-marketing purposes (testing whether a new GUI is accepted by the audience, focus group research on what new features IEs next version should have, and so on).
If you follow the thread, you'll notice that we were already two tangents away from my initial point when you joined in. Add this to the fact that i slept for three hours in the last two days, and you'll excuse me for not having the patience of rifling through the web for numerical prove right now. I'll get back to that tomorrow.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You never fail to amaze! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Note that a companies R&D budget consists of much more than what we two would agree to be acceptable 'scientific research' - the Microsoft R&D budget you cited there, for example, includes large sums for quasi-marketing purposes (testing whether a new GUI is accepted by the audience, focus group research on what new features IEs next version should have, and so on).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note that I will only allow you to use a single company to an extent. To be fair, you need to add together all US non-defense R&D budgets and compare them to DARPA. I was using MS simply as an example of how completely out in left field you were with those numbers. Otherwise you'll nickle and dime me to death like above with unprovable 'marketing research' rather than admit you pulled everything out of your heinie (pun intended <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Add this to the fact that i slept for three hours in the last two days, and you'll excuse me for not having the patience of rifling through the web for numerical prove right now. I'll get back to that tomorrow. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alrighty. Take all the time in the world, I am quite confident that you will for the first time ever, admit you were wrong without adding "yes, but...". <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
edit: forgot to answer middle point
Bush could very well alienate his loyal conservative voters. To all peoples who live outside of the US:
Conservative in your country is our liberal, and vice versa.
Just another term the USA has backwords, like our number system. I don't know why we strayed from the greek definations of liberal and conservative, but in todays world they mean opposite in America.
The reason Bush could alienate conservatives is that he's done more to promote liberal agenda more than he has done to promote conservative agenda, such as smaller government, harsher penalties for breaking the law (cough Illegal immigration cough)
Next, nem;
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 'no centralistic powers, strong individualism, free enterprise' one, or the 'we need a strong man like ol' Reaggan, let's add more "security" agencies, subsidize large portions of the high tech industry' kind?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do believe they mean both. Regan was perhaps the last great conservative president America might ever have. Don't say he was a failure either; the proof is in the textbooks...
Unsure. They do mention the victory in the Cold War and the end of the nuclear arms race which threatened the annihilation of the human race though.
And I'm not even a Reagan fan, for your reasons. I just like to keep an open mind. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
TONS.
MEGATONS.
If Jesus were going to run for President, Bush would still raise more money.
Yes. And supply-side policies was one of his highlights.
My AP US History book called the contra incidents "remarkable in the fact that Regan was able to shrug them off."
And by "Proof is in the textbooks," I am talking about the fact he isn't listed as a failure and has done some great things for this country, and is still rather popular today.
Yes, lets look at one thing and generalize it across the board... Wasn't it the Bush administration that has received ALOT of flak for reviewing and/or making it harder for federal judges to give out sentences for crimes less than federally mandated sentences?
This illegal immigration issue is far more complicated than just a crime... There's far more to it. Trying to make it seem black or white is an injustice to everyone trying to solve the issue. I really dont care for illegal immigrants either, but its not as black or white as you're trying to make it seem.
A highlight? Please. According to Reagan's kook supply side economics, tax cuts would free up more money for entrepreneurs, letting them increase productivity and create jobs. But, of course, that didn't happen and we hit a monster recession in '82. In fact, private investment went down 1.2% for 1980-1992. This shows that that entrepreneurs simply pocketed their savings. When Reagan swatted regulations, productivity did not accelerate; indeed, heavily regulated Western European countries have seen productivity growing faster than ours.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My AP US History book called the contra incidents "remarkable in the fact that Regan was able to shrug them off."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was one of the people responsible for the incidents, and your history book does not absolve him.
<a href='http://www.insultsunpunished.com/archives/003048.php' target='_blank'>bleh</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, private investment went down 1.2% for 1980-1992. This shows that that entrepreneurs simply pocketed their savings<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A general statement like that really doesn't say much. Do you have a link to the information, with a breakdown of how the money was invested? 1.2% doesn't excite me very much.
A highlight? Please. According to Reagan's kook supply side economics, tax cuts would free up more money for entrepreneurs, letting them increase productivity and create jobs. But, of course, that didn't happen and we hit a monster recession in '82. In fact, private investment went down 1.2% for 1980-1992. This shows that that entrepreneurs simply pocketed their savings. When Reagan swatted regulations, productivity did not accelerate; indeed, heavily regulated Western European countries have seen productivity growing faster than ours.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My AP US History book called the contra incidents "remarkable in the fact that Regan was able to shrug them off."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was one of the people responsible for the incidents, and your history book does not absolve him. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Telling me regonomics had a negative effect is stupid.
Look at the economy during the 60-70's, it was being trashed.
By the end of the eighties, became much healthier, and today you can easily find tons of articles suggesting that the 90's prosperity was all in due to regonomics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A general statement like that really doesn't say much. Do you have a link to the information, with a breakdown of how the money was invested? 1.2% doesn't excite me very much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It says plenty. Investment is supposed to increase after a tax cut according to supply side theory, but that didn't happen.
Private investment:
1970 - 1979 18.6%
1980 - 1992 17.4
<i>Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1994), pp. 126-127.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Look at the economy during the 60-70's, it was being trashed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Inflation started to grow in 1965, and would do so for the next 15 years. This had nothing to do with Carter but Reagan blamed him for it anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the end of the eighties, became much healthier, and today you can easily find tons of articles suggesting that the 90's prosperity was all in due to regonomics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Paul Volcker, a Keynesian, is the man who brought forth the economic expansion by expanding the money supply, not Reagan.
