PDA

View Full Version : They're happy in the WH today


Mavdog
06-03-2004, 07:03 PM
I do have to mention that this was a good day in the Bush camp, they seem to have stopped the descent with some good news from Iraq and from the other side of the aisle.

The best news came from Iraq, where Al-Sistani ended his seemingly internal exile and issued an approval of the Interim government. This one man seems to be critical to that country's (and the ability to be leaving sooner) succcess.

A UN resolution appears to be close as well, which is the first step in untangling the US occupation. No matter who is elected this fall the look and composition of the forces in Iraq will change, and the sooner this is done the better for all involved.

Domestically, the Bush campaign got the fall guy for the security/intelligence failures. Not saying that Tenet was forced out or even that he is the person responsible, just that his stepping down makes him an easy role player. Nothing wrong with being opportunistic during a campaign. Now they can make the point that there are changes that will take place in our spook area, appearing to confront the intelligence failures.

Ralph Nader came out and criticized Kerry's position on energy, and gave the look of a man who is going to keep on running. That was good enough last time, it may be enough this time too. Kerry will pull 4% less with Nader in the race.

Even OPEC joined in with some positive energy and agreed to boost production. I've read that this is really a fascade, they already pump about the amount they agreed today to raise their levels to, yet the move signals that they feel the price of oil has gone too high for anybody's good.

Yep, there's smiling going on over there today. There's still a lot of time left though...

dude1394
06-03-2004, 07:54 PM
Also heard that nader is angling to get the green party nomination/endorsement. Someone said that would put him on either an additiaon 43 or a total of 43 states which was more than last year.

Nader is an interesting wildcard, especially this year as he really DOES have a platform that a lot of libs support. Last year he was just sort of there and had an effect, this year, even though the libs hate bush more than they like kerry, in their blood they are anti-war peaceniks.

reeds
06-03-2004, 10:03 PM
Yep- I hate to admit it- but Kerry is toast..stick a fork in him- hes done...with all the negative news in the past 6 months on Bush- he should have been way ahead in the polls..Nader is the last straw...another four years of hell....lol

dude1394
06-03-2004, 10:16 PM
Well reeds, your momma made you take bad-tasting medicine too. You just don't recognize what is good for you yet, but I have hope. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

kg_veteran
06-04-2004, 09:59 AM
With the job news that just came out today, Kerry is in real trouble...

Drbio
06-04-2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
With the job news that just came out today, Kerry is in real trouble...

beat me to it.....

Mavdog
06-04-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
With the job news that just came out today, Kerry is in real trouble...

there's a lot of anger directed at Bush, some earned and some not. If the second half of '04 is no better than the first half has been in Iraq, there's increasing frustration that it's not being executed right and you know where the "buck" (or the foot) stops.

kg_veteran
06-04-2004, 04:55 PM
Kerry had his chance. He didn't take advantage of it.

dude1394
06-04-2004, 05:56 PM
Great line by the WSJ and the pessimism of kerry.


More good economic news, for everyone but the Bush-haters: The U.S. economy added some 248,000 jobs in May, according to government figures. The Associated Press reports:

Payrolls swelled by almost 1 million in the last three months alone, the Labor Department said Friday. Employment figures for March and April were revised up to reflect the addition of 353,000 and 346,000 jobs respectively.

On his campaign Web site, John Kerry promises to create 10 million new jobs during his four-year term as president. That's a rate of 625,000 every three months, or only 66% of the past three months' performance under President Bush. Can we really afford to elect someone who sets his sights so low?

reeds
06-04-2004, 06:20 PM
"Well reeds, your momma made you take bad-tasting medicine too. You just don't recognize what is good for you yet, but I have hope. "

DUDE- that was FUNNY....i must admit

LRB
06-04-2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Great line by the WSJ and the pessimism of kerry.


More good economic news, for everyone but the Bush-haters: The U.S. economy added some 248,000 jobs in May, according to government figures. The Associated Press reports:

Payrolls swelled by almost 1 million in the last three months alone, the Labor Department said Friday. Employment figures for March and April were revised up to reflect the addition of 353,000 and 346,000 jobs respectively.

On his campaign Web site, John Kerry promises to create 10 million new jobs during his four-year term as president. That's a rate of 625,000 every three months, or only 66% of the past three months' performance under President Bush. Can we really afford to elect someone who sets his sights so low?


lol. Talk about putting your virtual foot in your virtual mouth. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

Mavdog
06-04-2004, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: dude1394
Great line by the WSJ and the pessimism of kerry.


More good economic news, for everyone but the Bush-haters: The U.S. economy added some 248,000 jobs in May, according to government figures. The Associated Press reports:

Payrolls swelled by almost 1 million in the last three months alone, the Labor Department said Friday. Employment figures for March and April were revised up to reflect the addition of 353,000 and 346,000 jobs respectively.

