Fahrenheit 9/11: THE TRAILER

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sava, as Roland and other econ people may tell you here, the 90s had a 'bubble' economy on the internet companies. It was bound to burst. So Defiant is somewhat correct in the facade comment, but not totally.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Sava, as Roland and other econ people may tell you here, the 90s had a 'bubble' economy on the internet companies. It was bound to burst. So Defiant is somewhat correct in the facade comment, but not totally.

Yes, but the "bubble" describes the over-valuing of stocks. That's why it's called a "stock market bubble". Regardless of that, Real GDP growth still stands... and it cannot be denied. But then again, you righties love to deny the facts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, Sava... it's an economic bubble. That impacts the GDP as well. And the bubble did burst in 2001 didn't it? And you do realize that the stocks and GDP have some sort of positive correlation, don't you?

Btw, what was the percentage growth of Real GDP in both administrations? I imagine it'd be much less than the simple numbers.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, Sava... it's an economic bubble. That impacts the GDP as well. And the bubble did burst in 2001 didn't it? And you do realize that the stocks and GDP have some sort of positive correlation, don't you?

Yes, but to say that all the economic growth of the 90's was just a bubble is completely false. That's my point. And the GDP numbers didn't drop when this bubble burst. That's very important to take note of.

Btw, what was the percentage growth of Real GDP in both administrations? I imagine it'd be much less than the simple numbers.

I dunno, they don't have those numbers on the site (I don't think)... and I'm not bothering to do the math.

[Dis]

question: How was it american students did so well back in the 50's with such horrible public school funding?

slightly off topic, but we aren't actually discussing the moview anyways

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Well, the following link disputes that the education was valuable

http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/32excerpts.h18

And other sites (mostly state sites) indicate that funding increased in the 1950s, like http://historytogo.utah.gov/education.html

From the Utah Technical College to the University of Utah Medical School, educational programs that had long struggled for economic survival now soared on an influx of tuition, as well as federal and state dollars newly committed to education.

Though I don't know much about the time period...if you could give a bit of information, it would be appreciated

[bipolarbear]

Ya, I can't wait for this documentary to come out. I hope we cna dethrone Bush.

[Imran Siddiqui]

but to say that all the economic growth of the 90's was just a bubble is completely false. That's my point. And the GDP numbers didn't drop when this bubble burst.

Why don't you ask Roland and other economists whether the 90s being just bubble growth is completely false? I think most people will agree that a good portion of 90s growth was based on the internet bubble. And I think the GDP numbers have slowed down greatly since the bubble burst in 2000.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Speaking of Roland...Gov. Roland of CT is on the cusp of being impeached...Republicans are falling out of governors mansions faster than Democrats can be recalled!

[chequita guevara]

Wow!

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Sava
Defiant... I'm talking about Real GDP figures... not the Dow Jones or Nasdaq.

from Economic History Services: http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/gdp_answer.php

From 1993 to 2000 (the Clinton years) Real GDP grew from $7.532 trillion to $9.817 trillion. A growth of $2.285 trillion... the largest growth in an 8 year period of GDP in the history of mankind. The Reagan years, as you can see, saw about $1.5 trillion in Real GDP growth. Note that after 1981 (and the massive tax cuts) the GDP SHRUNK! Also note that GDP growth slowed after 2000. The first year of the Bush presidency (when the recession started in MARCH of 2001, so Bush didn't "inherit" a recession), saw slow, but not negative growth. So your "burst bubble" theory is more about the stock market. The GDP, not the stock market, is the number to look at when talking about the economy.

I'm available to educate you further if necessary.

You can't used the dollars, you can use adjusted dollars for the time value of money. A better way to look at it is percents, Reagan grew the GDP by 31% and Clinton(based on Reaganomics ) grew it by 33%, big whoop de da. Stock market is a good basis for understanding what is happening in the economy, if the NASDAQ go from 5000 to 2000, somebody is going to lose their jobs and that is what happened. One could argue if there was a planned GDP, some could have said without the privledge of hindsight that the GDP should have been $11,800 trillion(2000), totally bogus but the plan since so many new jobs were being created through .com's until they folded like a deck of cards and reality sets in
and 2000 would be at 9,800. Like I said the expansion was too quick and without merit. Since Bush took office, yes it has been gradual increases but more stable.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
You obviously went to school at a different time. When I was in school in Wisconsin for 5 years, it was disgusting how underfunded we were. You can't tell me that we weren't, because we were. My parents were so sick of it that my mom ran for (and got elected to) the school board simply so that we could find ways first-hand to help the schools including asking the government for more funding.

I am no "gloom and doomer", simply because I've seen first hand what better funding for education actually does

You went here a whole 5 years, I went here 13 years, plus another 5 for college. Again your statement is absolutely false unless you were in the middle of Milwaukee is some horrible neighborhood. I just looked it up and Wisconsin is #10 in the nation on a spending dollar/student, Mass is 5, but no where are we as horrible as you think, not even close.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

But that's not the point I was making: my point was that when education is better funded, you get a better student and thus a better component of society. You said that education will always be there, and you don't need so much taxes going to education. I was simply making the point that it does make a difference.

I went to school in Delavan, in Walworth county.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by MRT144


i see. so not fighting a war results in more dead people and money spent. i would have never thought that! please educate me more in right wing ignorance oh great one.

Well, genius level intelligence,
How many more 3,000 civilians do you want to lose in attacks like the WTC, one enough, how about two, three or four, maybe 5, 6, 7. Do you really think if we don't change the ME we will be safe, you are a fool if you think that, and no argument will convince you until they hit you or someone you love. It is a shame that's what it take to convince you.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Do you think that it will become safer? Last I checked, more Americans were dying post-war in the ME than before the war. Plus, we are no more safe here at home than we were in 2001. I ride on the commuter lines into Boston all the time (the train that rides under the Fleet Center, where the convention is being held.) I have never ever come in contact with any official regarding safety.

We're not going to change the atmosphere of the Middle East. It's just not going to happen: to think that it is is foolishness.