<a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_paulvolcker.html' target='_blank'>an interesting interview with the man himself</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->INTERVIEWER: Can you in general terms explain what you did?
PAUL VOLCKER: That's a complicated story, but what we did, against a background of increasing unease about inflation and increasing unease about the performance of the economy, was to face up to the need and [take charge of] monetary policy and control of the money supply, to accept the proposition that at the end of the day inflation is dependent upon inflationary monetary growth, too much money growth, too much credit growth, and we set out to make that point and say that we've just got to stop this and draw some kind of a line in the sand about how much money and credit growth was appropriate. In doing so, the effect was to push interest rates up in the short run, because people were expecting inflation; they were perfectly willing to borrow. It was a good thing to borrow when you expect inflation, and the borrowing came up against a limited supply of money and credit. Interest rates were way up, and sooner or later that was bound to have an effect on the economy. It did, and we had a severe recession, but we came out of that recession with a very strong movement called price stability and also with strong economic growth.
Now my view always was, and has remained, that the way the economy was behaving, sooner or later you were probably going to have a recession. There was a feeling that the Federal Reserve created the recession. I think economic conditions created the recession. That created the underlying conditions and imbalances that sooner or later were going to give you a recession. Better to deal with it sooner rather than later.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, anyway. We've gone way offtopic, and if someone wants to debate Reaganomics, start another thread.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A general statement like that really doesn't say much. Do you have a link to the information, with a breakdown of how the money was invested? 1.2% doesn't excite me very much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It says plenty. Investment is supposed to increase after a tax cut according to supply side theory, but that didn't happen.
Private investment:
1970 - 1979 18.6%
1980 - 1992 17.4
<i>Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1994), pp. 126-127.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Look at the economy during the 60-70's, it was being trashed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Inflation started to grow in 1965, and would do so for the next 15 years. This had nothing to do with Carter but Reagan blamed him for it anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the end of the eighties, became much healthier, and today you can easily find tons of articles suggesting that the 90's prosperity was all in due to regonomics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Paul Volcker, a Keynesian, is the man who brought forth the economic expansion by expanding the money supply, not Reagan. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This had nothing to do with Carter but Reagan blamed him for it anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Never did I blame it on Carter either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Paul Volcker, a Keynesian, is the man who brought forth the economic expansion by expanding the money supply, not Reagan.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what? Without regan these policies would have never been given a chance.
First, a couple of individuals were debating the meaning of extremism in reference to the Green party. Extremism is a relative term. For example, a Democrat probably doesn't view a member of the Green Party as "extreme" as a Republican word. A European would view a Green as "normal" as opposed to "extreme". SO it is best to simply abstain from using the word in that context at all.
On my original thesis. I am not saying if Bush will win or lose, but that he could lose because of the lack of support by a significant part of his conservative base. Please do not take it for more or less than what it is.
Liberals and conservatives almost unianimously agree that Bush is governing from the center. It really isn't subject to debate, especially from outsiders who do not understand the American political system. There are apologists who make claims that Bush is still mostly a conservative and there are Democratic party loyalists who will also support the idea that Bush is a strong conservative for purposes of differentiating Democractic policies from those of Bush.
It doesn't take a political scientist to understand that the aformentioned policies of the Bush administration are liberal in origin. I honestly didn't think that would even be debatable, except that maybe Bush had not gone far enough in said policies.
Are there policies in which Bush is certainly not on the same page is liberal minded individuals. OF COURSE!
I mentioned two of them, being the Iraq war and the spending of the Clinton surplus. Excuse me for not listing his environmental policies or whatever else was brought up. My intention wasn't to produce a laundry list of the Administration's policies and their "liberalness" and "conservativeness".
As a generalization, most of Bush's well known policies that I did mention are socialist in origin, for better or worse. Defecit spending is <b>supposed</b> to be and absolute "no no" for a conservative. Think of it in terms of a personal bank account. A financially conservative person does not spend money they do not have, very simply.
Someone mentioned that Bush has a lot of money. That is true, and since there is a direct correlation between money spent on elections and chances of being elected, this gives a huge advantage to Bush, again for better or worse.
Just a quick economic lesson on inflation and supply side. Infaltion occurs for two major reasons. First, increasing the money supply means the value of a currency is reduced, which makes things more expensive. Money supply should never be increased artificially, which is a huge mistake of the 20th century, inflation is not really a problem of any particular President, but it was really a collective effort by almost every American President since Wilson. The institution that created this artificial money supply just before the great depression was the infamous Federal Reserve.
Second, inflation occurse because when a currency is used to buy goods and services, the value of that currency is only as good as the confidence of the people using it. This confidence is very important to modern economics because without it, the means of exchange through a print currency would be impossible. The mass psychology of inflation explains this phenomenon, but I really don't feel like typing it all out.
Now, supply side economics works if confidence in the value of a currency is high. In times of depression or recession, no amount of tax cuts will significantly improve investement. You may hear about "consumer confidence" on the news. The reason why Bush's tax cuts have succeeded in reviving the economy is because consumer confidence, and therefore coroporate confidence has been high for whatever reason. Just a side note, the tax cuts have increased productivity and coroporate and domestic spending, but it hasn't created the jobs Mr. Bush promised because the coroporations did not invest their money in to hiring more labor forces. Although it is entirely possible that investement in the hiring of more labor will come later.
Now, on that whole military R&D thing. Kudos To M. Evil for so skillfully defending that point. Anywho, that's it for now I think, I really do detest talking about politics because the humanity of the individual always seems to be ingored whenever such discussions come up.