1. FrayVader - July 22, 1998 - 8:32 PM PDT
Have a look at the recent post by PsychProf and the ensuing discussion in the Suggestions thread.
How *will* the 90s be remembered? And while we're at it, what are we going to call the next decade? And when does the new millennium start anyway?
2. CLLRDR - July 22, 1998 - 8:34 PM PDT
The 90's? The 50's in a Cuisinart.
3. cartmhan - July 22, 1998 - 8:44 PM PDT
The 90's will be remembered as the Tech Decade.
4. resonance - July 22, 1998 - 8:47 PM PDT
The nineties will be remembered as the decade the Internet evolved from a bunch of telnet addresses and social lives consequently became optional.
5. cartmhan - July 22, 1998 - 8:53 PM PDT
I wanted to expand more on my earlier post. When the 90's began, there was an excitement around that this was going to be the final decade of the 20th Century. What began as excitement, is now brought to fear. There are doomsayers that are saying that 2000 will be the end of the world, blah, blah, blah. I personally stand Linda Tripp better than the doomsayers (I cannot believe I am saying this). There is all this Y2K stuff going around and it's creating too much hype. The next decade will be the "relief" decade, if all turns out better than the doomsayers are saying what will happen.
6. CLLRDR - July 22, 1998 - 8:57 PM PDT
I'll remember the 90's as the period in which I discovered that all the best people were dead. I'll remember it as the era of craven self-interest, undisguised loathing of the poor, the division of mankind into the categories of "winners" and "losers," the era in which "hip" became a marketing tool and nothing more. It is the era of utter spinelessness as exemplified by Bill Clinton and smug solopsism as embodied by Jodie Foster. It is the era of Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Dick Armey and all the other enemies of human decency. It is the era of ethnic strife and religious war raised to the level of spectator sport. It is an era of ugliness, depression and moral bankruptcy. Goodbye 90's. Won't miss ya.
7. LadyChaos - July 22, 1998 - 9:12 PM PDT
I think that this will be remembered as one of the early decades in a long term global conflict between ideology and reason.
8. 109109 - July 22, 1998 - 9:19 PM PDT
In the 60s and 70s, the affluent convinced themselves that they were put upon.
In the 90s, the affluent convinced most everyone else.
9. resonance - July 22, 1998 - 9:24 PM PDT
Message #6
Oh, you think the next decade will be nicer?
10. cartman69 - July 22, 1998 - 11:01 PM PDT
The 90's, so far, have strengthened the wall between the haves and have-nots by making more of each. It will be remembered as the decade in which the US finally figured out how to Brazilianize its economy; i.e. to disperse the middle class and to firmly ensconce both the upper and lower classes.
Everything that came out of the 90's emerged with such a patina of jadedness, cynicism, ennui and "like, whatever". Of course the next couple of years should be pretty intense with religious fanaticism and eschatology. It'll be interesting to see if we have any nostalgia for this decade in 10-15 years.
And, of course, FrayVader, the new millenium will begin 01/01/01.
11. cigarlaw - July 22, 1998 - 11:04 PM PDT
As one who remembers the fear of nuclear war in the 50's and early sixties, and grew up hearing stories about the 20's, 30's, and 40's, it appears to me the 70's and 80's were the death throes of the last vestiges of the totalitarian/collective philosophy that poisoned the century.
If 1898 marked the beginning of the American Century, 1998, may well be looked upon as the beginning of a golden age of individual liberty and innovation. I wish I could stick around to see it.
12. Msivorytower - July 23, 1998 - 5:39 AM PDT
Cllrdr
I can't see how you can separate the 80's from the 90's in your Message #6, in fact, your description captures the 80's for me better than the 90's.
I think this decade has been a movement back to some sense of community, responsibility toward others, and a larger vision of the US as part of the world. The narcissism, greed and shysterism of the 90's is simply, for me, the 80's played out to its logical conclusion.
I find young people today very involved, committed, interested in politics, social issues and injustice in a way that was lost in the 80's. In fact, I think we are seeing some of the best young people to come of age in quite a while. Contrasted to the kids who came of age in the 80's, today's youth are much more aware of social and religious divisions, and their consquences than their predecessors, who seemed to only be interested in what made them feel and look good. Those who came of age in the last decade are still playing out their narcissistic fantasies in the 90's, but the youth of today will contribute significantly more, eventually.
To my mind, the 90's have been a slow crawl back to some sense of community, humanity, and larger purpose than the blatant self-interest and grandizement that was idolized in the 80's.
13. CLLRDR - July 23, 1998 - 5:54 AM PDT
Ms., I wish I could share your optimism. There are a lot of good and thoughtful young people today. The trouble is they have to deal with a system designed to crush them in ways that weren't available in earlier periods. What is the most important U.S. news story of the moment? The GM strike. Now try finding out any information about its mans, ends and consequences. If you will notice, all the newspapers and news channels have something called "Business News." There is no. "Labor News." Why? "If we don't talk about them, maybe they'll go away." And that is how "problems" are solved in our new "high tech" age. So 50's.
14. bubbaette - July 23, 1998 - 5:57 AM PDT
Missy
the 60's only more mature?
15. Msivorytower - July 23, 1998 - 6:02 AM PDT
Cllrdr
As I said before, what's different about the 90's then, compared to the 80's? The American Labor movement was crushed by Reagan at the beginning of that decade, and we never heard about labor issues again until the election of Clinton, and the growing gap in incomes during the previous decade was finally acknowledged.
Your comments don't hit the mark for me. In fact, they perfectly describe the 80's, not the 90's.
Bubbaette,
Yes, that's a possible way to describe this decade. Certainly young people today are more realistic and intelligent than those coming of age in the 60's, with their naive belief that the world existed soley as their playground.
16. bubbaette - July 23, 1998 - 6:08 AM PDT
I think that Cellardr has something with the notion that labor is losing it's influence (not that it ever had much). One of the trends of the Nineties is the notion of the worker as transient -- contract out, hire temps, no vacation/insurance/retirement. The notion that business and industry has any responsibility toward it's employees or the locality in which it's located is dead.
17. Msivorytower - July 23, 1998 - 6:16 AM PDT
Bubbaette
Agreed, but this trend started well before the 90's, as I said, it is the logical conclusion of the 80's. The marginalization of labor began in the early 80's, so this is nothing specific to this decade. In fact, I'd argue the issues are now more visible than they were in the last decade, and are now part of the national dialogue unlike in the 80's, when Howdy Dooty Reagan was like the bobbing cupie doll, always vacuously smiling.
I suppose for me the 80's was the evil decade of total excess, and the 90's is the recovery decade.
18. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 6:40 AM PDT
cllrdr, Message #13, watch it. There's only one thoughtful™ in these thar threads!
