If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
Joe Sixpack, since you never had the pleasure of living in Europe in a time when communist where not only pointing nukes at every european, but were also using tons of resources to overthrow societies and goverments, then you will probably not understand how much Ronald Reagan did for peace. But instead of me learning you about history, then I think you should read http://www.reagan.dk/newintro.htm
Last edited by Rolo at Jun 6 2004, 01:18 AM
__________________ "Chaos is the law of nature, order is the dream of man."
~Henry B. Adams (Historian) 1838-1918
Yet, there is very little correlation between budget deficits and interest rates, saving and investment rates, or productivity growth rates.
Quote:
Other economists, who worry about deficits, claim that the correlation between the deficit and other economic variables is so low because the deficit has been defined incorrectly. Two such economists are Robert Eisner (see Federal Debt) of Northwestern University and Stanford's Michael Boskin, chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers under George H. W. Bush. They point out that the government's official debt measures only the government's liabilities. It completely ignores the government's assets. Using the government's debt figures to assess its financial position is, in their view, akin to calling the owner of a $1 million property a debtor because he has a large mortgage on the property. These and other economists also fault the conventional deficit measure for failing to correct for inflation.
Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 6 2004, 04:17 AM Joe Sixpack, since you never had the pleasure of living in Europe in a time when communist where not only pointing nukes at every european, but were also using tons of resources to overthrow societies and goverments, then you will probably not understand how much Ronald Reagan did for peace. But instead of me learning you about history, then I think you should read http://www.reagan.dk/newintro.htm
Rolo,
you think we have a chance to get thru Joe's head???
He is the OLDEST person on this board. I measure his age by the ability of him to LEARN things which are not the part of his pre-concived believes.
I am expecting " " response from him any time now...
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@Jun 6 2004, 04:33 AM My point was that Reagan turned the USA into the world's greatest debtor nation by cutting taxes and increasing government spending
Don't be naive. It already was.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
I dont give free economic lessons to dumb asses, but here's a chart of all of the important numbers regarding the U.S. economy from 1929-2000. I'll give a free hint as well: the green line is the important one.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was, I believe, the most important world event post World War II. I remember sitting in my living room watching, shocked, as the events unfolded on CNN. Now, there is a debate of course as to how much credit Reagan should get. Destroying communism was his lifelong ambition. There were dozens of moves his administration made that were intended to weaken the Soviet Union and by all accounts they did. Reagan was bold - even brazen - in facing the USSR down. This was completely at odds with the approach of all the US presidents after Kennedy. Iranian and North Korean leaders were angry when they made the "Axis of Evil". Can you imagine the anger the leaders of a first rate superpower felt at being labelled an "Evil empire"?
Thre have been Soviets who said Reagan policies were the primary reason for the collapse.
Here is what the Soviet economist Pinsker said "If it had not been for the Reagan defense buildup, if the United States had not demonstrated that it is willing not only to stand up for freedom but to devote considerable sums of money to defending it we probably would not be sitting here today having a free discussion between Russians and Americans."
Probably. Pretty good odds.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 6 2004, 01:44 AM Joe Sixpack, you still do not understand/see HOW the cold war was won?
I know you are referring to outspending the USSR militarily and sending them to the wall financially.
But that was going to happen sooner or later anyway. Russia was never anything more than a second world nation on steroids.
Even if you believe that tactic was necessary, Reagan could have outspent the Russians and jacked up taxes to cover the bill but he didn't. My discussion was about deficit spending.
Last edited by Joe Sixpack at Jun 6 2004, 01:59 AM
Do you mean the trade deficit or the US debt? You showed a graph of the trade balance. The trade balance is the value of exports minus imports. The US sells buys more from it's trading partners than it sells.
I think you are getting confused. Cutting taxes and government spending does not cause trade deficits.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@Jun 6 2004, 04:56 AM But that was going to happen sooner or later anyway. Russia was never anything more than a second world nation on steroids.
And Reagan is the man that made everyone believe that.
"What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth...The Soviet model has surely demonstrated that a command economy is capable of mobilizing resources for rapid growth." - Paul Samuelson, MIT, Nobel laureate in economics, 1985.
"On the economic front, for the first time in its history the Soviet leadership was able to pursue successfully a policy of guns and butter as well as growth ... The Soviet citizen-worker, peasant, and professional - has become accustomed in the Brezhnev period to an uninterrupted upward trend in his well-being" -
John Kenneth Galbraith, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, 1984.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by Colin@Jun 6 2004, 02:08 AM Joe,
Do you mean the trade deficit or the US debt? You showed a graph of the trade balance. The trade balance is the value of exports minus imports. The US sells buys more from it's trading partners than it sells.
I think you are getting confused. Cutting taxes and government spending does not cause trade deficits.
The trade deficit figures were in the table I cut and pasted.
I was referring to the current account deficit figures.
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@Jun 6 2004, 05:40 AM The trade deficit figures were in the table I cut and pasted.
I was referring to the current account deficit figures.
