This is different

[MN-Carl]

Owen i removed you from my iggy list

and probally that was the reason .... i think i said don't pm me again .. and you did .. so i probally though it was gonna on forever so i probally ignored you cos of that :confused2

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Owen
I am sorry in advance Peo for anything that I say that you see is wrong, but I have to say this. IF you see fit to ban me, edit this post, or delete it, do so.

In my opinion Giancarlo(and most of the people on this message board), you are a immature, arrogant, childish, blind, brat who has many problems you have to work through. If you act like you do here in the real world, you will get no where. While some politicians do seem condescending and immature(no where near as condescending and immature as you act though), most of them can at least act civil when need to.

You, on the otherhand, say your opinion, flame the people who have a left opinion, say you are right and everyone else is wrong, then you flame people when they call you on your hypocrisy(not justifying the other people who flame however). Yet you are blind and refuse to see anything wrong with you, even when people constantly show you where you are wrong(you constantly contradict yourself).

You constantly act like you are the best person in the world and you should have the world handed to you on a silver platter. Grow up. As smart as you say you are(and you do seem smart at times), you act like my 10 year old cousin when he doesn't get his way.

After you flame, you say you are having a bad day to excuse your behavior. You complain that something went wrong. Boo hoo. Not trying to garner pity, but I have had crap happen to me that is worse than you can imagine, but you don't see me here telling people to "shut up ---- up" or calling people "dumb---." Unlike you Giancarlo, I can seperate the spheres of my life. You on the otherhand have many issues to work through before you could ever get real far. You are very uncharismatic, and how many politicians and people in high places do you see that aren't charismatic? Very few. Since we are playing the "I am great at this" game, I know a thing or two about psychiatry. I honestly suggest you see a therapist or psychiatrist.

Then again, your whole attitude on here could be just your act tough routine, since it is online, but you are a wimp in person. I don't know, but either way, you got problems, buddy.

To continue playing the I am great game, all my knowledge of economics is self-taught (imagine if I actually took some classes in economics), and I know more than I show here, because you are the only person to talk to on this message board to talk about it, but debating with you is like talking to a brick wall, except for the fact you tend to cuss people out who "diss" your idol or disagree with you. I also know a thing about politics too. However, I am sure there are many people here that know more about economics and politics than me, you not included. You never back up any of your claims except stating your opinion.

I am sure you will flame me now, call me a know it all(despite the fact you constantly act like you know everything), or say something else about me. You may try to say I am hypocritical saying I act arrogant at times, and I will admit I do at times, but I do try to hold it back. Take this suggestion. Save your time. I could care less what you think cause I know your thinking is way off.

You are now going on my ignore list, because IMO, you ruin this forum with your venom. And unlike you, I will back up what I say, because you will never see me reply to another message you make. Have fun and grow up.

I will not respond to any of this ----ing bullshit. You have crossed the line Owen.

 

[MN-Carl]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


I will not respond to any of this ----ing bullshit. You have crossed the line Owen.

what line :confused2

 

[Giancarlo]

On second thought I will.

Originally posted by Owen
In my opinion Giancarlo(and most of the people on this message board), you are a immature, arrogant, childish, blind, brat who has many problems you have to work through.

You also have problems that need some sorting out, if I were you I would keep your mouth shut.

If you act like you do here in the real world, you will get no where. While some politicians do seem condescending and immature(no where near as condescending and immature as you act though), most of them can at least act civil when need to.

And when was I acting uncivil? I wanted this thread to be left, and it was until somebody responded to it. It is you who is being uncivil. Goodness, do not use big words you don't understand Owen. That is unacceptable.

You, on the otherhand, say your opinion, flame the people who have a left opinion,

I do not.

say you are right and everyone else is wrong, then you flame people when they call you on your hypocrisy(not justifying the other people who flame however).

I do not.

Yet you are blind and refuse to see anything wrong with you, even when people constantly show you where you are wrong(you constantly contradict yourself).