I'm surprised at all the discontent that seems to be coming out around the 90s. Certainly it's not been my take on it. Actually, I see it as full of positive things. For example, we had the looming federal deficit, looming ever larger in the 80s. It was making housing unaffordable, we had high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment. Our manufacturing industries were being crushed under the weight of the strong dollar -- remember the rust belt? Much of our productive capacity was being tapped off to support a $400B defense budget to fight the evil empire, and the rich were getting richer while everyone else was growing poorer.
The 90s instead, we've seen inflation slow to a crawl, interest rates drop, housing affordability leap, unemployment drop to 30 year lows. The deficit is now a surplus, our manufacturing industries are once again competitive, and, while the rich are getting richer, so are the poor. There is no evil empire to fight and none of the 192 sovereign nations of the world are at war with each other. The growing internationalization of the US and world economy only raises the costs of political strife, making what was reality only 50 years ago -- all the industrialized countries at war with each other -- seem very remote indeed. While global warming is still a challenge, we are aware of it and have made progress in other areas of environmental concerns e.g. cleaning up rivers, harbors, etc. We've seen technology significantly change the way the world communicates with itself, opening up freedom of speech, speeding communication, and largely changing the way we live and work on a daily basis. And this is only the beginning.
The fact that the news is full of such trivial items as what Monica Lewinsky's mother knows is evidence of how much is currently going right.
To me, the 90s is the decade of broadening
19. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 6:41 AM PDT
horizons.
20. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 7:08 AM PDT
More good news from the 90s is on the health front. Recently they've reported a dramatic decline in death from SIDS with a simple cure of not letting babies sleep on their stomachs. We've seen progress made in areas of cancer, heart disease, stroke and pain management. There's even hope with AIDS -- which seemed a guaranteed death sentence in the 80s -- with drugs that extend, not only life, but the quality of life and the hope of vaccines which may become effective.
I'm not saying there aren't problems -- there always are and always will be, but as decades go, this one ain't been bad.
21. BOOMERJEFF - July 23, 1998 - 7:42 AM PDT
MsIvoryTower and CLLRDR exemplify a strange phenomenon of the nineties. It is an escaping from reality. Yet the reality they flee is far more desirable than the non-reality where they seek refuge.
Unemployment is so low that labor shortages are driving up wages and employers are forced to go to great lengths to recruit and train employees. Every employer survey reveals a need for help that exceeds supply, Yet MsIvoryTower thinks she sees "the marginalization of labor." ASTOUNDING!
We're enjoying an euphoric decade of easy money and incredibly easy credit. Borrowers are king, as lenders are forced to accept the lowest interest rates in a generation and run radio/TV ads to find marginal borrowers they would have scorned just a few years ago! ANYBODY can buy a house and a car! And if any of these folks get in too deep, liberal bankruptcy laws let them off the hook almost painlessly. As soon as their bankruptcy is finalized more lenders seek to give them immediate credit!
Inflation is at historical lows. There is no draft. No Americans are at war. Nobody need be hungry. Crime is declining. The biggest problem is finding a parking space at the mall.
Yet, with all this good news, CLLRDR clings to his tired old slogan, "the gap between rich and poor", as if this so-called "gap" so frustrates and infuriates us that we're unable to get over our anger and enjoy another helping of ribs.
This will be remembered as the decade when the liberal elite in government and media, along with their fearful, cynical, strident, blind followers as exemplified by MIST and CLLRDR finally became completely unhinged. While prosperity, peace, and even an improving environment and a balanced budget are the reality, these poor devils deny themselves any joy as they run around in a state of alarm over fictional economic crises and imaginary "global warming."
22. BOOMERJEFF - July 23, 1998 - 7:42 AM PDT
1998 will be remembered as the year when, on Independence Day, real people were contemplating the reality that they were blessed to be citizens of the freest, most prosperous, most powerful nation in world history. Yet, the Vice President of the United States demonstrated his talent for statesmanship by flipping hamburgers for the TV cameras arrayed before the Capital, to dramatize his effort to conjure up hysterical fears of contaminated meat.
23. CLLRDR - July 23, 1998 - 7:54 AM PDT
Theose low enemployment figures about which you rhapsodize, Boom Boom, don't take into account any of those unlucky souls no longer tracked by the systm because their benefits expired before they were able to find any work, and they're STILL unemployed. I'm sick and tired f all this pimping about the wonders of the "the economy." Money for the top 19% doesn't suggest paradise to me. "Liberal bankruptcy laws?" Don't get me started. Stick to talking about your own class, Boom Boom. You don't have a clue about any of the others.
24. DocBrown - July 23, 1998 - 8:03 AM PDT
Fifty years from now Americans will probably look back at the 1990s as the last decade of the Golden Age of Labor. One hundred years from now Americans will look back at the 1990s as the last decade of the Labor Dark Ages.
This will be the last decade in which human labor plays a significant role in productivity. Our grandchildren will look back at the period of businesses spending billions to chase cheaper labor around the globe as a quirk of history, while cognitive computer technology mellowed. Gradually in the first decade of the 21st century, humans without technical skills will not be able to find work at any wage.
The nineties will also be the last decade of traditional "jobs." Jobs are designed around continuous processes, but the real world is organized more in projects. The only reason we had a process oriented society for so long was because our flow of information was too slow and inefficient to allow good project orientation. It was too difficult and wasteful to reorganize our labor and capital rapidly enough. Today and forever information technology will allow us to do away with process-oriented work and perform everything as a short-term project.
The reason for the change in attitude from Golden Age of Labor to Labor Dark Ages will be the changing world of 50 years from now. They will be beyond the point of no return in one of the most important transitions in human history: the brain, muscles, and knowledge you own will be worthless. Your livelyhood will be completely dependent on the stocks, bonds, and cash that you own.
I expect that the Americans who live 50 years from now will look back on us with jealousy, because in our day a mere factory worker could still earn a good living. But the Americans a century from now will have no such nostalgia, and they will look back at us with pity because we had to work at all.
25. BOOMERJEFF - July 23, 1998 - 8:08 AM PDT
CLLRDR
I don't know what "class" you think I'm from. But it doesn't matter. I read and study all sorts of economic data, plus, I'm out there every day in the real world, observing.
The reality is there is a labor shortage. Maybe the government can no longer track your "unlucky souls" because they've either found jobs or they've started their own businesses! It's pretty hard to believe there are zillions of "unlucky souls" with no hope of employment at the same time there is a real labor shortage. And since you have no data to cite in support of your claim that there are so many unemployed you claim they're invisible.
BTW I don't think the liberal bankruptcy laws are a bad thing. I think they should be liberal in an era when creditors market indiscriminately to virtually everyone without regard for their ability to repay.
26. CLLRDR - July 23, 1998 - 8:17 AM PDT
"Started their own business" Yeah, right. Have fun in your "real world."
