How Poor are the Poor?

[thegreekdog]

Just out of curiousity, and maybe I already know the answer to this, but what industry was growing substantially when President Clinton was in office?

[PLAYER57832]

Just out of curiousity, and maybe I already know the answer to this, but what industry was growing substantially when President Clinton was in office?

I already stated... the high tech/computer industries. There was a minor surge in environmental products, but that got little real support from the government in the US, so most of those advances happened elsewhere.

[PLAYER57832]

One problem with your theory is that the old communist nations were initially too poor to really provide much of an expanded market. China, during this time, was the growing market and even now, has not fully shrugged off the mantel of communism. Ironically, they did have a more truly communistic economy at one point (still not fully communistic, but closer than the Soviet, etc... Cuba might be closer yet, I don' t know as much about their economics and politics).

Transitioning economies in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, and East Asia varied in terms of potential real growth which is partly dependent on the duration of time as their markets expanded more towards international trade. You've stated that those markets were all to poor to really provide much of an expanded market.

No, you referred to the end of the cold war as the pivotal point, primary driver in the economy. The cold war and its collapse refer to the Soviet and eastern block nations. China is not part of that system, even though it was communist. (debateabley still is.. though not necessarily economically). Many of those other nations were not even communist. The rise of Asia, then disputes your claim. And,no, I did not say China and Asia were too poor, I said the Eastern bloc and the Soviet were largely too poor. There were minor exceptions, but not enough to justify your statement.

I say, that really depends, but overall, these markets contributed significantly towards global economic growth. I'm talking about the long-term, you're focusing on a much smaller time-scale. Those economies have plenty of potential, and "poor" is a relative term. Madagascar and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are poor compared to Poland after 1991. And being poor doesn't matter as much as the openness of a market and that country's stability (as well as many other factors). If you disagree, then state why instead of going off on a tangent about something unrelated or remotely related.

Tangent? lol

Again, your thesis, which both J and I found interesting enough to debate and consider, though not entirely agree, was that the end of the cold war was the pivotal point (to paraphrase.. not saying you used those exact words ). J said "but during Clinton...", to counter that thesis. I added the high tech bit and then you came in with "but one president..." and then this bit about expanding markets from the end of the cold war. The above was a dispute of that last. Because those markets had not yet, under Clinton, grown enough to offer a real significant market for the US.

Again, you start with an interesting thesis, but instead of debating it, offering further evidence to support your claims you go off on a "anything to defeat my opponent"... no matter how much twisting and back-tracking you require to do that. It would be nice if you actually debated the points you assert. Not saying we would agree, but it would be interesting. This is just tiring..and pretty lame, at that.

[thegreekdog]

Just out of curiousity, and maybe I already know the answer to this, but what industry was growing substantially when President Clinton was in office?

I already stated... the high tech/computer industries. There was a minor surge in environmental products, but that got little real support from the government in the US, so most of those advances happened elsewhere.

Right. Also - big housing increase under Clinton (started under Bush I though).

I can only credit President Clinton tangentially (and Congress less tangentially) with balancing the budget.

[PLAYER57832]

Just out of curiousity, and maybe I already know the answer to this, but what industry was growing substantially when President Clinton was in office?

I already stated... the high tech/computer industries. There was a minor surge in environmental products, but that got little real support from the government in the US, so most of those advances happened elsewhere.

Right. Also - big housing increase under Clinton (started under Bush I though).

This is interesting, and one I had not really thought about. Some of that had to do with the last baby-boomers graduating college and entering middle age, but the deregulation of the banking industry ALSO had a lot to do with it, and began to set the stage for the bust we just experienced.

I can only credit President Clinton tangentially (and Congress less tangentially) with balancing the budget.

Not sure either gets truly high marks for that. If anything, it was really more of a "pretend" balancing that set the stage, again for heavy shortfalls later. That is, they 'balanced" it by ignoring many things that should have gotten money .. everything from not repairing roads to not setting aside money for SS, to not keeping up with increased educational demands of the country.

