How Poor are the Poor?

[BigBallinStalin]

Know what really made western wages fall? Winning the cold war. pre- 1989 about a third of the world was completely locked away from capitalist markets, more were partially locked out of capitalist markets due to cold war rivalries making the Soviet Union seem a reasonable alternative capitalism. Following 89 there is gradually movement on a global scale to more open markets and capitalism .

Old capitalist markets previously insulated from all that cheap labor by the cold war now have to adapt, the change is gradual since it takes time for these newly open economies to transition but eventually they get into the market, and suddenly paying someone 18$ to do something a guy in china will do for 2 or less $s an hour doesn't make sense anymore.

An excellent point.

The Global economy is currently balancing itself out. Think of the Cold war as the communist building a massive damn against western capital, what is happening in the global economy right now is the aftermath of that damn breaching, capital is flowing out of the western basin into the former communist world. Eventually things will equalize and wages in the west will become comparable to those in the east, however this will occur by necessity after a drop in the west and a rise in the east.

Things tend to equalize and overall the freer trade has resulted in higher growth from gains in trade, so it's mistaken to say that the global economy is currently balancing out. It's been growing because overall wealth has been growing. Nevertheless, wages in saturated markets would fall in certain sectors. The labor over time does shift to more highly valued uses, so other sectors grow.

So, the West is kind of experiencing this shift in wages, leading to an overall decrease in pre-1989 open-to-trade countries; however, the global economy isn't necessarily balancing... a majority of certain sectors within all those countries are shifting, that's for sure.

[thegreekdog]

What was their definition of 'poor'?

Also, is this really that surprising? Our entire culture glorifies consumer items as trophies of success - Even if one is struggling financially, they don't want to 'feel poor', as such - Keeping up appearances, would you say?

I dare say most people would be living on credit, it's what the system wants - an entire population slaved to wage labour to help pay for the maxed out credit card which has been used on various opiates (either drugs, or other mind-numbing items, like TV's, iPods, shit music, Hollywood gossip, Mcdonalds) - Meanwhile the capitalist machine keeps churning, keeps producing (waste) and the populace contines to consume -

Shit, just because you are 'poor' doesn't mean we are not going to find away to get people to buy our products!

That is one of my various thoughts on the subject.

My first thought was - we're subsidizing the impoverished who aren't really impoverished. As an example, in 2004 I only had one car. Thirty percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned more than one car. As another example, in 2004 I did not own a home. Forty-five percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned a home. As a third example, in 2004 I did not own more than one television and did not have cable or satellite. In 2004, 55% of the impoverished own more than one television and 63% had cable or satellite. And yet I was subsidizing, through my tax dollars, the impoverished peoples' food stamps and healthcare.

My second thought was - Where is the prioritization?

My third thought was - We're living in a ridiculously lavish society that spends more on shit it doesn't need.[/quote]


Doesn't any else find these questions to be reasonable ones?

[takes moderator hat off]You have been on these fora long enough to know that the people who could answer these questions won't and the people who answer these questions will provide ridiculous answers or change the topic to one of their own choosing. I thought I could get some good discussion, but instead I got partisan politics from JB, confusion from Player, and answers to JB's crazy maps.[puts moderator hat back on]

[PLAYER57832]

The Global economy is currently balancing itself out. Think of the Cold war as the communist building a massive damn against western capital, what is happening in the global economy right now is the aftermath of that damn breaching, capital is flowing out of the western basin into the former communist world. Eventually things will equalize and wages in the west will become comparable to those in the east, however this will occur by necessity after a drop in the west and a rise in the east.

From a purely economic standpoint, this is true. And, ironically enough is one of the things Marx predicted (though he focused on political power as well).

However, the problem is that its not pure economics involved. We also have extreme losses in species, including many fish used as primary fish species, but also losses of crop land (some conversions to more profitable fuel crops)bevcause of building and pollution; water around the world is not just limited, but polluted by human beings due to pollution. This is even without getting into climate change issues. (and whether someone believes the change is human caused or not, it is happening to our detriment).

In the past, humans were impacted by such things.. primarily natural disasters, but also misuse of cropland or water resources. However, never before has the damage been so permanent. Even the worse "salting" of crops spoken of in old days does not compare to the damage of Chernobyl. And, despite everyone's fear of nuclear power, that is actually NOT the most toxic substance we work with by any means!

