Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
US National Debt and Budget Deficits
Topic Started: Sep 18 2003, 01:15 PM (286 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
True, it will be slower than in the 90s.

Now that economists are moving away from that "new economy" crapola, things are getting back to normal.

The late 90s was like the late 20s... all speculation based on (supposedly) new ideas. Well, guess what... we can't build an economy solely on intellectual capital and you need tangibles on your balance sheet. I remember having coffee with my XO back in 1998. He was all hyped about Yahoo and Lucent and lots of the Dot Com companies and couldn't see why I wasn't investing in all of them. I told him that I didn't think they'd last. I'd kid everyone about my "Law of Tangibles" and I wasn't too far off. Companies were losing money hand over fist (Remember Amazon.com didn't post a profit until 2001) and people still invested heavily in them.

Back in the mid-to-late 90s, when the Internet was "the latest thing" to hit, venture capitalists were throwing money at anyone whose business plan that had the words "e-commerce" or ".com" in them. So, while people were dumping huge amounts of money in pets.com and the like, I was investing in companies like Dell Computer (because they made hardware) and FedEx (bought them in September 98 at $19). When March 2000 rolled around, I didn't lose my shirt. In fact, my IRAs only lost about 5% of their value (Thanks a whole bunch, Microsoft!).

But, I digress... while I know the new economy idea is defunct, I don't see us ever experiencing things like the Great Depression or anything. We've been lucky that our last two recessions (2001, 1990-91) were mild, but I see that as a continuing trend. The key is getting a hold on spending. The problem with governments is that they tend to spend money like drunken sailors on leave when they have the money. It was either higher on this thread or on another I made a few suggestions for the US government. It can be done IF Congress (and yes, the President too) stops using our tax money to get re-elected.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 20 2003, 10:28 AM
It was either higher on this thread or on another I made a few suggestions for the US government. It can be done IF Congress (and yes, the President too) stops using our tax money to get re-elected.

I just don't trust Congress or the President (in general) to reign in spending. I've been burned too many times on that. I think it will take a crisis in order to force a change unfortunately.
| Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
"gvok @ Posted on Sep 22 2003
06:38 AM "
I just don't trust Congress or the President (in general) to reign in spending. I've been burned too many times on that. I think it will take a crisis in order to force a change unfortunately.


It may be a simplistic view of mine, but that's why I do like to see a split in the two main political parties running things. It seems that it forces more compromises. On a state level, for almost four years, we have had total Democratic dominance in California and look how well they've done ($14 bil. surplus to $38 bil. deficit). We have the Republicans holding the Whitehouse and both houses of Congress now, maybe if the Dems retake the Senate (I am not ready to cede too much to their party) there might be a greater degree of compromise on spending matters.

"Admiralbill_gomec @ Posted on Sep 20 2003
08:28 AM "
Now that economists are moving away from that "new economy" crapola, things are getting back to normal.


It's too bad that folks got caught up in all that "irrational exuberance." Though as I recall, it was not so much the economists calling it a new economy but the media types...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus