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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (159972)	2/13/2004 10:05:45 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

There was no surplus 3 years ago and you know it. Are you on drugs or something? The federal government had a surplus in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. Now you might want to make yourself believe otherwise, to justify the unjustifiable: re-electing Bush, but facts don't lie.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (159972)	2/13/2004 10:41:03 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

claims that productivity caused loss of jobs, when the reality is that more employees hired in india/china than any other recovery period by US corps Damn that productivity. Everyone "in the know" knows productivity is a code word for fewer jobs, right? Do you understand this issue? This happens to be my particular hot button. I can deal with economic turmoil. But what I don't like are liars or clueless pundits peddling falsities. There hasn't been any significant productivity increases since around 98. Most changes in employment makeup these days, in the post 2000 period, is a result of offshoring, a process that actually is less efficient, but cheaper than the prior 90s high efficiency process. When companies offshore 50 programmers leading only ONE US manager, that manager gets all the "productivity" assigned to him/her. This is not a productivity gain in the classic sense, since the manager is not capable of performing the entire programming task themselves. Otoh the US gets the entire "gain" of these offshore contractors in the statistics AS IF something magically has happened wrt productivity. If the white house doesn't understand that both the GDP and productivity figures are simply the reflection of offshoring all labor intensive work then they should be removed on that basis alone. Since this fact has been uncovered by Steven Roach and Lou Dobbs among others I doubt ignorance is the problem at the WH, its probably more like ignorance peddling.