[BigBallinStalin]

One problem with your theory is that the old communist nations were initially too poor to really provide much of an expanded market. China, during this time, was the growing market and even now, has not fully shrugged off the mantel of communism. Ironically, they did have a more truly communistic economy at one point (still not fully communistic, but closer than the Soviet, etc... Cuba might be closer yet, I don' t know as much about their economics and politics).

Transitioning economies in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, and East Asia varied in terms of potential real growth which is partly dependent on the duration of time as their markets expanded more towards international trade. You've stated that those markets were all to poor to really provide much of an expanded market.

No, you referred to the end of the cold war as the pivotal point, primary driver in the economy. The cold war and its collapse refer to the Soviet and eastern block nations. China is not part of that system, even though it was communist. (debateabley still is.. though not necessarily economically). Many of those other nations were not even communist. The rise of Asia, then disputes your claim. And,no, I did not say China and Asia were too poor, I said the Eastern bloc and the Soviet were largely too poor. There were minor exceptions, but not enough to justify your statement.

I say, that really depends, but overall, these markets contributed significantly towards global economic growth. I'm talking about the long-term, you're focusing on a much smaller time-scale. Those economies have plenty of potential, and "poor" is a relative term. Madagascar and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are poor compared to Poland after 1991. And being poor doesn't matter as much as the openness of a market and that country's stability (as well as many other factors). If you disagree, then state why instead of going off on a tangent about something unrelated or remotely related.

Tangent? lol

Again, your thesis, which both J and I found interesting enough to debate and consider, though not entirely agree, was that the end of the cold war was the pivotal point (to paraphrase.. not saying you used those exact words ). J said "but during Clinton...", to counter that thesis. I added the high tech bit and then you came in with "but one president..." and then this bit about expanding markets from the end of the cold war. The above was a dispute of that last. Because those markets had not yet, under Clinton, grown enough to offer a real significant market for the US.

Again, you start with an interesting thesis, but instead of debating it, offering further evidence to support your claims you go off on a "anything to defeat my opponent"... no matter how much twisting and back-tracking you require to do that. It would be nice if you actually debated the points you assert. Not saying we would agree, but it would be interesting. This is just tiring..and pretty lame, at that.

[/quote]

Learn2read

"Regardless of the president, the opening of new markets and the dramatic increase in international trade will be a primary factor in real global growth."

"a" doesn't equal "the."

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#p3200636

You see what that says? It says the "opening of new markets" and the "dramatic increase in international trade." That's two things, so China can be included in there.

It is amazing how I can make such a general yet true statement, and how you will attack it, modify it, then rearrange the argument to suit your needs. Hah, for a great example of what I'm supposedly doing, just read your own comments.

(inb4 butthurt reply)

[Baron Von PWN]

One problem with your theory is that the old communist nations were initially too poor to really provide much of an expanded market. China, during this time, was the growing market and even now, has not fully shrugged off the mantel of communism. Ironically, they did have a more truly communistic economy at one point (still not fully communistic, but closer than the Soviet, etc... Cuba might be closer yet, I don' t know as much about their economics and politics).

Transitioning economies in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, and East Asia varied in terms of potential real growth which is partly dependent on the duration of time as their markets expanded more towards international trade. You've stated that those markets were all to poor to really provide much of an expanded market.

No, you referred to the end of the cold war as the pivotal point, primary driver in the economy. The cold war and its collapse refer to the Soviet and eastern block nations. China is not part of that system, even though it was communist. (debateabley still is.. though not necessarily economically). Many of those other nations were not even communist. The rise of Asia, then disputes your claim. And,no, I did not say China and Asia were too poor, I said the Eastern bloc and the Soviet were largely too poor. There were minor exceptions, but not enough to justify your statement.

.

Many of the asian markets were influenced by communist economic policies(at one point India was seen as a leaning communist) and as a result they were to varying degrees closed to capitalist markets, effectively removing their workers from the global capitalist market. China actualy began capitalist market reforms back in the mid-80s and were criticised for doing so. However the continueing pressure of the cold war discouraged trade with China and indeed the rest of asia. The end of the cold war removed many of the factors which dissuaded trade in the region.