27. phillipdavid - July 23, 1998 - 8:38 AM PDT
Although I essentially agree with Msit's and thoughtful's comments, I do see, in the 1990's, the germs of more momentous happenings that will play out in the decades to come.
Kids and young adults in the 90's have grown up with a clear and heavy consciousness of the discrepency between the "haves" and "havenots." American society and culture is markedly divided between those living on the margins, close to failing, working for low service-sector wages, masking their sorrows in alochol and drugs, without solid families, without political voices or political champions, without economic or cultutral fulfillment, and those who appear to have it all: money, political voices, political champions, access to culture and education, upward mobility -- or at least the chance to maintain their standing -- the ability to travel, drive new cars, live in nice houses, afford all the alcohol and drugs they want, etc. The young people coming of age in this decade have seen this difference/discrepency very clearly and it is forged within their consciousness.
Because the "haves" have been dismantling the governemnt programs and safety nets that were forged in the 60s, people of conscience will have to work and fight with the problems of the "havenots" in different ways. I imagine the coming 3-4 decades as a struggle to renfranchise and reinvigorate the lives of the "havenots" -- for their lives will continue to deteriorate. The germs (or seeds) of a great movement/battle of social awareness and social consciousness that will be played out next century are being sowed in this decade. The "havenots" are at the top of the downward slope that their lives will be descending upon now, and their lives will continue to get worse, and today's kids will mature and try to do something about it. I see this as the big issue and battle looming for the next century.
28. phillipdavid - July 23, 1998 - 9:01 AM PDT
Thoughtful correctly points out the advances in health care, but it also seems to me that the 90's has seen a sharp increase in the number of bodies falling apart in one way or another. Asthma, arthritis, lupus, fibromyalgia, diabetes, and other "diseases" seem to affecting more and more people. In my own life, I have witnessed one sort of malady or another affect a surprisingly large number of people -- especially women.
29. PseudoErasmus - July 23, 1998 - 9:47 AM PDT
Oh, please. There is nothing particularly interesting or special about the 1990s.
The current prosperity, as nice as it is, is just a business cycle upswing. When the next recession hits (which is inevitable, and coming soon enough), half the optimists in this thread (except BoomBoom) will be sounding like Cellardweller. Hey, they did in the early 1990s.
But let me stake a position: the truth is found somewhere between BoomBoom and Cellardweller...
30. PseudoErasmus - July 23, 1998 - 9:52 AM PDT
Cellardweller and BoomBoom are the two sides of the same curious curious coin. If BoomBoom exudes the classic mindless optimism of Dr. Pangloss, then Cellardweller is full of what someone discerned in Kingsley Amis, "naive cynicism". Sorry, but things aren't as great or as bad as either of you say they are.
(But I did get a huge laugh out of BoomBoom's claim that he pays attention to economic data! Even if he did, he wouldn't understand them...)
31. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 10:02 AM PDT
Boy, PseuE, when you stake a position, you *really* stick your neck out-- reality lies somewhere between an optimist's and a pessimist's POV. Gee, do you really want to attempt to support the position that the glass is somewhere between full and empty? Wow! What courage!
"The current prosperity, as nice as it is, is just a business cycle upswing."
So what else *is* there? I'm reminded of my favorite cartoon where a man says to a woman at a cocktail party, "More and more I ask myself, what's the point of pursuing the meaning of the universe if you can't have a rising GDP?"
32. PseudoErasmus - July 23, 1998 - 10:07 AM PDT
Thoughtful (Message #31)
I suppose that irony and understatement, without things like "):-*&" attached to sentences, are a lost art, eh? (I even left an ellipsis just to ease things for you.)
"So what else *is* there?"
A permanent upward rise in productivity growth might make sound more like BoomBoom.
33. PseudoErasmus - July 23, 1998 - 10:08 AM PDT
...make ME sound...
34. CalGal - July 23, 1998 - 10:08 AM PDT
I agree with Pseudo about Cellar and BoomBoom.
I don't see anything all that significantly different about the youth of today. But then I came of age in the first four years of the Me Decade.
I don't know, Doc, if I agree with you about the specifics of what the next fifty or hundred years will bring vis a vis labor.
But you're dead on about the nineties being the last gasp of the traditional "job". People will either have a high-demand skill that they can market or they will be interchangeable.
My guess is that labor will regroup and form around office workers and other "interchangeable" jobs that are already starting to suffer because they are laid off and made "contractors" for the same pay and less benefits.
35. chloel - July 23, 1998 - 11:23 AM PDT
On the '90s as a revision of the '60s; how about 'not pessimists but pejorists; not optimists but meliorists'?
I don't know if I came of age in the '80s or '90s, though. When is one 'of age'? at 18? 21? when no longer a full-time student? With one's first mortgage? at 30?
36. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 11:28 AM PDT
PseuE,
*~`#Well,*§!#%&(&^@ certainly in manufacturing where we can do a better job of measuring productivity, we have had significantly faster growth in the 90s: 1969-79, 2.8% annualized rate; 79-89, 2.7%; 89-97, 3.5%. But don't ask me about permanence. *#($&Q$&#%^~`-_@+)%+=-
37. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 11:30 AM PDT
Chloel, I think if one is living life right, one never comes of age -- be ever young, ever growing, ever learning, ever self-renewing.
38. webfeet - July 23, 1998 - 11:34 AM PDT
did deepok choprah say that or is that an original?
39. 109109 - July 23, 1998 - 11:56 AM PDT
The Nineties will not be remembered but as part of the 60s contiuum forward, where the nation really did not have to exert itself. Vietnam was left largely to the poor, and the loss of 50,000 paled in comparison to prior conflicts. Now, if you have a Marine's body dragged through the streets of Somalia, forget that a military presence may be saving hundreds of thousands, the cost is too high. Pack up and move out.
Economically, the stoys of the poor, middle-class and rich have become critical to the economy. They have also distorted the concepts of middle-class and poor. We are spoiled beyond historic recognition . . . no Industrial Revolution, no Depression. Instead, the crisis that displaces presidents - a line for gas.
And the generation spawned in the 90s? Most likely weak and rotten. Can't put them through a candy line at the Safeway, they are the disaster of inflated self-esteem without a prime component - talent. Shiny new Chevy's with no engines.
But, despite the disparity between the positions of BJ and Cellar, things are good enough now, we don't need talent.
40. 109109 - July 23, 1998 - 11:57 AM PDT
stoys = toys
41. PseudoErasmus - July 23, 1998 - 12:11 PM PDT
Thoughtful (Message #36)
Funny. By my calculation, the peak-to-peak expansion of the last 8 years amounts to about 2.2% a year.
I used chained 1992 dollars from the Survey of Current Business for 1990:2 (the last official peak of the business cycle, according to the NBER) and 1998:1 (which I will assume as the peak, for now).
And we're not even talking about per capita GDP growth!