On his campaign Web site, John Kerry promises to create 10 million new jobs during his four-year term as president. That's a rate of 625,000 every three months, or only 66% of the past three months' performance under President Bush. Can we really afford to elect someone who sets his sights so low?


lol. Talk about putting your virtual foot in your virtual mouth. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

the fact is that there are 1.2 million fewer jobs today than when Bush took office. While the past few months have been good for job growth, to merely examine that short term timeline is not an accurate measurement. If the economy continues adding jobs, Bush might see as many people working at the end of his term than were working when he took office, not a very strong record to say the least.
That would also make the goal that kerry set 10 Million times that which Bush accomplished. That's truly setting one's "sights"" high.

LRB
06-04-2004, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: dude1394
Great line by the WSJ and the pessimism of kerry.


More good economic news, for everyone but the Bush-haters: The U.S. economy added some 248,000 jobs in May, according to government figures. The Associated Press reports:

Payrolls swelled by almost 1 million in the last three months alone, the Labor Department said Friday. Employment figures for March and April were revised up to reflect the addition of 353,000 and 346,000 jobs respectively.

On his campaign Web site, John Kerry promises to create 10 million new jobs during his four-year term as president. That's a rate of 625,000 every three months, or only 66% of the past three months' performance under President Bush. Can we really afford to elect someone who sets his sights so low?


lol. Talk about putting your virtual foot in your virtual mouth. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

the fact is that there are 1.2 million fewer jobs today than when Bush took office. While the past few months have been good for job growth, to merely examine that short term timeline is not an accurate measurement. If the economy continues adding jobs, Bush might see as many people working at the end of his term than were working when he took office, not a very strong record to say the least.
That would also make the goal that kerry set 10 Million times that which Bush accomplished. That's truly setting one's "sights"" high.

Considering that Bush inherited a horrible and slumping economy from Bill "I'd rather screw interns than work" Clinton. Add on top of that the 9/11 attacks and the campaigns in Afaghanistan and Iraq, and I'd say that Bush has one hell of a record to stand on to have turned things around the way he has. Now he's got the economy growing great. The 1st few years of the next presidential term, no matter who is elected, will largely depend on the work done this term. But Kerry is stating that he can't even keep up the momentum that Bush has generated. What a loser. Bush comes in with crap and turns it into roses. Kerry wants to take roses and turn it into crappy roses.

Mavdog
06-06-2004, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: dude1394
Great line by the WSJ and the pessimism of kerry.


More good economic news, for everyone but the Bush-haters: The U.S. economy added some 248,000 jobs in May, according to government figures. The Associated Press reports:

Payrolls swelled by almost 1 million in the last three months alone, the Labor Department said Friday. Employment figures for March and April were revised up to reflect the addition of 353,000 and 346,000 jobs respectively.

On his campaign Web site, John Kerry promises to create 10 million new jobs during his four-year term as president. That's a rate of 625,000 every three months, or only 66% of the past three months' performance under President Bush. Can we really afford to elect someone who sets his sights so low?


lol. Talk about putting your virtual foot in your virtual mouth. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

the fact is that there are 1.2 million fewer jobs today than when Bush took office. While the past few months have been good for job growth, to merely examine that short term timeline is not an accurate measurement. If the economy continues adding jobs, Bush might see as many people working at the end of his term than were working when he took office, not a very strong record to say the least.
That would also make the goal that kerry set 10 Million times that which Bush accomplished. That's truly setting one's "sights"" high.

Considering that Bush inherited a horrible and slumping economy from Bill "I'd rather screw interns than work" Clinton.

I'm not sure what "horrible" economy means to you, but there were an annual avg of 2.5 Million jobs created in the prior eight years.
the contraction began several months into the Bush term BTW, and it would have occured no matter who was in office. that tho is just an excuse.


Add on top of that the 9/11 attacks and the campaigns in Afaghanistan and Iraq, and I'd say that Bush has one hell of a record to stand on to have turned things around the way he has.

guess you haven't considered the impact of these expensive actions. The war juices the economy.


Now he's got the economy growing great. The 1st few years of the next presidential term, no matter who is elected, will largely depend on the work done this term. But Kerry is stating that he can't even keep up the momentum that Bush has generated. What a loser. Bush comes in with crap and turns it into roses. Kerry wants to take roses and turn it into crappy roses.

the 3 month trend on job growth is now negative btw.

dude1394
06-06-2004, 09:55 AM
the 3 month trend on job growth is now negative btw.


http://www.geocities.com/~kashalinka/ReadingRm/photos_images/climber.jpg

LRB
06-07-2004, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by: Mavdog




Considering that Bush inherited a horrible and slumping economy from Bill "I'd rather screw interns than work" Clinton.

I'm not sure what "horrible" economy means to you, but there were an annual avg of 2.5 Million jobs created in the prior eight years.
the contraction began several months into the Bush term BTW, and it would have occured no matter who was in office. that tho is just an excuse.