The wealth of the newly open economies isint the point here, in fact their poverty supports my claim. \that they were poor meant they were willing to work for less, this influx of cheap labour drove down the formerly insulated wages of the west.

[PLAYER57832]

Many of the asian markets were influenced by communist economic policies(at one point India was seen as a leaning communist) and as a result they were to varying degrees closed to capitalist markets, effectively removing their workers from the global capitalist market. China actualy began capitalist market reforms back in the mid-80s and were criticised for doing so. However the continueing pressure of the cold war discouraged trade with China and indeed the rest of asia. The end of the cold war removed many of the factors which dissuaded trade in the region.

We were absolutely in China in the 80's! It was already then beginning to mimic what some called the "Japan model".. and the "Asian Tiger" (the entire region) was already becoming visible.

The wealth of the newly open economies isint the point here, in fact their poverty supports my claim. \that they were poor meant they were willing to work for less, this influx of cheap labour drove down the formerly insulated wages of the west.

This is true, but again, that was more in China and India, not Eastern Europe and the old Soviet. In part, the Asian countries got a quicker rebound because they had less outdated infrastructure to contend with, but there were other reasons, too complicated to worry about in this thread (and its all highly debated anyway).

[PLAYER57832]

To get back to the OP, I think poverty has 2 components. One is are you able to have your physcial needs met and the other is are you able to have your "emotional needs" met "not talking the "touchy feely 70's psych stuff, I mean something closer to either "happiness" or "contentment".

Anyway, they key word is "need". The truth is people can endure a LOT of pure physical hardship if they have people who care about them, can have a bit of entertainment and so forth. The saying that laughter cures all is not entirely incorrct. That is why people in some areas will forgo food to buy a TV or radio. The benefit they get from the bit of entertainment for a whole group is more than they can get from a bit of food.

What really screws that up in the US is medical care. When you know one single illness can take 40 years of savings AND your house, too boot... it rather takes away from people's incentive to save. Worse, when you know that the ticket to getting care is to be really poor... it truly makes it hard for parents particularly to justify going to work. I myself am close to that situation. Note, we pay our bills, and because my kids have disabilities (thankfully slight, but real), we would have to make 250K to lose Medicaid. If not for the disabilities, the only option would be S-Chip, a program targeted for heavy cutbacks.

[Juan_Bottom]

Besides, what does Clinton really have to do with the average real growth of the US economy? How much can he be responsible for? It's a glaring questing which you've conveniently ignored.

god
Fucking
DAMNITT
BECAUSE I'M NOT CREDITING CLINTON FOR DOING THAT. Clinton (the man), has really nothing to do with my point.
I AM MERELY TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY GREW FOR A LONG TIME AFTER THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED - THUS PROVING YOU WRONG. I USED THE CLINTON YEARS AS THE EXAMPLE BECAUSE IT WAS A HUGE BLOCK GROWTH/TIME. ALSO, every time I said "Clinton" I also said "his administration" so very very very very very clearly I was not talking about the former president alone.
I just don't understand why Player is always able to follow these conversations and you're not. Unless you're trolling.

I can only credit President Clinton tangentially (and Congress less tangentially) with balancing the budget.

IMHO he gets a lot of credit there. He also redistributed a lot of wealth through taxes.

[thegreekdog]

IMHO he gets a lot of credit there. He also redistributed a lot of wealth through taxes.

He did.

[Baron Von PWN]

Many of the asian markets were influenced by communist economic policies(at one point India was seen as a leaning communist) and as a result they were to varying degrees closed to capitalist markets, effectively removing their workers from the global capitalist market. China actualy began capitalist market reforms back in the mid-80s and were criticised for doing so. However the continueing pressure of the cold war discouraged trade with China and indeed the rest of asia. The end of the cold war removed many of the factors which dissuaded trade in the region.

We were absolutely in China in the 80's! It was already then beginning to mimic what some called the "Japan model".. and the "Asian Tiger" (the entire region) was already becoming visible.