42. PseudoErasmus - July 23, 1998 - 12:13 PM PDT
Thoughtful
Sorry, all that detritus got in the way of my understanding your point. It appears Message #36 you were talking about productivity in the manufacturing. Sorry.
43. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 12:19 PM PDT
PseuE, I used the manufacturing sector output per hour of all persons from the BLS's Productivity and Cost series, and selected those years as they are essentially decades-long peak-to-peak comparisons.
44. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 12:20 PM PDT
*&($#&#( PseuE, cross post. $#&#))!$
45. PseudoErasmus - July 23, 1998 - 12:31 PM PDT
Yes, but manufacturing is a pretty small sector now. What's been the annual growth rate of output per hour in the general economy since 1990? Not much difference since the 70s and 80s, I believe.
46. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 12:32 PM PDT
PseuE, since you're here, I would appreciate any thoughts you might have on comparisons of the SE Asian crisis with that of Latin America in the 80s. Seems to me it's far more appropriate than comparisons to the recent Mexican meltdown.
I've been reading what Sachs had to say about it in Brookings, and it looks like the debt crisis whacked per capita real GDP for about 6 years. It was aggravated by declines in commodity prices, just as oil prices are collapsing now. It was spread over a wide region vs. Mexico's isolated incident.
A big difference was the investors were a few large US banks that had a real incentive to keep lengthening terms, forgiving interest, etc. As I recall, the saying was, "A rolling loan gathers no loss." Another big difference was in Latin Amer, the debt was largely public vs. lots of private debt in SE Asia.
Unfortunately, a similarity seems to be that, at the time, little attention was paid to the domestic economies and what was needed to get them growing again. Seems to be the case in SE Asia as well...which is really rather counterintuitive in the long run.
47. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 12:39 PM PDT
Oops, I forgot we weren't in the econ thread. You might want to post comments on SE Asia there, if you have any.
Yes, nonfarm productivity growth was 1.9% in the 70s, 1.1% in the 80s and 90s so far (using the same base years.) But there are reasons to suspect that services productivity hasn't been flat to negative (which is what the data imply) given the profitability of the services sector.
48. cyneal - July 23, 1998 - 12:43 PM PDT
I'd like to weigh in with my penny's worth. As a Gen-X'r I think religion socialism and technology will be the definig lines of the have and have nots. I think the lines, physical and otherwise, will be dropped with regards to race, ethnicity, money and country. We will essentially become a global community in every sense of the word and the new battleground will be defined by the three sections stated earlier.
Cas.
49. PseudoErasmus - July 23, 1998 - 12:45 PM PDT
Thoughtful: I'm sick of the Asian crisis, but the analogy one wants to make depends on your diagnosis of the crisis. If, like many, you see the Asian meltdown as an unnecessaary financial panic based on a flukey capital flight, then Mexico is the better comparison. Jamie Galbraith has argued forcefully (if not entirely convincingly) that U.S. interest rates triggered the collapse.
If however you subscribe to the theory that the Asian crisis points to a more fundamental and structural flaw in the Asian economies, then the debt crisis of the early 1980s looks like the better analogy. I think South Korea, at the very least, fits that description. All the hallmarks are there: collapsing semiconductor prices, global overcapacity in autos, and heavy reliance on a few industries are South Korea's analogues to Latin America's commodities bust. Plus, the outrageous underreporting of South Korean loans to the BIS certainly recalls the debt crisis. Remember how the estimated size of South Korea's external debt kept on increasing from $25 billion to $40B to $60B?
50. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 1:12 PM PDT
Yes, and of course, S. Korea played a role in the crisis of the 80s as well. However, I was thinking in terms of a model of recovery. The quick snapback in Mexican GDP: 94=4.5%; 95=-6.2%; 96=5.2% seems highly unlikely in the case of SE Asia. If anything, it looks like the worst is yet to come.
51. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 1:15 PM PDT
That's why, seeing the financial and economic dislocation out of the LA debt crisis which took, as I said 5 years to get through, seems a much more reasonable model of recovery to follow.
52. DanDillon - July 23, 1998 - 1:15 PM PDT
Based on the content of this thread, seems like the best name for the Nineties at this point would be The Economic Decade.
*hunh*
53. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 1:18 PM PDT
webfeet, Message #37 was an original as far as I know -- though I hate claiming authorship of something that sounds so much like a Hallmark card!
54. PseudoErasmus - July 23, 1998 - 1:28 PM PDT
Thoughtful (Message #50
Rudiger Dornbusch and Yung Chul Park wrote a good paper discussing how South Korea successfully adjusted to the 1980s debt crisis (as well as the various oil crises). It's one of the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity from 1987. 2nd or 3rd quarter, I think.
Re: Message #51
I disagree here. I don't think the Latin American debt crisis offers a useful model of recovery at all. Quite simply, the one overarching problem that plagued the debt crisis countries is missing in East Asia: hyperinflation, and the intractable politics of inflation. Moreover, most of those economies had been pursuing import-substitution policies, effectively closing themselves off from international trade. (See Jeffrey Sachs, ed., Developing Country Debt and the World Economy, from NBER. There is also Dornbusch's Macreconomics of Populism in Latin America.) The Latin American countries in the early 1980s were
too unlike East Asia, where export-oriented industrialisation was the norm.
A plausible model of recovery may be Chile: the one large Latin American debtor country to escape the crisis. What did Chile do that other countries didn't? You guessed it! Be a faithful puppy to the IMF.
55. 109109 - July 23, 1998 - 1:35 PM PDT
Ah, the Bubble 90s.
56. thoughtful - July 23, 1998 - 2:12 PM PDT
PseuE, yes S. Korea did do a good job of adjusting to its growing debt so it was able to have only one year of recession in 1980. It is in contrasting Korea's performance with the Latin nations at that time that the similarities to today's SE Asia arise:
a) the inability to replace shrinking domestic demand with growth from the trade sector. So far, as you had so sagely predicted, exports haven't grown, but imports have collapsed.
b)the drop in spending falling heavily on the investment sector as well as the consumption sector. As already mentioned, lots of excess capacity, and not just in Korea.
c)capital flight, encouraged by debt, which impedes growth and investment even in export-related sectors.
d)reluctance on the part of external lenders to even lend for export-oriented activity lest their loans end up in bankrupt pools of uncollectible debt.
All of this works to depress growth in the region for a long time to come.
Also, re hyperinflation, inflation rates are already up into the 30% or more range (much higher in Indonesia), and how the government's choose to react to collapsing domestic demand, IMF reforms, and the debt overhang means that hyperinflation is far from out of the realm of possibilities.
57. chloel - July 23, 1998 - 3:18 PM PDT
thoughtful
I would say you described not not 'coming of age' but not 'becoming aged'. There must be something between adolescence and senescence.
