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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (150949)	9/6/2002 2:41:31 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1586390

Only during the time of Clinton. No not just when Clinton was president. Going at least back to the end of the recession in the early 80s. I am afraid you're mistaken. With the exception of the last three years of the decade, the unemployment rate ranged between 7-10% in the 80's. In the last three years, it was 6.2%, 5.5% and 5.3%. Under Bush Sr., the rate spiked up again hitting a peak of 7+% in one year. Under Clinton the rate came down progressively until it hit 4.0% in 2000. bls.gov Clinton was the first American president to reduce welfare rolls. Because he was the first president with a Republican congress that would pass welfare reform. Concidently, there was a Rep. Congress......so what. He's the one that pulled it off.....not Bush Sr. or Reagan. There is no question that there is less entrepreneurs in Germany but certainly not to the point where the country suffers. If by "not to the point where the country suffers" you mean not to the point where it is a mess of misery and malaise then I agree with you, but it is to the point where the country suffers in the sense that it is worse off then it would be if it had more entrepreneurs. By your standards........by they're standards, they run fairly well. Not everyone wants what you want......and they may disagree with you on what you consider good. What does that statement have to do with my comment, which you quoted - "They have enough capitalism to generate the wealth to pay for the socialism. If they where predominately socialist they probably would either collapse or stagnate. In any case they don't run as well as they could if they had less socialism." They run well by their standards. You have different standards so you think they don't run as well as they could. By their standards, they probably don't think we run as well as we could. You think because you like it a particular way its the best but that may only be true for you. That was my point. What by my standards? I didn't say that they are collapsing or stagnating by any standards. I said they would if they where predominantly socialist. How do you know that.........Sweden is very close to being predominately socialist and hasn't collapsed yet. The kibbutzim in Israel are socialistic almost completely, and to my knowledge, none are in danger of collapsing. The real practice of socialism is not some decadent system on the verge of collapse but rather one with different goals and standards than ours. I am not sure that its preferable but its not horrible either. ted