The wealth of the newly open economies isint the point here, in fact their poverty supports my claim. \that they were poor meant they were willing to work for less, this influx of cheap labour drove down the formerly insulated wages of the west.

This is true, but again, that was more in China and India, not Eastern Europe and the old Soviet. In part, the Asian countries got a quicker rebound because they had less outdated infrastructure to contend with, but there were other reasons, too complicated to worry about in this thread (and its all highly debated anyway).

Those markets were oppened because of the collapse of the soviet system. By the 80's communisms economic failures were becoming apparent. Those early steps you mention were hesitant, they became much more confident after the Soviet empire crumbled.

[PLAYER57832]

[
Those markets were oppened because of the collapse of the soviet system. By the 80's communisms economic failures were becoming apparent. Those early steps you mention were hesitant, they became much more confident after the Soviet empire crumbled.

China and the Soviet/eastern bloc, though both communist were never really partners, did not operate in the same way, nor did they even much respect each other (China, at least had not real respect for the Soviet). Thinking them as a unit is a western mistake.

Most of Asia was not communist at all. They looked to Japan as their model and it was Japan's success they wanted. It was the changes in those Asian markets that influenced China, not the fall of the soviet.

And, it began before the 80's. Sure, things began to really take off in the early to mid-80's, and very, very quickly though the outward evidence did not necessarily become apparent to many in the US until later.

[Baron Von PWN]

[
Those markets were oppened because of the collapse of the soviet system. By the 80's communisms economic failures were becoming apparent. Those early steps you mention were hesitant, they became much more confident after the Soviet empire crumbled.

1.China and the Soviet/eastern bloc, though both communist were never really partners, did not operate in the same way, nor did they even much respect each other (China, at least had not real respect for the Soviet). Thinking them as a unit is a western mistake.

2.Most of Asia was not communist at all. They looked to Japan as their model and it was Japan's success they wanted. 3.It was the changes in those Asian markets that influenced China, not the fall of the soviet.

And, it began before the 80's. Sure, things began to really take off in the early to mid-80's, and very, very quickly though the outward evidence did not necessarily become apparent to many in the US until later.

1. Correct, they even had border skirmishes and at times were closer to nuclear war than US and Soviets.
2. Correct, but then I never said they were, only that the pressures of the cold war kept them at least partially closed (the so called middle way, and the origin of the term 3rd world btw). They may very well have looked to Japan, but which model was Japan following? the western capitalist model. So they look to the western model in Japan see it is successful and commit to it.... unlocking their labor forces. The important thing was the winning of the cold war, not specifically the collapse of the Soviet Union.
3. maybe, this is a throughly debatable point. I will point out despite the animosity between communist countries, their mere existence lent credibility to each others command economies . It used to be a common truism that command economies were a perfectly reasonable way to manage your economy and merely one of several economic options available to nations. Such a claim no longer sounds nearly as credible. That was because of the existence of powerful communist states like the Soviet Union. Their demise throughly discredited command economics and state involvement in the economy in general . The result more open markets and labour markets.

[Pirlo]

How Poor are the Poor?

gimme drink - to help me think

[PLAYER57832]

2. Correct, but then I never said they were, only that the pressures of the cold war kept them at least partially closed (the so called middle way, and the origin of the term 3rd world btw). They may very well have looked to Japan, but which model was Japan following? the western capitalist model. So they look to the western model in Japan see it is successful and commit to it.... unlocking their labor forces. The important thing was the winning of the cold war, not specifically the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I think there are arguments for what each of us is saying. Probably each had something to do with it.

The main point I want to make though is that I don't believe China ever really saw things as the west did, as you paint them here. That is, they did not look to Russia versus the US. They always see, always saw themselves as being superior, just "hit with hard times' (sort of).
Even "following" Japan would not be something terribly palatable to them, though they are realists.