I do not ----ing contradict myself now or ever. You are trying to ruin my name, which is unacceptable.

You constantly act like you are the best person in the world and you should have the world handed to you on a silver platter. Grow up. As smart as you say you are(and you do seem smart at times), you act like my 10 year old cousin when he doesn't get his way.

And you are the same.

After you flame, you say you are having a bad day to excuse your behavior.

Once maybe twice. But I was incited again, and again by the same people here. Well I will say this: You do not know who you are dealing with. It was you who turned this little problem into a powderkeg, and it is you who are to blame. You are the most wretched impudent snobs I know, and I am certainly glad to realize I know nobody like you.

You complain that something went wrong.

And I have all right to.

Not trying to garner pity, but I have had crap happen to me that is worse than you can imagine, but you don't see me here telling people to "shut up ---- up" or calling people "dumb---."

I deny that, except on the fact that I was incited by the same people here.

Unlike you Giancarlo, I can seperate the spheres of my life.

I respectively say you cannot.

You on the otherhand have many issues to work through before you could ever get real far.

And so do you.

You are very uncharismatic

You don't know me, you are just a wretched snob.

, and how many politicians and people in high places do you see that aren't charismatic? Very few. Since we are playing the "I am great at this" game, I know a thing or two about psychiatry. I honestly suggest you see a therapist or psychiatrist.

I am charismatic. And you don't know the damn meaning of the word. So quite using big words you don't know the meaning of! It just makes you look stupid.

Then again, your whole attitude on here could be just your act tough routine, since it is online, but you are a wimp in person. I don't know, but either way, you got problems, buddy.

And you are a fool.

To continue playing the I am great game, all my knowledge of economics is self-taught (imagine if I actually took some classes in economics), and I know more than I show here, because you are the only person to talk to on this message board to talk about it, but debating with you is like talking to a brick wall, except for the fact you tend to cuss people out who "diss" your idol or disagree with you.

I will not respond to these repetitions of the falsehoods that have been stated here. I will not continue with this utter nonsense in allowing me to be defeated by one who cannot even imagine what this world is like.

I also know a thing about politics too. However, I am sure there are many people here that know more about economics and politics than me, you not included. You never back up any of your claims except stating your opinion.

I do back up my claims, and you never do. Neither does anybody here. I have stated evidence from the CATO insititute, you can find the link on my website. You on the other have shown nothing to back up any claims. And the same with everybody else here.

I am sure you will flame me now, call me a know it all(despite the fact you constantly act like you know everything), or say something else about me. You may try to say I am hypocritical saying I act arrogant at times, and I will admit I do at times, but I do try to hold it back. Take this suggestion. Save your time. I could care less what you think cause I know your thinking is way off.

I will not respond to this nonsense, absurd, and idiotical claims. I will abstain from saying anything beyond this post.

You are now going on my ignore list, because IMO, you ruin this forum with your venom. And unlike you, I will back up what I say, because you will never see me reply to another message you make. Have fun and grow up.

You back up nothing! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! You are nothing more than an impudent snob... you are just horrible. You claim that you can back up your stupid little assumptions? I stated the CATO insititute website, and you have stated NOTHING!

You are now on my ignore list, because of your stupidty, ignorance and downright idiocy.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by cdudeuk18


what line :confused2

Stupidity shows itself again.

 

[MN-Carl]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Stupidity shows itself again.

If you think i am stupid ... then you are the stupid person

I was watching you type that post above .. it took you 10 mins ..

Iyou crossed the line which you think owen has crossed months ago ...

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by cdudeuk18


If you think i am stupid ... then you are the stupid person

You are the stupid person. I am not.

I was watching you type that post above .. it took you 10 mins ..

So?

Iyou crossed the line which you think owen has crossed months ago ...

What? I only speak english, not gibberish.

 

[Giancarlo]

I have here evidence proving that a free market system styled on that of Ronald Reagan's ideals is the only system that works. As all you were asking for.