58. PseudoErasmus - July 23, 1998 - 3:48 PM PDT
Thoughtful (Message #56)
Your (a) is eccentric. The debt crisis countries engaged in too little international trade, except in commodities exports. The East Asian countries (especially South Korea and Thailand), in a way, engaged in too much. Hence, the large current account deficits, suppression of domestic consumption in order to finance export investment, etc. Exports could only shrink because the main areas of overinvestment WERE in the export sector.
Re (c), the cause of the capital flight is utterly different. In Latin America, it was mostly hyperinflation. Not so in East Asia. And the only crisis country in East Asia with inflationary problems is Indonesia, and Indonesia's inflation hardly ranks with Bolivia's or Brazil's in the 1980s.
59. lemwalker - July 23, 1998 - 4:02 PM PDT
In 40 years the "90's" will be long gone. If tv still gets advertising revenue then it will be a two hour mini-series. Very few paid attention to previous decades before tv. Doesn't matter. Each generation makes the same mistakes, for the same self-interested reasons.
60. chloel - July 23, 1998 - 4:10 PM PDT
nostalgia is older than TV! especially false nostalgia. heck, in the '30s some historians claimed that Sir Walter Scott was a partial cause of loyalty to the Confederacy. I think the historians in turn were being nostalgic.
This can't be the "Gilded Age", we'd have to be the "Gold-Toned Age". Maybe the "Gold-Toned and Buffed Age".
61. wabbit - July 23, 1998 - 4:53 PM PDT
Y'all are taking this too seriously.
The 1990's are the penis decade. Consider the Million Man March and the Promise Keepers, Tailhook and various other military sexually oriented cases, our obsession with the detailed description of the Presidential member and its various dalliances, likewise Hugh Grant and Eddie Murphy, the Bobbits, Boogie Nights, Viagra.....
62. BOOMERJEFF - July 23, 1998 - 5:39 PM PDT
wabbit makes a pretty good case!
I'll never forget the night I tuned in to see Barbara Walters and Hugh Downs in all their solmn and aged dignity speaking toghether, in unemotional monitones, about penises.
When those two started in TV anyone who mentioned the word would have been fired instantly! Probably the station/network would have been fined!
63. CharlieL - July 23, 1998 - 6:18 PM PDT
The '90s -- The fourth decade in a row that BoomerJeff doesn't understand.
64. lemwalker - July 23, 1998 - 6:19 PM PDT
True Chloe. But they didn't have a thousand pixels for background.
We forget tragedies and horror quicker than happiness and success, hence nostalgia.
Good point Wabbit. I have one but my wife is in charge of "it". Will leave that aspect of topic to the distaff.
Someone may gain enough power to change the calender. Then where would we be?
65. unknown - July 24, 1998 - 3:50 AM PDT
the nineties: yet another in a long line of "well, it seemed cool at the time" decades. Other than that, won't be remembered for anything much. I mean, who the hell remembers decades in terms of what things were invented in them?
On second thought, maybe it's the "sport a Hilfiger shirt while shoveling dirt at the Habitat for Humanity site" decade.
67. BOOMERJEFF - July 24, 1998 - 9:37 AM PDT
How about the decade when the Democrat party finaly imploded?
68. glendajean - July 24, 1998 - 9:45 AM PDT
Uh, BJ, there is a Bible verse that says "pride cometh before a fall." It looks like the ole Republican Party is in the middle of its own meltdown.
69. JJBiener - July 24, 1998 - 9:52 AM PDT
I realize it is hard to imagine that people would be nostalgic for the 90's, but we thought the same thing about the 70's.
70. JJBiener - July 24, 1998 - 9:59 AM PDT
Boomer - I think that is just wishful thinking. The Democrats will be here as long as we have class envy and resentment of success. As long as people want something for nothing and believe they can use the government to get it for them, Democrats will have their base of supporters.
71. MSURichard - July 24, 1998 - 10:16 AM PDT
JJ Biener:
The above post is proof-positive that you have been brainwashed from aleins from Outer Space such as Rush Limbaugh! Oh, puhleezzz!
72. MSURichard - July 24, 1998 - 10:20 AM PDT
Yes, I predict that the Republicans have ticked off so many gay people that the gays will storm out in just enough numbers to provide the margin of victory the Democrats need to retake control of the House of Representatives. The religious right is beginning to wise up and realize they have been suckered for two decades by the rich country-club Republicans, and no amount of gay-basing will be enough to cause them to troop out to the polls with ballot guides provided by the GOP's puppets like they did in the last few presidential elections.
73. arkymalarky - July 24, 1998 - 10:31 AM PDT
Wow, JJ. What an insightful summation of the Democratic party. Your reputation as the paradoxical Right-Winger with reason is slipping from you, there, pard.
MSU,
JJ's just upset that people aren't being nostalgic about the '80s, his and BJ's favorite decade.
74. MSURichard - July 24, 1998 - 10:45 AM PDT
Yeah, I think that Boomer and JJ would love that old album of the Village People called "Getting Ready for the 80's"! The 80's were the decade of yuppies on Wall Street stepping over the homeless, being careful not to stain their Gucci shoes. It was a decade of war-mongering and greed and selfishness being held up as civic virtues by an actor President being given his script from the Chamber of Commerce, this President who also had Nancy's Beverly Hills astrologer plan his daily schedule. An incredibly vacaus and shallow decade.
75. joezan - July 24, 1998 - 7:47 PM PDT
MSURichard:
First you out yourself. That I can handle.
Now, you're a Reagan-hating demoquack? Yikes!
When is this 30-day trial period over, anyway?
76. SharonSchroeder - July 24, 1998 - 8:58 PM PDT
After the tragedy today perhaps the 90's will be known as the decade of random public shootings. Drive-bys, schoolyards and public buildings....
77. MSURichard - July 25, 1998 - 1:12 PM PDT
JoeZan:
Well, you can relax, you and all the other wackos on the loonytarian fringe! My 30-Day trial will soon be over, and since I don't have a credit card I will proably skip the renewal because I don't want to bother with the trouble of sending a check in the mail and all that other junk. Its too bad Slate doesn't at least allow the public into the Fray for free, it wouldn't cost them much, and it would greatly increase the diversity of the forum. I can understand them wanting to charge for the magazine itself, since there are a lot of wonderful stories and articles in it, which I ussually don't read because I really do not like reading long articles on a computer sceen. It makes my eyes sore and gives me a huge headache from the eye strain.
Oh well, Joe, greetings from a fellow Michigander!
78. CLLRDR - July 25, 1998 - 2:03 PM PDT
Don't let them get to you MSURichard. But with Jenerator breathing down your neck, I'm sure you can stand practicaly anything.
J.J. -- Please advise on what the poor should be doing rather than giving inot "class envy." Don't you mean "class struggle"? (Gasp!) Could you be a closet Marxist in Neocon clothing?