Also, I think it is a real mistake to think that we have truly "won" this battle. China is opening up some markets, very carefully, but also has bought a huge percentage of our debt, etc. I think you were the one that said that China looks into the longterm future. They are not afraid to wait. They have been sometimes slow to learn from outsiders, but now that is changing. However, I believe they see it as more "acquiring individual skills".. not a real change in philosophy or paradigm.

3. maybe, this is a throughly debatable point. I will point out despite the animosity between communist countries, their mere existence lent credibility to each others command economies . It used to be a common truism that command economies were a perfectly reasonable way to manage your economy and merely one of several economic options available to nations. Such a claim no longer sounds nearly as credible. That was because of the existence of powerful communist states like the Soviet Union. Their demise throughly discredited command economics and state involvement in the economy in general . The result more open markets and labour markets.

I am not sure that old perception was ever truth. In fact, the only true command economy was Nazis Germany. (that I know of, anyway) The rest of us are all mixtures. This is an important point that puts me at odds with some of the more extreme posters. Sure, capitalism is a basis for our economy. However, it took some government controls to ensure well, that the businesses did not either "eat themselves out of house and home" or "shit in their own pens". Whether you are talking Pacific timber, mining operations or any other enterprise, even "integrity" (lack of fraud, etc.), it took commanding from above to dictate. It took government rules, forced by mass public demands (or, in the case of "integrity" the businesses themselves) to ensure that people could get the kinds of pay they need, did not have to work in truly dangerous situations (at least without knowing it in advance.. deep mining is dangerous no matter how you go about it), and begin to cut pollution.

Probably the most important, even though hated by the right, is the landuse dictates brought on by establishing public forests, game lands, ranges, etc. I actually think we need a few more such dictates. A lot of rules/zonings set up around flood areas and such are based on old ideas now long disproven. For example, no one today talks of "taming" a river. They don't becuase we know that the floods themselves are actually critical to the survival of the river, the ocean and even the areas involved (though not the houses and businesses built inappropriately).

The idea that the market can decide works for specific kinds of products and services that don't really "matter", in a public sense. That is, who really cares (other than stockholders, factory workers, etc.) if kids are wearing Nike or no-name tennis shoes? Who cares if they are wearing tennis or moccasins made by hand? To the extent anyone outside the direct industry does care, it is only for a few years.

However, all of us are impacted by decisions made to build levis in the 1950's. All of us are impacted when housing developments were allowed to spring up in prime farm land, also protected by levis, within the California Delta. At some point, individual people wanting profit cannot be allowed to override the overall public good. The only question is where those liines should be drawn.

Mostly, I am for "hands off" (truly, despite what Phattscotty, etc may try to claim) unless there is abundant and firm evidence that limits are needed. Natural resource regulation, and thus land use are such.

[Baron Von PWN]

3. maybe, this is a throughly debatable point. I will point out despite the animosity between communist countries, their mere existence lent credibility to each others command economies . It used to be a common truism that command economies were a perfectly reasonable way to manage your economy and merely one of several economic options available to nations. Such a claim no longer sounds nearly as credible. That was because of the existence of powerful communist states like the Soviet Union. Their demise throughly discredited command economics and state involvement in the economy in general . The result more open markets and labour markets.

I am not sure that old perception was ever truth. In fact, the only true command economy was Nazis Germany. (that I know of, anyway) The rest of us are all mixtures. This is an important point that puts me at odds with some of the more extreme posters. Sure, capitalism is a basis for our economy. However, it took some government controls to ensure well, that the businesses did not either "eat themselves out of house and home" or "shit in their own pens". Whether you are talking Pacific timber, mining operations or any other enterprise, even "integrity" (lack of fraud, etc.), it took commanding from above to dictate. It took government rules, forced by mass public demands (or, in the case of "integrity" the businesses themselves) to ensure that people could get the kinds of pay they need, did not have to work in truly dangerous situations (at least without knowing it in advance.. deep mining is dangerous no matter how you go about it), and begin to cut pollution.