Link:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

In 1981 Ronald Reagan entered the White House and immediately implemented a dramatic new economic policy agenda for the country that was dubbed "Reaganomics." [5] Reaganomics consisted of four key elements to reverse the high-inflation, slow-growth economic record of the 1970s: (1) a restrictive monetary policy designed to stabilize the value of the dollar and end runaway inflation; (2) a 25 percent across-the-board tax cut enacted (The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) designed to spur savings, investment, work, and economic efficiency; (3) a promise to balance the budget through domestic spending restraint; and (4) an agenda to roll back government regulation.

Clearly, some of those goals were accomplished; others were not. The most objective way to assess whether the policies were a success is to examine the economic evidence for the Reagan years once the policies were implemented.

There is some disagreement about what date should be used to measure the economic starting point of the Reagan era. A common ploy of Reagan's critics is to measure the economy's performance from 1979 to 1989 and falsely describe the record over this period as "the Reagan years." For example, in 1991 the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee of Congress released a report entitled "Falling Behind: The Growing Income Gap in America," which purportedly proves that the victims of Reaganomics were the least affluent Americans. The report concluded that "families in the lowest forty percent of the income distribution actually had lower real incomes on average in 1989 than they did in 1979." Upon closer inspection, however, what the income data really show is that when Jimmy Carter's economic policies were in effect, family incomes plummeted by 9 percent, but that after Reagan's economic policies took effect (1982-89), family incomes rose by 11 percent. In the Joint Economic Committee report, Reaganomics is blamed for the poor performance of the economy under Carter. Ronald Reagan had many seemingly magical qualities, but his policies were never able to influence the economic direction of the nation at least two years before they took effect. Some of Reagan's supporters, on the other hand, define the Reagan years as only the seven years of economic expansion, 1983-89, while conveniently omitting the recession years of 1981 and 1982. [6]

There are two defensible methods of measuring the performance of the economy on Reagan's watch. One method is to examine the economic record from the month Reagan formally took office, January 1981, through the month he left the White House, January 1989.

An alternative approach is to allow a one-year lag for the policy changes to be enacted and take effect on the economy. Reagan's tax cuts were not even passed by Congress until midsummer of 1981 and did not begin to take effect until October 1, 1981. His first budget proposal was for fiscal year 1982. Hence, if we define the beginning of the Reagan years as the first full year when the policies were in effect, the eight years in which Reagan's policies were in effect were 1982-89. This latter approach seems to provide a more accurate gauge of the economy's reaction to the change in policies Reagan enacted in 1981, and for this reason we adopt this as the standard for analysis in this study--that is, we measure the economic effects of Reagan policies beginning with January 1982 and using 1981 as the base year of comparison. (This still picks up the deep recession of the early 1980s.) For those who are unsatisfied with this method of measuring the Reagan record, in Table 1 we present the data both ways: first, from the month Reagan entered office through the month he left office, and second, with a one-year lag to adjust for the timing of the policy changes. The results do not differ substantially regardless of which dates are used.

Just as controversial is the issue of when the Reagan era ended. Again, Reagan's political foes often describe the entire 12 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations as the "Reagan years." [7] At first blush this seems logical: two Republican administrations in succession would normally suggest a continuation of policy from one to the other. Yet the real and dramatic shift in economic policy in Washington occurred not in 1993, with the start of the Clinton administration, but rather in 1990, with George Bush's repudiation of his "no new taxes" pledge that led to both the enactment of a large anti-supply-side tax increase and a flurry of legislation--from the Clean Air Act amendments, to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to the Americans with Disabilities Act--that began the reregulation of America in the 1990s. [8] Indeed, the Clinton economic program in most respects has been closest to that of George Bush, particularly with respect to the direction of fiscal policy.