79. MSURichard - July 25, 1998 - 2:20 PM PDT
You know that Jenerator woman sort of reminds me of Carrie's Bible-thumping mother in that old movie "Carrie", which was about Carrie, a girl with psychic powers who was tormented by her high school peers. Carrie's mother, a fundamentalist thumper, could not accept Carrie's powers. Anyway, hell broke loose at Carrie's high school prom! A classic movie.
Oh well, happy weekend to all!
80. SharonSchroeder - July 25, 1998 - 4:16 PM PDT
Richard, I loved that movie! You're right on the mark, methinks ;-)
81. marshame - July 26, 1998 - 3:49 PM PDT
Hey, Jenerator's not so bad! (Certainly not as bad as Carrie's mother!)
It seems to me that the 90's is a decade of polarization. It seems that every issue seems to have its line drawn in the sand, and you are forced to chose up sides, and each side pulls to the extreme. Look at what we've been dealing with: gun control, abortion rights, gay rights, the collapse of public schools (in all senses of the words).
82. BOOMERJEFF - July 27, 1998 - 10:03 AM PDT
MSURichard #72
"… I predict that the Republicans have ticked off so many gay people that the gays will storm out in just enough numbers to provide the margin of victory the Democrats need to retake control of the House of Representatives."
Richard, Why should the republicans care what gays, who would never vote for them in a hundred years anyway, think?
83. PsychProf - July 27, 1998 - 10:08 AM PDT
50'S=US
60'S=WE
70'S=ME FIRST
8O'S=I
90'S=NOBODY
84. BOOMERJEFF - July 27, 1998 - 10:28 AM PDT
I was watching the History channel yesterday. There was a program on the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party. One of the nazi strategies was to appear to be soooo generous to children and regular people. There was 1937 footage of Goebbles playing Santa Clause and handing out presents to children.
Apparently a large portion of Germans, fell for it, not realizing it was their tax money that was funding all this caring generosity. The program reminded me of the Clinton/Gore air conditioning give-away. "Oh so generous and caring is this man," we're told by the TV morons. Why not give away ice cream Sundays in every region where the temp rises above 90?
When will people ever realize that these "caring", "generous", "compassionate" politicians are no better than muggers?
85. BOOMERJEFF - July 27, 1998 - 10:29 AM PDT
Sory, wrong thread...
86. CLLRDR - July 27, 1998 - 10:33 AM PDT
So Newt's smugness is true compassion, while Clinton's a Nazi. Hey I thought Clinton was a Chinese Commie. Oh, whatever.
87. arkymalarky - July 27, 1998 - 10:51 AM PDT
Excuse me, BJ, but the heat has actually killed around 100 people in Texas alone. We're not just talking pr here.
88. bubbaette - July 27, 1998 - 10:59 AM PDT
Boomer
As generous as Reagan and Bush with tax breaks for the rich that they put on our national Visa card?
89. MSURichard - July 27, 1998 - 11:29 AM PDT
BoomerJeff:
All I can say, is if you really believe your inane comparison of Hitler during the Nazi years and Clinton trying to help poor people from dying of heat stroke in 100-plus record heat during a heat wave, then you are nothing but a absolute raving moron!
This mentality is dangerous for our country. It shows the lows that the Clinton-haters will go to in their absolute and evil hatred of this man.
90. BOOMERJEFF - July 27, 1998 - 2:12 PM PDT
Excuse me folks but I made the observation that Clinton uses the same strategy as did the Nazis, for the same reason, to buy public supporet. The strategy followed by BOTH is, seize money from tax payers and then make a great show of being compassionate, caring, and yada, yada, yada with that seized money. The desired result is that the not-so-incisive thinkers will buy it and respect this corrupt politician for his kindess, compassion, etc.
Sadly, IT STILL WORKS!
91. CLLRDR - July 27, 1998 - 2:31 PM PDT
The Nazis didn't need to buy public support, Boom Boom. They had it from the start.
92. glendajean - July 27, 1998 - 3:02 PM PDT
Boomer -- "Why should the republicans care what gays, who would never vote for them in a hundred years anyway, think?"
According to network exit polls, 34% of the gay vote went Republican in the last election. Those same polls showed that 5% of total voters self-identified as gay or bisexual.
I am the last person to defend the Republican Party, But there are gay people in that party and there is also (particularly from the northeast) moderate Republicans who have stood up for gay rights.
Polling done by Republican pollsters after Trent Lott and the latest attacks on gay people picked up negative responses from suburban America (according to NY Times even in Bible Belt precincts).
But I must agree with you on this: the Republican Party leadership has done everything to possible to make gay and lesbian Americans feel like they are on the party's enemy list.
93. BOOMERJEFF - July 27, 1998 - 3:02 PM PDT
CLLRDR
The nazis were no different from any other political faction. They like Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Liberals, Conservatives, etc. had the support of SOME of the population, not all. They needed to drum up support pending the time when they could rule by force.
94. CLLRDR - July 27, 1998 - 3:08 PM PDT
Boomer you're so adorable when you trash history.
95. BOOMERJEFF - July 27, 1998 - 3:12 PM PDT
glendajean
It would seem that to vote Republican is to be SHARPLY opposed to the political agenda of the leaders of the so-called "gay movement."
If 34% of gays voted Republican last time I doubt that Lott changed any minds. It is not uncommon for the grass roots types to be unaware of or to disagree with the self-appointed "leaders," including those leaders attacks on various candidates.
Thus, some Christians vote Democrat, some union members are Conservative (many, actually) some teachers vote GOP, some blacks vote GOP, some rich guys vote Democrat (a lot, actually).
96. SharonSchroeder - July 27, 1998 - 3:26 PM PDT
Jeff: "some Christians vote Democrat" Are you implying that most Democrats are not christian?
97. BOOMERJEFF - July 27, 1998 - 3:46 PM PDT
SharonSchroeder
I should have qualified that... Some Evangelical Christians vote Democrat.
To answer your question, most of the Democrats I've interacted with here in the fray are very proudly NOT Christian. But I have no data for the electorate as a whole.
98. PseudoErasmus - July 27, 1998 - 4:38 PM PDT
As usual, neither Cellardweller nor BoomBoom knows what either is talking about.
CD doesn't realise that till the very eve of their assumption of power, the Nazis were a minority party in Germany.
NSDAP percentages in Reichstag (parliamentary) elections:
1928: 2.6% [two point six]
1930: 20.3%
Presidential election of 1932:
1st Round
von Hindeburg: 49.6%
Hitler: 30.1%
2nd Round
von Hindenburg: 53%
Hitler: 36.8%
Now, in Message #84 BoomBoom offers us the typically bizarre hallucination that average people are libertarians. Anyway, if the German people were actually won over by the Nazis in power, it was for ending the Great Depression in Germany.
99. BOOMERJEFF - July 27, 1998 - 4:45 PM PDT
PE
You'd better read #84 again. In your zeal to accumulate insults to hurl out into the cyber void you fooled yourself! Again.
