I'm sorry I beg to differ and measurably so. If as you assert the only purpose for stock is to "line the pockets of highly compensated employees", then no one would every buy stock! Or they buy stock to drive up the prices for shareholders you added. Again I somewhat agree/disagree. While the number one priority of a company is the shareholder, they cannot simply buy stocks that merely shuffle money back and forth and hope to make a profit. Somewhere in the occassion and tangible good or service has to be exchanged to a consumer, no matter how shifty, thrifty or nifty the accounting department or firm is who is handling the books manages to "eff" with the numbers.


The major problem I have with the opening notion, is that it almost asserts that wealth is a finite number of apples on our apple tree. Perhaps I am reading this wrong? Of course cash moves between "pockets" that is called a free market/consumer economy, where people buy things or services, they want and need.

This is a pretty wide assertion here. In a nutshell, if I am reading this correctly you are basically asserting that neither plan actually worked, but instead it was some near magical force of good luck that turned the tide of a "in the dumper" economy, of run-away inflation, known more commonly as the 1970's. Technological breakthrough, as mentioned in particular had been occurring in the 1970's in the same likeness as the 1980's. While the PC was obviously revolutionary, so were other technological improvements during the Carter Administration. So, why didnt this fact turn the economy around and make Carter look like the genius? Productivity is a great thing for the business owner and government alike I agree, because both receive more capital as a result, if in fact "real work" and thus "real money" is being made by such.
(Being in the technology business I fully understand how the word productivity is loosely thrown around as a selling point, amongst sales reps. [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img] )
But here is another fact about technological breakthroughs. They cause people to become unemployed as well. You mentioned C.A.D/.C.A.M. for instance, which "revolutionized" manufacturing procedures. Sure jobs were created as a result but jobs were also lost. A firm requiring, 100 trained machinists for instance, now needed maybe ten, who could get the same amount of productivity with the new technology. The Catch 22 of this, for the manufacturer is that the consumer/customer then demanded cheaper and cheaper prices, only possible with higher expenditures in even more sophisticated machinery. We now have machinists in name only, whereas the proper terminology is operator. Whom by the way do not command the same kind of money what-so-ever. With larger and larger mass production capability, the truth is, we need less manufacturers than we needed previously. The trend being that we need to send our kids to college to get a degree for one of those "high paying office jobs". Kind of a misnomer dontcha think? Especially with this new trend proving to have no merit, after investing tens of thousands of dollars into a degree. IMO, the time will soon come, where it makes no sense to do so, when the lifelong compensation of the employee will not bear out the investment needed to be compensated at that level.
I suppose my question to you is, since you are very knowledgeable in this field, whats next? Mind you I am not one of those "the glass is half empty" people and hopelessly so, but the trend is here. What is the solution?

<font color = lightgreen> [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] ooookayyyy.....

I was going to respond to the back-and-forth discussion, since I do have some familiarity with taxation, economics, and investments; however, I think I'll just have another glass of blush wine and move on to some other thread. :rolleyes:

btw...the only way for Social Security to become reasonably funded for the future is to have the proceeds invested in the economy, preferrably in well-diversified portfolios. Or to overhaul the system completely; it doesn't take a genius to figure out which one is more easily accomplished.</font>

Repeated posts baiting and antagonizing because you didn't like having to wait for gratification. That, coupled with your history of smugly-superior and smarmy put-downs of myself and others, who know as much or far, far more than you; added to your typcial american distain for any intellectual process or debate that doesn't end up in a "poopy contest" pretty much tells me everything I care to know about you. In short, with your rudeness and intolerence as well as your childish demands for instant gratification, I think you succeeded quite well in demonstrating what needed to be demonstrated.

Ciao, baby.[/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]You don't. I do. Timberloftis decided I was rude. Whereas, I considered myself to be brusqe and matter-of-fact.

Therefore, rudeness is subjective not objective. From my perspective, Timberloftis made an erroneous subjective judgement on a non-specifically addressed comment and made a direct personal attack, making him doubly wrong.

See my point? Or are you going to argue it? Because it *is* subjective. </font>[/QUOTE]Now now children, put the handbags down, eh? Chill out and try to deal with this the way you would deal with it in the real world (assuming you're not in primary school, which I assume neither of you are) with the person in front of you. Surely you wouldn't be foaming at the mouth at them and calling them names just because they disagreed with you...or would you? I hope not.

Don't care who started it...it doesn't make either of you look particularly good. I'd like a bit of maturity please. ;)

[ 05-31-2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

Come on Memnoch - an accountant swapping insults with a lawyer. I'd pay good money for this! :D

Come on Memnoch - an accountant swapping insults with a lawyer. I'd pay good money for this! :D </font>[/QUOTE]I once knew an accountant whose wife had a professional caterer prepare meals for their dinner parties and then she would pass them off as her own.
However, I once knew of a lawyer who used to start drinking at 1.30 every afternoon!!!
Shame on them all I say.

I'm echoing Memnoch's sentiments, fellas. Knock it off or end up sitting in another sandbox. ;)