That might not seem to relate to poverty, but it means that unless we truly begin to force businesses and nations to take these matters truly seriously, even if it does not seem to be in their best immediate economic interest, then the poverty our great grandchildren will experience will be nothing to what even the poorest today experience (well, maybe akin to what the poorest in the world experience, but not the poorest in the US).

[Baron Von PWN]

Know what really made western wages fall? Winning the cold war. pre- 1989 about a third of the world was completely locked away from capitalist markets, more were partially locked out of capitalist markets due to cold war rivalries making the Soviet Union seem a reasonable alternative capitalism. Following 89 there is gradually movement on a global scale to more open markets and capitalism .

Old capitalist markets previously insulated from all that cheap labor by the cold war now have to adapt, the change is gradual since it takes time for these newly open economies to transition but eventually they get into the market, and suddenly paying someone 18$ to do something a guy in china will do for 2 or less $s an hour doesn't make sense anymore.

An excellent point.

The Global economy is currently balancing itself out. Think of the Cold war as the communist building a massive damn against western capital, what is happening in the global economy right now is the aftermath of that damn breaching, capital is flowing out of the western basin into the former communist world. Eventually things will equalize and wages in the west will become comparable to those in the east, however this will occur by necessity after a drop in the west and a rise in the east.

Things tend to equalize and overall the freer trade has resulted in higher growth from gains in trade, so it's mistaken to say that the global economy is currently balancing out. It's been growing because overall wealth has been growing. Nevertheless, wages in saturated markets would fall in certain sectors. The labor over time does shift to more highly valued uses, so other sectors grow.

So, the West is kind of experiencing this shift in wages, leading to an overall decrease in pre-1989 open-to-trade countries; however, the global economy isn't necessarily balancing... a majority of certain sectors within all those countries are shifting, that's for sure.

I was talking on the broadest terms, in relation to wealth, wages and gdp per capita. Resulting in a gradual leveling of global wealth(did you know for example the portion of "middle class" Africans has never been higher?) . However I agree with your statement.

[BigBallinStalin]

What was their definition of 'poor'?

Also, is this really that surprising? Our entire culture glorifies consumer items as trophies of success - Even if one is struggling financially, they don't want to 'feel poor', as such - Keeping up appearances, would you say?

I dare say most people would be living on credit, it's what the system wants - an entire population slaved to wage labour to help pay for the maxed out credit card which has been used on various opiates (either drugs, or other mind-numbing items, like TV's, iPods, shit music, Hollywood gossip, Mcdonalds) - Meanwhile the capitalist machine keeps churning, keeps producing (waste) and the populace contines to consume -

Shit, just because you are 'poor' doesn't mean we are not going to find away to get people to buy our products!

That is one of my various thoughts on the subject.

My first thought was - we're subsidizing the impoverished who aren't really impoverished. As an example, in 2004 I only had one car. Thirty percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned more than one car. As another example, in 2004 I did not own a home. Forty-five percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned a home. As a third example, in 2004 I did not own more than one television and did not have cable or satellite. In 2004, 55% of the impoverished own more than one television and 63% had cable or satellite. And yet I was subsidizing, through my tax dollars, the impoverished peoples' food stamps and healthcare.

My second thought was - Where is the prioritization?

My third thought was - We're living in a ridiculously lavish society that spends more on shit it doesn't need.[/quote]


Doesn't any else find these questions to be reasonable ones?

[takes moderator hat off]You have been on these fora long enough to know that the people who could answer these questions won't and the people who answer these questions will provide ridiculous answers or change the topic to one of their own choosing. I thought I could get some good discussion, but instead I got partisan politics from JB, confusion from Player, and answers to JB's crazy maps.[puts moderator hat back on]

I was reading about this study that was conducted just recently. These guys were studying the buying behavior of poor people in sub-Saharan African countries and other places of similar poverty. What their research has shown is that people get bored and buy things that entertain them--even if it means that they must reduce their food intake for a few days to a couple of weeks. TVs are more fun than showers. It sounds reasonable enough, but it does explain why people tend to purchase stuff that they "don't need."