100. PseudoErasmus - July 27, 1998 - 5:09 PM PDT
BoomButt
This is what you said in Message #84:
"Apparently a large portion of Germans, fell for [the appearance of Nazi generosity toward children], not realizing it was their tax money that was funding all this caring generosity."
This is not what a normal and balanced person would first think of to say about acts of Nazi "generosity".
I assume that if Nazi party cadres had donated their own, hard-earned private money, rather than give away the German taxpayers', it would have been just super!
going to Texas myself even for so useful a purpose. It wouldn't be efficient.
102. BOOMERJEFF - July 27, 1998 - 5:30 PM PDT
PE
LOL!
This is getting better and better! Now you're an expert on what "normal balanced persons" would think of to say when confronted with a government official handing out taxpayer funded generosity.
Have you some studies or charts to back this up?
103. glendajean - July 27, 1998 - 6:01 PM PDT
"If 34% of gays voted Republican last time I doubt that Lott changed any minds. It is not uncommon for the grass roots types to be unaware of or to disagree with the self-appointed "leaders," including those leaders attacks on various candidates."
I don't know, Boomer, but I feel that these attacks did register on the radar screen of all kinds of gay people, including the Republican ones. It plays out in all kinds of ways and could possibly have a major effect in California at the congressional and state level of races. In the U.S. Congress, the majority party has gay and lesbian staffers. I have no doubt that they will continue to work on behalf of their bosses, but perhaps with some regret. Major funders of the party have gay and lesbian children and may react. If Alan Wolfe's theories are anywhere near true, even the middle class majority uncomfortable with homosexuality rejects mean-spirited attacks and such reactions could hurt Republicans in the same suburbs where Clinton beat them in 1996.
I assume that the House won't exchange hands in 1998, but look at it this way. The Republican majority Congressional party has a 11 vote lead over the Democratic minority. Even in 1994, the percentage of win to loss was fairly close in many elections. I'd say the Dobson vote is now energized, but that vote does not give the Republicans what they need to truly become a majority party.
104. CLLRDR - July 27, 1998 - 6:24 PM PDT
PE -- I'm for collective guilt all the way -- even more so as regards Austria.
Boomer -- What kind of Republican are you? Don't you know the "tent" isn't big enough for gays and lesbians? Or do you have "Log Cabin" friends? Personally, I prefer old-fashioned S & M to this new-fangled "Log Cabin" stuff.I guess I'm just behind the times.
105. JustSayYo - July 27, 1998 - 6:31 PM PDT
hmmm.
lost me here.
I think I am the nineties. Yes, I YO am the nineties. I define it. I am the one. Yes I am the one. Me, me, me, e=me. I am me, me is me, I am the nineties.
I'm such a goofball.heheheheheheheheheeeeeeee
106. JustSayYo - July 27, 1998 - 6:46 PM PDT
HA! killed the conversation did I! That'll prove I'm the one.
No one can stand up to my aura, it shines with the might of the sun.
Now let's all break out singing the song by Fifth Dimension, Let the sunshine in.
Ok, I'm done now. Don't be mad, just get glad.
107. SharonSchroeder - July 27, 1998 - 6:50 PM PDT
Don't worry... Be happy! ;-)
108. chloel - July 27, 1998 - 8:01 PM PDT
The Sun Machine is coming down and there's going to be a party, yey-a-hey;
109. BOOMERJEFF - July 28, 1998 - 10:42 AM PDT
Glendajean
Perhaps Lott's comments seem like "mean spirited attacks" to you but most folks, if they hear the actual words wouldn't judge them so harshly.
As to gay support of the GOP, the fact remains that so-called "gay leaders" (do gays elect these folks? By what criteria are they crowd "leader?") have attacked and excoriated the GOP and everyone in it for a decade. Any gays who still vote GOP have obviously decided that it is the best interest of themselves and/or the country to do so, in spite of the fact that the other party is more supportive of gays.
Once again, Lott's remarks are a non-event except in the minds of the super-sensitive, professional, gay loud-mouths.
110. glendajean - July 28, 1998 - 12:02 PM PDT
Well Boomer, I assume you know loud mouths better than I.
But your knowlege of gay leadership and the GOP is little bit weak. Contrary to your assessment, the Human Rights Campaign has donated and endorsed Republican congressional candidates. Their trend is more bi-partisan rather than less (over the past five election cycles or so). They do not give to the Jesse Helms of the world and that's a postive thing. The responses to Lott are very fair. A leader in the U.S. government compares a whole class of people to kleptomaniacs. That's a non-event to you. Combined with the other related attacks, it is getting gay people's attention.
Btw, not everybody who holds office in this country who is a Republican is negative on gay/lesbian issues.
How does anybody become a leader in this country? Do the James Dobsons or Gary Bauers of the world hold greater esteem in your mind because someone voted for them? Given your logic, you must assume that they are super sensitive religious loud mouths.
111. glendajean - July 28, 1998 - 1:09 PM PDT
GOP Split Over Moral Agenda
By RON FOURNIER
WASHINGTON (AP) - Fueling the party's ideological divide, a group of GOP moderates is warning that a narrowly drawn moral agenda could cost
Republicans control of the House in November. The Republican Leadership Council recently commissioned a poll of voters in 77 competitive House districts, concluding that undecided voters are likely to vote Democratic if Republicans appear too extreme.
``The center of the electorate is both the problem and the opportunity for the Republican Party,'' wrote pollster Kieran Mahoney. She suggested the GOP focus on its popular education and economic plans - not social issues such as homosexuality, abortion and pornography.
The poll was being released at a news conference today - 100 days before Election Day. It follows the Republican National Committee's weekend meeting in New York, which showcased vocal moderate leaders who are sometimes at odds with more conservative Republicans.
112. Seamus - July 28, 1998 - 1:42 PM PDT
"The 90's--the decade in which Helmut Kohl got bigger!"
113. JJBiener - July 28, 1998 - 3:37 PM PDT
glendajean - "Given your logic, you must assume that they [the Dobsons and Bauers] are super sensitive religious loud mouths."
Yes, your point is?
(g)
114. JadeGold - July 29, 1998 - 7:02 AM PDT
BoomBoom;
There is no denying that gays, by and large, do not support the GOP.
There is a reason. The GOP is a bigoted, intolerant party. Gays did not wake up one day and say, "let's go criticize the GOP." Instead, the GOP, through its policies and public stances, alienated gays over a period of years.
Political parties attract groups through their policies and public stances. Not vice versa.
115. SharonSchroeder - July 30, 1998 - 8:40 PM PDT
JJ, Glenda & Jade: Pardon the interruption but aren't we a tad off topic here. I'm just a regular ole nobody like everyone else but perhaps this is already being discussed in a number of other threads.
116. VicKuligin - Aug. 2, 1998 - 7:32 PM PDT
"The GOP is a bigoted, intolerant party."