In sum, we delineate two years as marking turning points in economic policy in the United States: 1981 and 1990. Because these two years represent dramatic policy shifts, they provide a convenient and unique laboratory-like testing ground for assessing the success or failure of Reaganomics. In this study we compare the economic performance in the pre-Reagan years (1974-81), the Reagan years (1981-89), and the post-Reagan years (1989-95). [9]

For fiscal variables examined at the end of this report, there is much less controversy over the start and the end of the Reagan presidency. Reagan's first budget was for fiscal 1982 (not 1981), and his last budget was for fiscal 1989. [10]

Table 1 contrasts side by side the economy's performance for the three periods of analysis--1974-81, 1981-89, and 1989-95--for 10 key variables. We measure the change in each economic variable from the start of the period through the end and present the annualized change. [11] On 8 of the 10 key variables, the Reagan record unambiguously outperformed the records of the pre- and post-Reagan years. The two exceptions were the savings rate, which declined in the Reagan years at a faster rate than in the pre- and post-Reagan years, and productivity, which grew faster in the pre-Reagan years but slower in the post-Reagan years. [12] The following is a summary for each of the 10 variables:

Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began. [13] Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and 1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent annual real growth.

Economic Growth per Working-Age Adult. When we adjust the economic growth rates to take account of demographic changes, we find that the expansion in the Reagan years looks even better and that the 1970s' performance looks worse. GDP growth per adult aged 20-64 in the Reagan years grew twice as rapidly, on average, as it did in the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Median Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989, as shown in Figure 2. This improvement was a stark reversal of the income trends in the late 1970s and the 1990s: median family income was unchanged in the eight pre-Reagan years, and incomes have fallen by $1,438 in the anti-supply-side 1990s, following the 1990 and 1993 tax hikes. [14] Most of the declines in take-home pay occurred on George Bush's watch. Under Bill Clinton's tenure, there has been zero income growth in median household income.

Employment. From 1981 through 1989 the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year. Contrary to the Clinton administration's claims of vast job gains in the 1990s, the United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs per year in the post-Reagan years. The labor force United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs expanded by 1.7 percent per year between 1981 and 1989, but by just 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 1995. [15]

 

[Giancarlo]

Unemployment Rate. When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. This reduction in joblessness was a clear triumph of the Reagan program. Figure 3 shows that in the pre-Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended upward; in the Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended downward; and in the post-Reagan years, the unemployment rate has fluctuated up and down but today remains virtually unchanged from the 1989 rate.

Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S. productivity growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate, as shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton, productivity has increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year--the worst presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.

Inflation. The central economic evil that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981 from Jimmy Carter was three years of double-digit inflation. In 1980 the consumer price index (CPI) rose to 13.5 percent. By Reagan's second year in office, the inflation rate fell by more than half to 6.2 percent. In 1988, Reagan's last year in office, the CPI had fallen to 4.1 percent. Figure 5 shows the inflation and interest rate trend.

Interest Rates. In 1980 the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage was 15 percent; this rate rose to its all-time peak of 18.9 percent in 1981. The prime rate steadily fell over the subsequent six years to a low of 8.2 percent in 1987 as the inflationary expectation component of interest rates fell sharply. The prime rate hit its 20-year low in 1993 at 6.0 percent. The Treasury Bill rate also fell dramatically in the 1980s--from 14 percent in 1981 to 7 percent in 1988. In the 1990s, interest rates have continued to migrate gradually downward, as shown in Figure 5.

Savings. The savings rate did not rise in the 1980s, as supply-side advocates had predicted. In fact, in the 1980s the personal savings rate fell from 8 percent to 6.5 percent. [16] In the 1990s the average savings rate has fallen even further to an average of 4.9 percent [17]--although the rate of decline has slowed.
The decline in the personal savings rate in the 1980s was disappointing, but two factors mitigate the implications of these statistics. First, the drop in the savings rate was partly a natural response to demographic changes in America--namely, the baby boomers entering their peak spending years. Second, the savings rate data fail to account for real gains in wealth, which clearly are an important form of savings. The real value of capital assets and property doubled from 1980 to 1990. The Dow Jones Industrial Average nearly tripled from a low of 884 in 1982 to 2,509 in 1989. These increases in the value of stocks, bonds, homes, businesses, and so forth added to Americans' balance sheets hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth that are not accounted for in the savings rate statistics. [18]

CATO is obviously right here.