Nevertheless, regarding American "poverty," I've always found it to be laughable--not only because of the huge gap between the arbitrarily determined levels of American poverty and hunger compared to actual poverty, which roughly 2 billion people of this world experience, but it's also hilarious because this American poverty is subsidized. It's funny to the point of insanity!--especially when people yell and scream for more subsidized poverty.

(inb4 knee-jerk reactions and hilarious hijinks)

[natty dread]

My first thought was - we're subsidizing the impoverished who aren't really impoverished. As an example, in 2004 I only had one car. Thirty percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned more than one car. As another example, in 2004 I did not own a home. Forty-five percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned a home. As a third example, in 2004 I did not own more than one television and did not have cable or satellite. In 2004, 55% of the impoverished own more than one television and 63% had cable or satellite. And yet I was subsidizing, through my tax dollars, the impoverished peoples' food stamps and healthcare.

Well, I don't know all the details of the situation over there... but doesn't it make sense, that if the economy was better earlier, a lot of those poor people were wealthier in the past? Maybe a lot of them have acquired lots of material goods like cars, tv:s etc when they were wealthier / had jobs, or maybe they got them from their parents when they were young - and now when they're poor, and the economy is worse, the resale value of those items is not high enough that it would be worth it for them to get rid of them. Same with houses... maybe a lot of those houses were bought when the poor people were wealthier, or maybe they were inherited. Maybe the real-estate market is in such bad shape that it's not wise for them to sell their houses and rent?

I don't know, just speculating here. But if a person loses his job, should he instead of relying on government aid start selling out everything he's worked for all his life just to survive? Isn't the whole point of unemployment funds, social security etc. to prevent these kinds of scenarios? Granted, if you have lots of assets that can be easily turned into money, then it's reasonable to expect you to use them when you don't have an income, but things like bicycles, cars, TV:s, computers that basically just fall in value... not so reasonable.

[Juan_Bottom]

An excellent point.

Only as a broad point to be taken into consideration after & in addition to the main problems. There is a huge glaring hole in this idea because it ignores the Clinton years of growth. Clinton was president after the Cold War.

[takes moderator hat off]You have been on these fora long enough to know that the people who could answer these questions won't and the people who answer these questions will provide ridiculous answers or change the topic to one of their own choosing. I thought I could get some good discussion, but instead I got partisan politics from JB, confusion from Player, and answers to JB's crazy maps.[puts moderator hat back on]

As presented this was a horrible topic for discussion. You had already answered your question with your first post. Then Player finished it off. And calling the South retarded is not partisan politics. I can't vote, and I don't have a political party.

[BigBallinStalin]

An excellent point.

Only as a broad point to be taken into consideration after & in addition to the main problems. There is a huge glaring hole in this idea because it ignores the Clinton years of growth. Clinton was president after the Cold War.

... ?

The Cold War "ended" with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Bush Senior was president...

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.

If you want to mention presidents, by focusing on only "Clinton's" years of growth, you mistaken his immediate and short-term decisions as being the primary factors on influencing an economy which has been experiencing earlier decisions with their longer-term effects. There's also many external factors to take into account... To say that one man was responsible for so much is an extremely difficult case to make.

[Baron Von PWN]

An excellent point.

Only as a broad point to be taken into consideration after & in addition to the main problems. There is a huge glaring hole in this idea because it ignores the Clinton years of growth. Clinton was president after the Cold War.

I dont see why that causes a problem to my theory. I didint say the end of the cold war prevented growth in the west, thats obviously false as there were many years of persistent growth after the cold war. What i said was the the end of the cold war put pressure on western wages to decrease due to the availability of cheap labour in the former communist blocs. You can have economic growth and a reduction in wages or decline of certain economic sectors.

[Juan_Bottom]

The Cold War "ended" with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Bush Senior was president...

So what. What does that have to do with what I said?

To say that one man was responsible for so much is an extremely difficult case to make.

This also, has nothing to do with what I just said. I'm getting the impression here that everyone thinks that I'm the Democrat version of Nightstrike; and so everyone is trying to argue with what they are imagining to be hardline partisan politics.

[PLAYER57832]

Nevertheless, regarding American "poverty," I've always found it to be laughable--not only because of the huge gap between the arbitrarily determined levels of American poverty and hunger compared to actual poverty, which roughly 2 billion people of this world experience, but it's also hilarious because this American poverty is subsidized. It's funny to the point of insanity!--especially when people yell and scream for more subsidized poverty

Our poverty is subsidized by allowing employers to pay employees less than it takes to get by in THIS country.. and then we give them tax breaks besides.

