Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nealm who wrote (7899)	6/29/2000 7:13:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 9127

Reagan's theme was self reliance and initiative (i.e. less government intrusion). His view was and is still reflected in our current polices on busines and welfare. You don't need to be Einstein to see what works and what doesn't. The actual changes made under this theme were nowhere nearly sufficient to explain the current economic explosion. Any believer in free markets knows that the underlying cycles of business and demographics have far greater impact than the dabbling of politicians. No politician or party can claim credit for our current prosperity. It is a consequence of the emergence of the baby boom generation into its prime years of production, consumption, and investment. Politicians reflect trends, they don't create them. The dominant generation in the early 80's had a cautious, backward looking attitude; they produced a conservative president and a stagnant economy. The generation that emerged as dominant in the late 80s and early 90s was innovative, forward-looking, irreverent, and technologically competent. They produced a younger president who gave the impression of dynamism (he also turned out to be a nitwit, but it hardly mattered; he was an effect, not a cause) and the most dynamic economy the world has ever seen. The overstaying Bob Hope generation finally gave way to the Bill Gates generation, and that's what made the difference. The political changes are just the reflection. Lenin toppled the Karinski(sp?) republic. The Kerenski republic was a flimsy construction that never actually controlled the nation. The ascension of Lenin was made possible by the ineptness of the crumbling Romanovs. The Hungarian and Czechoslovakian situations reflect the dynamics of conquest and occupation, not the natural dynamics of internal politics. Finland may have been coerced, and lived under the shadow, but they were never absorbed.