I think you're still confused.
The account balance refers to the net inflow of goods, services, investments, money transfers, etc. The trade balance refers to the net flow of goods and services. That's all.
It sounds like you want to say the US debt
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Soviet Union was widely infecting politics in europen countries, when Reagan began as President. The leftwing in Europe was not only receiving money and education provided by the Soviet Union, they also had a waste intelligence network in european countries reporting back to Moscow. The debate in european countries were more and more in sympathy with the Soviet Union, and I´m sure that if the US had choosen the policy of isolationism, then the world map would be VERY different today. You can still find communist politicians in europe, but they are getting older or are converting to other more moderate socialist views.
Ronald Reagan made the power of balance not only military, but also in politics - in a time when he could just as well have sit on his ass in the whitehouse and build an army in the US, then he choose to confront communist thoughts in europe, which made europeans get their things together - ex. by speeding up the creation of the EU.
Sure Ronald Reagan was not the only force behind the fall of the Soviet Union, but Ronald Reagan made sure that there were a strong/powerful alternativ to communists, and when he left the whitehouse, then the domino events had already been started, which ultimate lead to the fall of the Soviet Union.
In 100 years I´m sure Ronald Reagan will be mention in historybooks - I´m not so sure about Joe Sixpack
Last edited by Rolo at Jun 6 2004, 03:41 AM
__________________ "Chaos is the law of nature, order is the dream of man."
~Henry B. Adams (Historian) 1838-1918
Everybody know who was the President to see it collapse, but how many of you know that it was...
JF Kennedy who put the wheels into the motion and whose idea was to get USSR involved in the arms race?
JFK forsaw well that what USA economy CAN afford, USSR economy can't.
Military budget in USA never exceeded 30%, while in USSR it was whoapping 80%!
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Jun 6 2004, 09:10 AM re Soviet Union collapse and Reagan.
Everybody know who was the President to see it collapse, but how many of you know that it was...
JF Kennedy who put the wheels into the motion and whose idea was to get USSR involved in the arms race?
JFK forsaw well that what USA economy CAN afford, USSR economy can't.
Military budget in USA never exceeded 30%, while in USSR it was whoapping 80%!
I did .. and I learned this from you a while back.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
JFK and Ronald Reagan were 2 smart politicians who had foresight, positive visions and the charisma to get the attention of the world - history will treat them well
__________________ "Chaos is the law of nature, order is the dream of man."
~Henry B. Adams (Historian) 1838-1918
Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 6 2004, 09:19 AM JFK and Ronald Reagan were 2 smart politicians who had foresight, positive visions and the charisma to get the attention of the world - history will treat them well
history?
seems like BOTH enjoy the quite large following while they were ALIVE,
something not too many artists can claim
;-)))
This is what his friends and his "enemies" have said on being told of his passing:
Thatcher -
"a truly great American hero.Ronald Reagan had a higher claim than any other leader to have won the Cold War for liberty and he did it without a shot being fired."
Gennady Gerasimov, top spokesman for the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the 1980s -
"Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal"
Mikhail Gorbachev -
"Reagan was a statesman who, despite all disagreements that existed between our countries at the time, displayed foresight and determination to meet our proposals halfway and change our relations for the better, stop the nuclear race, start scrapping nuclear weapons, and arrange normal relations between our countries,"
Pretty nice tributes.
What will your friends and enemies say about you?
How many will mourn your passing?
And you dare criticise the man.....
fuck you.
Last edited by Nickatilynx at Jun 6 2004, 07:39 AM
when I joined the marine corps in the early 80's the military was in a very bad way, the seventies were a very hard time, just after nam, noone wanted to be in, those in wanted out. money was very low and moral was even lower. BUT those first couple years Pres Reagan instilled pride back, gave us a nice and very needed raise. During those years all of us had a picture of the commander and chief in our rooms, every morning we would salute him..............That's how much respect he had on us grunts.....
RIP and semper fi
__________________
"Never argue with an idiot....he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
As for Ronnie, look buddy, I have not been that hard on him at all you may have noticed.
Yes, he did a lot of good. Not knocking it. He did (IMHO) a lot of bad. And I really haven't pushed that either. Like most folks, he's grey. I don't know of a single conservative nor a single liberal nor a single "middle of the road" pol who was perfect or who was 100% this or that.
I give Reagan his due on the things that he did right. (No pun there on the word Right, btw! hehe)
I agree his lavish spending and arms build up was the right idea at the time and that aggressive policy caused the end of the Cold War. (I also agree it was one of the most frightening times I can remember, when sometimes the rheteroic on all sides was so hot it seemed we might be on the brink of nuclear war.)
I also agree the man had balls and right or wrong he made tough decisions others wouldn't and he kept to his guns. I respect him for that.
I'm not going to say I loved every decision he made. He left us some good things and some bad in his legacy. I'm all for focusing on the good. But I'm not going to be deluded into thinking he was perfect, nor will I ignore the bad.
06-06-2004
" response from him any time now...
Linear Mode