And, the claim that "well.. you are not as bad off as those in war-torn Ethiopia" is disengeious at best.

[PLAYER57832]

An excellent point.

Only as a broad point to be taken into consideration after & in addition to the main problems. There is a huge glaring hole in this idea because it ignores the Clinton years of growth. Clinton was president after the Cold War.

... ?

The Cold War "ended" with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Bush Senior was president...

Hmm... and here I thought Clinton came after Bush senior?

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.

If you want to mention presidents, by focusing on only "Clinton's" years of growth, you mistaken his immediate and short-term decisions as being the primary factors on influencing an economy which has been experiencing earlier decisions with their longer-term effects. There's also many external factors to take into account... To say that one man was responsible for so much is an extremely difficult case to make.

Now you seem to be twisting your argument back onto itself. Are you claiming the economy grew or shrink after the cold war? And was it real growth, brought on by new markets, or was it just more efficient exploitation of resources, a massive increase in computer technology and other factors you have not addressed?

[BigBallinStalin]

The Cold War "ended" with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Bush Senior was president...

So what. What does that have to do with what I said?

To say that one man was responsible for so much is an extremely difficult case to make.

This also, has nothing to do with what I just said. I'm getting the impression here that everyone thinks that I'm the Democrat version of Nightstrike; and so everyone is trying to argue with what they are imagining to be hardline partisan politics.

Well, JB, what exactly do you wish to discuss?

[BigBallinStalin]

An excellent point.

Only as a broad point to be taken into consideration after & in addition to the main problems. There is a huge glaring hole in this idea because it ignores the Clinton years of growth. Clinton was president after the Cold War.

... ?

The Cold War "ended" with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Bush Senior was president...

Hmm... and here I thought Clinton came after Bush senior?

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.

If you want to mention presidents, by focusing on only "Clinton's" years of growth, you mistaken his immediate and short-term decisions as being the primary factors on influencing an economy which has been experiencing earlier decisions with their longer-term effects. There's also many external factors to take into account... To say that one man was responsible for so much is an extremely difficult case to make.

Now you seem to be twisting your argument back onto itself. Are you claiming the economy grew or shrink after the cold war? And was it real growth, brought on by new markets, or was it just more efficient exploitation of resources, a massive increase in computer technology and other factors you have not addressed?

The first one is in regards to BVP and I's discussion a page or two back, and my statement is merely asserting that the opening of "post-Communist" markets and the dramatic increase in international trade is the primary factor in global growth. That assertion is in relation to JB's assertion that Clinton is responsible for those particular years of growth. Basically, I'm saying, "Get real, there's much more to it than his few years' contribution" (this point is expanded upon in the next paragraph).

The second paragraph questions how much influence one president of the US can have in regards to the decisions made by former US presidents as well as all the factors beyond just the US president. JB steps in and says, "Well that ignores Clinton's years of growth." So, ask yourself: "How can one distinguish between the effects and causes of one US presidents actions from previous US presidents' actions? How can one distinguish between the causes and effects from Clinton's decisions and external influences like real shocks (supply shocks), shocks to aggregate demand, the opening of new markets (to name a few) in relation to the US economy and the global economy?

[PLAYER57832]

An excellent point.

Only as a broad point to be taken into consideration after & in addition to the main problems. There is a huge glaring hole in this idea because it ignores the Clinton years of growth. Clinton was president after the Cold War.

... ?

The Cold War "ended" with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Bush Senior was president...

Hmm... and here I thought Clinton came after Bush senior?

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.

If you want to mention presidents, by focusing on only "Clinton's" years of growth, you mistaken his immediate and short-term decisions as being the primary factors on influencing an economy which has been experiencing earlier decisions with their longer-term effects. There's also many external factors to take into account... To say that one man was responsible for so much is an extremely difficult case to make.

Now you seem to be twisting your argument back onto itself. Are you claiming the economy grew or shrink after the cold war? And was it real growth, brought on by new markets, or was it just more efficient exploitation of resources, a massive increase in computer technology and other factors you have not addressed?