Now try to argue with the undisputable evidence I have provided, showing that less restrictions are better for the economy, country, and people on a whole.

 

[syd]

Oh goody... another Regean article How many more of these are you going to keep posting here until you realize that

NOBODY CARES. NOBODY GIVES A DAMN. IT'S USELESS. POINTLESS. SCREW OFF!

Post something that people would care about; Like thong photos of Shakira. Now that would get the fuel going!

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by syd
Oh goody... another Regean article How many more of these are you going to keep posting here until you realize that

NOBODY CARES. NOBODY GIVES A DAMN. IT'S USELESS. POINTLESS. SCREW OFF!

If it is useless than why does it say the undeniable facts to the matter? No You screw off. Better ---- off.

And why not post something at least half smart instead of arbitrary statements?

 

[syd]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


If it is useless than why does it say the undeniable facts to the matter? You screw off.

No, you screw off!

SCREEEEEEEEEW off

That article was fabricated by an evil capitalist movement to overthrow my Bolshevik revolution (May 17th on younge street YO!)! I demand real facts!

Giancarlo says: George W Bush created a tax break for the poor and prevented terrorism

FACT: George W Bush looks like a monkey and nearly lost his life to a pretzel. His children are drunks and his niece is a Tommy Hillfiger model with bushy eyebrows. And I heard he wears panties.

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by syd

That article was fabricated by an evil capitalist movement to overthrow my Bolshevik revolution (May 17th on younge street YO!)! I demand real facts!

Giancarlo says: George W Bush created a tax break for the poor and prevented terrorism

FALSE STATEMENT: George W Bush looks like a monkey and nearly lost his life to a pretzel. His children are drunks and his niece is a Tommy Hillfiger model with bushy eyebrows. And I heard he wears panties.

Oh another thing I am an idiot

When you want to say something intelligent not stupid then be my guest. I will wait... I will certainly wait... there is no question about it, you don't know what you are talking about. And you know what? I got better things to do than the listen to ignorant snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals. I do not have any sympathy for any of the fools in this world. The same world where communism has been dead for over a decade. Even the PRC has folded to the capitalist system.

There is not a doubt my mind that there is another system... there is no other system. Communism imprisions its people, and it died for that.

And the Bush tax break helped the entire country as a whole. The majority benefited from it.

Oh I didn't know you admitted you were an idiot?

 

[syd]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


When you want to say something intelligent not stupid then be my guest.

When you want to stop being a jerk to everyone on this board, be my guest! And I too, will wait... and wait... and wait... I better get some nutrigrain bars into me as well cause I figure I need to make it to 117 years old now! Damn, that's a lot of waiting!

 

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by syd


When you want to stop being a jerk to everyone on this board, be my guest! And I too, will wait... and wait... and wait... I better get some nutrigrain bars into me as well cause I figure I need to make it to 117 years old now! Damn, that's a lot of waiting!

You need help. I am not going to respond to illogical people.

I am taking a break from here for the next two days... because I am going on a driving trip.

 

[syd]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Oh I didn't know you admitted you were an idiot?

My goodness, you've figured out how to edit a quote. Do you want an arrowroot or fortune cookie? Fortune? Sure. Let's open it up:

"Baby seals eat pizza because the Orca stone his ham!"

And now, my life has changed!

 

[syd]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


GC takes it up the ASSUMPTION

 

[Giancarlo]

You have problems. I suggest you go to a doctor immediately.

 

[Blank Verse]

I wouldn't be surprised if Syd actually got a fortune cookie that said that.

 

[syd]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
You have problems. I suggest you go to a doctor immediately.

Will you drive me there? My car is kinda crappy and will probably break down. Use your purple power and fly from Argentina to Vancouver!

WHEEEE!