Probably the most important, even though hated by the right, is the landuse dictates brought on by establishing public forests, game lands, ranges, etc. I actually think we need a few more such dictates. A lot of rules/zonings set up around flood areas and such are based on old ideas now long disproven. For example, no one today talks of "taming" a river. They don't becuase we know that the floods themselves are actually critical to the survival of the river, the ocean and even the areas involved (though not the houses and businesses built inappropriately).

The idea that the market can decide works for specific kinds of products and services that don't really "matter", in a public sense. That is, who really cares (other than stockholders, factory workers, etc.) if kids are wearing Nike or no-name tennis shoes? Who cares if they are wearing tennis or moccasins made by hand? To the extent anyone outside the direct industry does care, it is only for a few years.

However, all of us are impacted by decisions made to build levis in the 1950's. All of us are impacted when housing developments were allowed to spring up in prime farm land, also protected by levis, within the California Delta. At some point, individual people wanting profit cannot be allowed to override the overall public good. The only question is where those liines should be drawn.

Mostly, I am for "hands off" (truly, despite what Phattscotty, etc may try to claim) unless there is abundant and firm evidence that limits are needed. Natural resource regulation, and thus land use are such.

Uhm the spviet union was way more of a command economy than nazi germany.

[BigBallinStalin]

Besides, what does Clinton really have to do with the average real growth of the US economy? How much can he be responsible for? It's a glaring questing which you've conveniently ignored.

god
Fucking
DAMNITT
BECAUSE I'M NOT CREDITING CLINTON FOR DOING THAT. Clinton (the man), has really nothing to do with my point.
I AM MERELY TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY GREW FOR A LONG TIME AFTER THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED - THUS PROVING YOU WRONG. I USED THE CLINTON YEARS AS THE EXAMPLE BECAUSE IT WAS A HUGE BLOCK GROWTH/TIME. ALSO, every time I said "Clinton" I also said "his administration" so very very very very very clearly I was not talking about the former president alone.
I just don't understand why Player is always able to follow these conversations and you're not. Unless you're trolling.

I can only credit President Clinton tangentially (and Congress less tangentially) with balancing the budget.

IMHO he gets a lot of credit there. He also redistributed a lot of wealth through taxes.

Haha, saying "Clinton's years of growth" means that those years of growth are Clinton's, thus depicting Clinton as responsible for "his" years of growth. You don't have to yell and scream because I mistook your writing as proper English.

Still, your point doesn't show how Clinton himself is responsible for so much. You're just typing in caps while making an ass of yourself. Congratulations, JB.

[Juan_Bottom]

Still, your point doesn't show how Clinton himself is responsible for so much. You're just typing in caps while making an ass of yourself. Congratulations, JB.

It doesn't matter to me in the least, as I have repeatedly said straight-forwardly that that has nothing to do with my point. All that matters is that the American economy grew after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It grew for over a decade.

Clinton (the man), has really nothing to do with my point.
I AM MERELY TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY GREW FOR A LONG TIME AFTER THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED - THUS PROVING YOU WRONG. I USED THE CLINTON YEARS AS THE EXAMPLE BECAUSE IT WAS A HUGE BLOCK GROWTH/TIME.

You don't have to yell and scream because I mistook your writing as proper English.

Still, your point doesn't show how Clinton himself is responsible for so much. You're just typing in caps while making an ass of yourself. Congratulations, JB.

[BigBallinStalin]

Still, your point doesn't show how Clinton himself is responsible for so much. You're just typing in caps while making an ass of yourself. Congratulations, JB.

It doesn't matter to me in the least, as I have repeatedly said straight-forwardly that that has nothing to do with my point. All that matters is that the American economy grew after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It grew for over a decade.

And, the American economy was growing before the collapse of the Soviet Union, so what's your point? I was discussing the global economy and how opening markets and increased international trade lets the global economy grow. You mention "Clinton's years of growth" and that I'm wrong...

This is getting stupid.


What did I supposedly say that is wrong?


Should I just resort to posting equally dumb pictures, or should I throw a JB-style temper tantrum? What do you really want from me?

[PLAYER57832]

Uhm the spviet union was way more of a command economy than nazi germany.

It endured much longer. Nazis Germany was a command system.