The first one is in regards to BVP and I's discussion a page or two back, and my statement is merely asserting that the opening of "post-Communist" markets and the dramatic increase in international trade is the primary factor in global growth. That assertion is in relation to JB's assertion that Clinton is responsible for those particular years of growth. Basically, I'm saying, "Get real, there's much more to it than his few years' contribution" (this point is expanded upon in the next paragraph).

The second paragraph questions how much influence one president of the US can have in regards to the decisions made by former US presidents as well as all the factors beyond just the US president. JB steps in and says, "Well that ignores Clinton's years of growth." So, ask yourself: "How can one distinguish between the effects and causes of one US presidents actions from previous US presidents' actions? How can one distinguish between the causes and effects from Clinton's decisions and external influences like real shocks (supply shocks), shocks to aggregate demand, the opening of new markets (to name a few) in relation to the US economy and the global economy?

Except, your arguments neither support your earlier claim about the cold war impact on the economy nor Juan's posts.

But as to how can one distinguish? By looking at the result of legislation/policies the president implemented or failed to implement . Usually, that means looking beyond the years the man is in office.

For example, deregulation of the banking industry and failure to establish new rules for new "types of banks" (yes, I am being simplistic .. securtizing agencies, etc. are technically not all banks) led directly to the foreclosure crisis. Lowering taxes for businesses when times were booming had led to lack of funds now to sustain us in the down economy, including heavy limits to research that could move us forward AND keeping up with social security.

Creating the EPA resulted in far more attention to matters like widespread pollution, but defunding and limiting its rulings has meant that industry gets to continue damaging our world instead of making minor adjustments when they could have been done far more cheaply. Taxes, etc have meant that research into environmentally sound practices has been stymied and limited, just when we need it most. Ironically enough, the problems are now great enough that all but the most ignorant and stubborn business leaders recognize the need to research (even if they insist otherwise for political reasons... their investitures and research shows a bit different story). Sadly, that is far more limited, directed strictly to their gain and only incidentally to the gain of the population unlike government research whish has very different goals and achieves things that are of great gain to the entire population (be it finding a polio vaccine, a cure for malaria, going to the moon, understanding weather patterns or any of the other tasks government reserach has accomplished).

[BigBallinStalin]

Only as a broad point to be taken into consideration after & in addition to the main problems. There is a huge glaring hole in this idea because it ignores the Clinton years of growth. Clinton was president after the Cold War.

... ?

The Cold War "ended" with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Bush Senior was president...

Hmm... and here I thought Clinton came after Bush senior?

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.

If you want to mention presidents, by focusing on only "Clinton's" years of growth, you mistaken his immediate and short-term decisions as being the primary factors on influencing an economy which has been experiencing earlier decisions with their longer-term effects. There's also many external factors to take into account... To say that one man was responsible for so much is an extremely difficult case to make.

Now you seem to be twisting your argument back onto itself. Are you claiming the economy grew or shrink after the cold war? And was it real growth, brought on by new markets, or was it just more efficient exploitation of resources, a massive increase in computer technology and other factors you have not addressed?

The first one is in regards to BVP and I's discussion a page or two back, and my statement is merely asserting that the opening of "post-Communist" markets and the dramatic increase in international trade is the primary factor in global growth. That assertion is in relation to JB's assertion that Clinton is responsible for those particular years of growth. Basically, I'm saying, "Get real, there's much more to it than his few years' contribution" (this point is expanded upon in the next paragraph).

The second paragraph questions how much influence one president of the US can have in regards to the decisions made by former US presidents as well as all the factors beyond just the US president. JB steps in and says, "Well that ignores Clinton's years of growth." So, ask yourself: "How can one distinguish between the effects and causes of one US presidents actions from previous US presidents' actions? How can one distinguish between the causes and effects from Clinton's decisions and external influences like real shocks (supply shocks), shocks to aggregate demand, the opening of new markets (to name a few) in relation to the US economy and the global economy?

Except, your arguments neither support your earlier claim about the cold war impact on the economy nor Juan's posts.

But as to how can one distinguish? By looking at the result of legislation/policies the president implemented or failed to implement . Usually, that means looking beyond the years the man is in office.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

[PLAYER57832]

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Not really. The things you first said were creating the economy did not.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Not really. The things you first said were creating the economy did not.