Much the same can be said more many Democrats. It is just that they define "intolerant" to exclude themselves.
117. VicKuligin - Aug. 2, 1998 - 7:34 PM PDT
As for the nineties, it will go down as simply the last decade of the 20th century, and nothing more.
118. VicKuligin - Aug. 2, 1998 - 7:35 PM PDT
"Instead, the GOP, through its policies and public stances, alienated gays over a period of years."
And thank goodness it did. I mean really, who needs <5% of the population anyway, when the GOP has already shown that they can win without them?
119. CLLRDR - Aug. 2, 1998 - 8:25 PM PDT
Where do you get your percentage figures Vic? Peter Labarbera perhaps? Gee, for such a small part of the population we're wildly overrepresented in the Fray, not to mention the rest of AOL. Say, what's going on here? Is the Internet "intrinsically gay" like ballet, opera, broadway musicals, fashion, hairdressing, etc. Oh my God Vic -- you'd better get off line now before it's too late!
120. bubbaette - Aug. 3, 1998 - 5:07 AM PDT
Seamus, re 112
How does that differentiate the 90s from any other decade?
121. VicKuligin - Aug. 3, 1998 - 10:42 AM PDT
CLLRDR
I don't even know who Peter Labarbera is, but about two years ago, both Time and Newsweek (and possibly US NEWS did too, but I can't recall) had articles about the subject, criticizing the old numbers. The latest studies as reported there were around 5% of the population.
BTW, I wouldn't take the Fray as some sort of "standard" measuring pool. Take religion for example. How many Muslims post there, or New Agers, or buddhists, etc? Quite frankly, I'm surprised how many evangelicals post there regularly.
122. JadeGold - Aug. 3, 1998 - 10:48 AM PDT
VK: "And thank goodness it did. I mean really, who needs 5% of the population anyway, when the GOP has already shown that they can win without them?"
So, is it your position that the GOP should write off 5% of all Americans?
123. Ronski - Aug. 3, 1998 - 10:49 AM PDT
Vic,
Your remark about gays and the GOP does not strike me as particularly charitable; am I missing irony?
124. bubbaette - Aug. 3, 1998 - 10:50 AM PDT
5% here, 5% there, soon enough you've alienated the entire population.
125. JadeGold - Aug. 3, 1998 - 10:53 AM PDT
Well, maybe VK is onto the GOP strategy. If they can attract all the white, straight, Christian males---who needs the rest of America?
126. bubbaette - Aug. 3, 1998 - 10:56 AM PDT
Jade
That's well under 50% of the population. Plus if the rest of us find those chosen few as obnoxious as we find Vic K, then we'll vote against them.
127. CLLRDR - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:06 AM PDT
Vic -- How did "Time " and "Newsweek" come up with their figures to counter the "old numbers"? If the "Old numbers" meant Kinsey, that was a 10% manufactured by the press. Kinsey never asked his subjects if they were gay or lesbian -- as current surveys do. He asked them to describe their sexual experiences. Period. There's an enormous difference between these two questions. Kinsey didn't believe in "homosexuality" as a distinct behavioral category. Rather, he posited a 1-6 scale of behavioral frequency. (I'm a 6 myself!)
128. VicKuligin - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:10 AM PDT
Ronski
You got it.
129. VicKuligin - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:12 AM PDT
Jade
If 5% of the population does not agree with your political platform, should a political party change it and risk losing the 40% that does?
130. bubbaette - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:12 AM PDT
Ronski
Vic's an equal-opportunity hate monger. Just some are more equal than others.
131. VicKuligin - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:14 AM PDT
And you are not bubbaette?!
132. bubbaette - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:15 AM PDT
No, I'm not really Bubbaette, that's just my pen-name.
133. elliot803 - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:16 AM PDT
VicKuligin:
Please become a GOP activist. I can't think of a more effective way of driving people out of the Party.
134. CLLRDR - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:16 AM PDT
bubbaette was once a writer for the Marz Bros., Vic.
135. elliot803 - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:20 AM PDT
Vic,
In what sense are your remarks about gays and the GOP ironic?
136. VicKuligin - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:21 AM PDT
elliot, if it meant driving folks like you away, I would gladly do it. But to be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less about politics.
137. VicKuligin - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:23 AM PDT
elliot
A political party usually bends over backwards to attempt to please all people. Generally speaking, politicians are cameleons and will change position like the wind, if they think it can garner them more votes. This applies equally to Republicans and Democrats.
My comment was meant to take a jab at this mentality, in essence to say, if 5% of the population doesn't like what I stand for, screw them. Not a good tactic for a politician, but sometimes, I think one that politicians should be more willing to use.
138. CLLRDR - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:26 AM PDT
Alright Fraysters, let's remember this now : August 3, 1998, 11:21 a.m. in "Defining the Nineties" -- VicKulin declares "But to be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less about politics."
Has everybody got that?
Good.
139. elliot803 - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:26 AM PDT
Vic, then I don't see how your remarks were ironic. Ronski's interpretation was correct.
140. VicKuligin - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:27 AM PDT
And your point is??
141. CLLRDR - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:31 AM PDT
Vic wants to screw 5% of the population? Talk about "sexual addiction"!
142. bubbaette - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:33 AM PDT
CLLRDR
LOL!
143. ScotusAntonovich - Aug. 3, 1998 - 11:36 AM PDT
Maybe the irony is a "Christian" hates 5% of the population?
144. trouserPilot - Aug. 3, 1998 - 12:54 PM PDT
Not "irony" ... but, yes, I would put that percentage much higher.
145. JustSayYo - Aug. 5, 1998 - 3:13 AM PDT
defining the 90's-
Gender and Orientation is becoming a topic which can be discussed openly in cyberspace.
Realities of the War on Drugs are coming to light. The government is a big deliverer of homegrown;---------jails that is. Programs for incarceration are at an all time high but rehabilitation is all but unheard of in political speak or news reports.
Dumb-shit politicians are messing with our tax money to go after a president who has reigned over major economic stability and growth,(is that right economists?) It seems to be stable to us normal folk.
The people want reporting of these dumb-shit politicians so we can ROCK the vote and kick their dumb-asses out.
Network reporting shows are at an all time high.
T.V talk shows like Jerry Springer are at an all time high. That tells me a lot of people are still too ignorant and need a life. I am also pissed that my daughter likes to laugh at J.S. guests, that is she gets a kick out of stupid people. That I don't like.
Progressive Rock has become very commercial. Alternative Rock has been even more marketable and should be relabeled POP! That sucks. I defined P.R. as bands who experimented with rock sound and vocals and giving a message never hurt. Alternative I've defined as mass consumable rock which could not be defined by the beats of bands such as Led Zeppelin or Aero Smith. Another way to define A.R. is to think it isn't metal bangers music.