Reply With Quote
hey cricket boy. those are good numbers. and how bush actually helped the poor people. the past 5 years the poor man bought the same investments he was buying before, but at cheaper prices. great job BUSH!
::crickets::
hey cricket boy. those are good numbers. and how bush actually helped the poor people. the past 5 years the poor man bought the same investments he was buying before, but at cheaper prices. great job BUSH!
Yeah, because poor people are SO invested in the stock market when they can't afford ing food and clothing. Dunce.
many people who are considered poor have 401ks. and like i said above.. ANYONE can afford to save money and invest in mutual funds...ANYONE... people who don't are idiots..
I stopped reading right there.
Poor people can't afford food.
poor people can't afford food, but they can afford beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets and bingo right? and of course cable tv...
And apparently thousands of shares of Berkshire Hathaway...
i guess you think a person is poor because of other people's actions and not their own choices...
Depends on your definition of poor.
Without knowing, I would risk to say that the % of people who can't afford food, in this country, is pretty low.
Many so called poor people can afford to invest money in the market.
Even though people always say that the markets anticipate things like downturns in the economy, the gigantic shock caused by the dot.com crash in 2000 and 2001, were one of the causes of the downturn in the economy in 2001 and 2002.
Try again.
Pretty damn true.
But what exactly is it? The red bit could be an elephant, and it looks like the elephant is pleasuring the chick with her hands in the air..?
What I want to know is which day in October is the correction coming? Isn't this traditionally "correction month"?
So the dot.com frenzy helps the economy grow at above average rates in the mid to late 90s but has absolutely nothing to do with the recession in 2001/2002?
No, but they can buy some Ford shares. They are pretty damn cheap.And apparently thousands of shares of Berkshire Hathaway...
Actually, poor people are generally poor because they were born into poverty and were unable to escape from it. Socio-economic class mobility is one of the great myths of our time.
Of course, some people escape the choices of their parents, but most are trapped by the poverty cycle. The lucky ones who do usually had parents who emphasised education as the means to escape poverty, and made sacrifices to ensure a good education for their children. You see this all the time in immigrant communities.
"Lack of education, or human capital, is thought to be one of the biggest causes of the poverty cycle. Education in a modern knowledge-based economy is one of the conditions to achieving economic growth, as it increases skill. A maximised education would require devoted time and energy, or extra-curricular reading. Children who are from poor families and have to work cannot maximise their education, even if the education is free. It would also require a conducive and hygienic environment, which is often not available to the poverty-stricken. This is even worse in countries such as India where public education in many areas is not available for free due to budget constraints. Tertiary education is often not free. These theorists believe that children often will not be able to break out of poverty because their reduced skillset reduces their potential income. With no means to provide a conducive educational environment for their own children, the cycle begins again."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_cycle (note - some of this article is incomplete and needs references, but I am posting it just to give anyone who doesn't understand it a general idea of how the poverty cycle operates)
Whoever said that everyone could put food on their table:
"Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7 % in 2001 to 11.1 % in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3 % to 3.5 %. This report, based on data from the December 2002 food security survey, provides statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty..._United_States
However, I will agree that people make choices, and a lot of people's choices tend towards instant gratification (alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc) and not future planning (investment for education, etc).
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 10-08-2006 at 07:41 PM.
And I thought all Aussies were like Crock Dundee
J/K man! You are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters in the political forum. I agree with what you just said.
By the way: I've been twice "down under" and your country is ing beautiful!
Cheers. You'll find I am a moderate and rationalist lefty, and I prefer to stalk kangaroos.
I'm not interested in name calling (unless I'm really pissed off and have had a bad day), and I'm not interested in rabid ideology - ideology just seems to get in the way of real change for the better. I AM interested in addressing the root causes of our social, economic and environmental malaise with real solutions that people can use in their everyday lives.
Yup, Australia is "the lucky country". We live in a quiet part of the world with the best access to just about everything you can imagine. Unfortunately, our current government is tearing down a lot of the great ins utions my parents' generation fought for, but what can you do?
And on top of that, you rule at playing rugby, the best sport in the world!
Nup, Aussie Rules Football is far better. Ever seen it? Fastest, most skillful, and most brutal game in the world. 36 players on a field that's roughly 200x150m. As a 'ball fan I never thought I'd say it, but Aussie Rules is my favourite game in the world.
And right now our national rugby team is in a bit of dip, but they have a rich history of success.
I've seen Aussie rules but I grew up playing rugby. Rugby is awesome!. We finally beat your Wallabies in 1987 for the first time. I was at the stadium!
But we digress . . . I hope the NASDAQ and the S&P continue climbing, I've got some QQQQ and SPY in my portfolio.
The dot.com frenzy didn't fuel the economy's growth either. "The economy" is not measured by the NASDAQ's performance. GDP growth during the 90s was real, not some imaginary pipedream brought to you by drkoop.com. The recession in 2001/2002 was driven by economic cyclicity, a restrictive monetary policy, a series of major corporate scandals and a major terrorist attack.
I wouldn't say that the dot.com fizzle didn't have anything to do with the recession, but it wasn't the cause nor is it high up on the list of causes. Stock markets are a reflection of the economy's performance, not the other way around.
I did not say fuel as in "the only cause". I said helped. There is no question that all that venture capital + money from private equity helped the economy grow in the early 90s.
"The economy" is not measured by the NASDAQ's performance.
I never said it is.
GDP growth during the 90s was real, not some imaginary pipedream brought to you by drkoop.com.
Not all dot.com companies were pipe dreams. Some are still around, healthy as any other "real economy" company. Moreover, the dot.com frenzy cannot be simply measured by what happened to theman.com or drkoop.com. It also helped other companies grow, most of which were in the "bricks and mortars" side of the economy. HP, Texas Industries, Dell, JPM, Citi just to name a few. These companies expanded, hired employees like crazy and paid better salaries . . . bottom line, helped expand the economy.
The recession in 2001/2002 was driven by economic cyclicity, a restrictive monetary policy, a series of major corporate scandals and a major terrorist attack.
I agree with the first two and the last, but corporate scandals? I'm pretty sure the money that was lost in the dot.com debacle far exceeds that which was lost by the corporate scandals.
Furthermore, what is the difference between saying that the economy suffered from the dot.com bubble bursting (smeagol) than saying the economy suffered from the Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia and Tyco scandals (Scott)
I wouldn't say that the dot.com fizzle didn't have anything to do with the recession, but it wasn't the cause nor is it high up on the list of causes.
Then we sort of agree becuase i did not say it was the cause, but that it simply helped the economy go into recession, together with many of the reasons you've already stated above.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