JB made a post saying essentially: "You and BVP are ignoring the Clinton years of growth" to which my main point was questioning how one man can be responsible for the global economy, especially in consideration of how opening new markets would be a primary shaker and mover in the real growth of the global economy.


Earlier, I made an off-hand statement about the the global economy in relation to BVP and I's discussion, which had nothing to do with you. If you wish to talk about that then sure, let's go: If you disagree that "the opening of new markets and the dramatic increase in international trade will be a primary factor in real global growth," then please state why. I ask you to do so first because it's much less complicated for both of us if you start first.

________________________________________________________________

You state "usually, that means looking beyond the years the man is in office" in regards to the distinguishing between the global economy and the one US president's cause and effects, which was the same point I was making. Therefore, thank you for agreeing with me.

[PLAYER57832]

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Not really. The things you first said were creating the economy did not.

JB made a post saying essentially: "You and BVP are ignoring the Clinton years of growth" to which my main point was questioning how one man can be responsible for the global economy, especially in consideration of how opening new markets would be a primary shaker and mover in the real growth of the global economy.

Earlier, I made an off-hand statement about the the global economy in relation to BVP and I's discussion, which had nothing to do with you. If you wish to talk about that then sure, let's go: If you disagree that "the opening of new markets and the dramatic increase in international trade will be a primary factor in real global growth," then please state why. I ask you to do so first because it's much less complicated for both of us if you start first.

No, I was referring to your earliest post on the world economy, where you talked about the impact of the cold war.

I partially agreed, but then you backtracked and launched into these other ideas.

You state "usually, that means looking beyond the years the man is in office" in regards to the distinguishing between the global economy and the one US president's cause and effects, which was the same point I was making. Therefore, thank you for agreeing with me.

Not really, the post that included that point was not really addressing the points that were brought up by eiher J or myself.. and had a rather different direction than you are implying now.

Anyway, I spent enough time on that other thread today, so this will have to wait.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Not really. The things you first said were creating the economy did not.

JB made a post saying essentially: "You and BVP are ignoring the Clinton years of growth" to which my main point was questioning how one man can be responsible for the global economy, especially in consideration of how opening new markets would be a primary shaker and mover in the real growth of the global economy.

Earlier, I made an off-hand statement about the the global economy in relation to BVP and I's discussion, which had nothing to do with you. If you wish to talk about that then sure, let's go: If you disagree that "the opening of new markets and the dramatic increase in international trade will be a primary factor in real global growth," then please state why. I ask you to do so first because it's much less complicated for both of us if you start first.

No, I was referring to your earliest post on the world economy, where you talked about the impact of the cold war.

I partially agreed, but then you backtracked and launched into these other ideas.

You state "usually, that means looking beyond the years the man is in office" in regards to the distinguishing between the global economy and the one US president's cause and effects, which was the same point I was making. Therefore, thank you for agreeing with me.

Not really, the post that included that point was not really addressing the points that were brought up by eiher J or myself.. and had a rather different direction than you are implying now.

Anyway, I spent enough time on that other thread today, so this will have to wait.

Eh... don't bother. I see what you're doing.

[Juan_Bottom]

JB made a post saying essentially: "You and BVP are ignoring the Clinton years of growth" to which my main point was questioning how one man can be responsible for the global economy, especially in consideration of how opening new markets would be a primary shaker and mover in the real growth of the global economy.

god
Fucking
DAMNITT

What I was alluding to was the fact that Clinton was the first president/his administration took over after the Soviet Union fell. Yet the American economy grew - despite the fact that:

Know what really made western wages fall? Winning the cold war.

Old capitalist markets previously insulated from all that cheap labor by the cold war now have to adapt, the change is gradual since it takes time for these newly open economies to transition but eventually they get into the market, and suddenly paying someone 18$ to do something a guy in china will do for 2 or less $s an hour doesn't make sense anymore.

So my point isn't that Clinton saved the planet from Republican Cyborgs while joy rainbows shot out of his ass. My point is that the original assertion quoted above isn't wholly accurate due to the very obvious and glaring fact that the US economy GREW after the Soviet Union collapsed.

I mean, as I said it's an interesting take on it, and it's something to be taken into consideration, but no, it's not the main cause.

[targetman377]

Always a flawless way to determine who a good president is, one data point in the economy is. Yeesssssss.

[BigBallinStalin]

JB made a post saying essentially: "You and BVP are ignoring the Clinton years of growth" to which my main point was questioning how one man can be responsible for the global economy, especially in consideration of how opening new markets would be a primary shaker and mover in the real growth of the global economy.

god
Fucking
DAMNITT

What I was alluding to was the fact that Clinton was the first president/his administration took over after the Soviet Union fell. Yet the American economy grew - despite the fact that:

Know what really made western wages fall? Winning the cold war.

Old capitalist markets previously insulated from all that cheap labor by the cold war now have to adapt, the change is gradual since it takes time for these newly open economies to transition but eventually they get into the market, and suddenly paying someone 18$ to do something a guy in china will do for 2 or less $s an hour doesn't make sense anymore.

So my point isn't that Clinton saved the planet from Republican Cyborgs while joy rainbows shot out of his ass. My point is that the original assertion quoted above isn't wholly accurate due to the very obvious and glaring fact that the US economy GREW after the Soviet Union collapsed.

I mean, as I said it's an interesting take on it, and it's something to be taken into consideration, but no, it's not the main cause.

...

Wages can fall while the economy grows, so what you're saying isn't necessarily correct. :/

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.

It's funny how you keep saying that he was "the first president/administration to take over after the Soviet Union fell." The SU fell in 1991; George Bush Sr's term was from 1989-1993.

And BVP is talking about the old capitalist markets--not just the US market, so your point isn't as relevant to all non-US countries as you think it is.

[PLAYER57832]

Wages can fall while the economy grows, so what you're saying isn't necessarily correct. :/

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.

It's funny how you keep saying that he was "the first president/administration to take over after the Soviet Union fell." The SU fell in 1991; George Bush Sr's term was from 1989-1993.

And BVP is talking about the old capitalist markets--not just the US market, so your point isn't as relevant to all non-US countries as you think it is.

I believe the operative words are first to take over after... Bush was in office at the time, so no taking over.

But, as usual, you start with a nice point, interesting and perhaps worthy of debate.. but then the minute someone seriously disagrees with you, you descend into minute criticisms, backtracks and denials.

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).

The biggest problem of attributing the biggest economic driver to the end of the cold war , though, is that the tech boom during those years is what really boosted the world economies. That would have happened regardless of communisms fall. I am not sure how much ease of communication added to it, either, because the tech was still in fairly early stages then.

Where it absolutely DID impact was in US politics. Clinton was elected, in part due to a pushback from the perception of not quite war mongering, but more centrist/military strength ideas of the Republican party of the time. However, that is more a matter of public perception than reality. That is, I am not arguing that Clinton's policies really were that different, except in some specific areas such as the environment (and NOT all areas of the environment, just some). However, people percieved the Democrats to offer an alternative.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wages can fall while the economy grows, so what you're saying isn't necessarily correct. :/

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.

It's funny how you keep saying that he was "the first president/administration to take over after the Soviet Union fell." The SU fell in 1991; George Bush Sr's term was from 1989-1993.

And BVP is talking about the old capitalist markets--not just the US market, so your point isn't as relevant to all non-US countries as you think it is.

I believe the operative words are first to take over after... Bush was in office at the time, so no taking over.

But, as usual, you start with a nice point, interesting and perhaps worthy of debate.. but then the minute someone seriously disagrees with you, you descend into minute criticisms, backtracks and denials.

Are you purposely trying to annoy me? Don't be so childish/butthurt. Do you understand the differences in timing and the limiting effects a president's term can have in relation to other external factors?

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. 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.

The biggest problem of attributing the biggest economic driver to the end of the cold war , though, is that the tech boom during those years is what really boosted the world economies. That would have happened regardless of communisms fall. I am not sure how much ease of communication added to it, either, because the tech was still in fairly early stages then.

Where it absolutely DID impact was in US politics. Clinton was elected, in part due to a pushback from the perception of not quite war mongering, but more centrist/military strength ideas of the Republican party of the time. However, that is more a matter of public perception than reality. That is, I am not arguing that Clinton's policies really were that different, except in some specific areas such as the environment (and NOT all areas of the environment, just some). However, people percieved the Democrats to offer an alternative.

Well, what are you arguing? You're being very incoherent.