Add on top of that the 9/11 attacks and the campaigns in Afaghanistan and Iraq, and I'd say that Bush has one hell of a record to stand on to have turned things around the way he has.

guess you haven't considered the impact of these expensive actions. The war juices the economy.


Now he's got the economy growing great. The 1st few years of the next presidential term, no matter who is elected, will largely depend on the work done this term. But Kerry is stating that he can't even keep up the momentum that Bush has generated. What a loser. Bush comes in with crap and turns it into roses. Kerry wants to take roses and turn it into crappy roses.

the 3 month trend on job growth is now negative btw.

Clinton benefited from much of the work breviously done by Reagan and then Bush. Clinton also was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. The internet boom coincided with most of the Clinton tenure. And no Al Gore did not invent the internet as much as he'd like to believe so.

The internet bubble was going to burst and a market an economic correction was coming no matter what. However Clinton's actions made that burst and subsequent crash much harsher than it needed to be. Bush inherited this economy and has spent much of his 1st term attempting to undo the damage of Clinton's administration.

And BTW just what are you using to define a 3 month negative job growth trend?

madape
06-07-2004, 10:36 AM
3 month job growth trend:

March: 353,000 jobs added
April: 346,000 jobs added
May: 248,000 jobs added

Three month trend equates to 3,790,000 jobs added annually.

If this is "negative", it's only "negative" for the Kerry campaign. Kerry promised us 2,500,000 jobs a year. That sounds like a threat more than a promise now that the white-hot Bush economy is churning out jobs at 4 million per year pace.

Mavdog
06-07-2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by: LRB
Clinton benefited from much of the work breviously done by Reagan and then Bush. Clinton also was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. The internet boom coincided with most of the Clinton tenure. And no Al Gore did not invent the internet as much as he'd like to believe so.

yeah yeah yeah...every good thing is the product of a past republican, everything bad is the fault of a demo. you remind me of the Miller beer ad when the guy screams "He can't see because he has blinders on!" so true, so true.

Clinton was in office for many years longer than the tech bubble, and that was a small influence on the economic expansion of the 90's. Free trade had more to do with the boom than tech IMHO.


The internet bubble was going to burst and a market an economic correction was coming no matter what. However Clinton's actions made that burst and subsequent crash much harsher than it needed to be. Bush inherited this economy and has spent much of his 1st term attempting to undo the damage of Clinton's administration.

And just what "Clinton actions made that...crash much harsher"??? Be sure to differentiate between Clinton and Greenspan.

Using the word "spent" to characterize GWBush's term is very appropriate, for government spending is out of control under his watch, a contributor to the improved domestic economy BTW.


And BTW just what are you using to define a 3 month negative job growth trend?

You are using a very short term economic swing to give accolades to GWBush, so a commensurate short term look at the employment figures seems appropriate. The short term perspective shows employment growth peaking in March and decreasing decreasingly since...that's the falacy in short term looks such as you want to do.

LRB
06-07-2004, 11:35 AM
And just what "Clinton actions made that...crash much harsher"??? Be sure to differentiate between Clinton and Greenspan.


Clinton's administration made the most horrible blunder of the 90's as affecting the economy and that was their prosecution of Microsoft. While it did line Clinton's and other official's pockets with a great deal of money as well as several big businesses, it cost honest hard working American's billions of dollars and led to a nose dive of the stock market and the economy that was not necessary as part of the market correction for the internet bubble.


Clinton was in office for many years longer than the tech bubble, and that was a small influence on the economic expansion of the 90's. Free trade had more to do with the boom than tech IMHO.


How you could so causually dismiss the internet bubble is beyond me. No single factor came anywhere close to the economic prominence of this during the 90's IMO. And your beloved free trade was greatly increased in effectiveness by the internet and tech developments. It was only when the tech industry went south that the 90's boom began to be a bust.

BTW one of the best things that Bush did in restoring the economy is killing that dumbass lawsuit against Microsoft. However it wasn't until after a great deal of damage had already been inflicted.


You are using a very short term economic swing to give accolades to GWBush, so a commensurate short term look at the employment figures seems appropriate. The short term perspective shows employment growth peaking in March and decreasing decreasingly since...that's the falacy in short term looks such as you want to do.

Let me get this, you're saying just because not as many new jobs are being created as in previous months that this makes it negative? Talk about spin doctoring. I guess if I lose 5 lbs one week and only lose 21bs the next week that I'm actually gaining weight according to you. i/expressions/rolleye.gif

madape
06-07-2004, 12:54 PM
George Bush and the republican dominated congress has turned the near-depression level economy they inherited from the Democracts into one of the most robust and rapid periods of economic expansion this country has ever seen.. and it took them less than three years to turn the broken ship completely around. It's amazing. The republicans made the Clinton recession so shallow it's hard to remember that it ever even existed.

These job numbers are just another Bush boulder smashing down upon the heads of Mavdog, John Kerry, Al Gore and all the rest of the black helicopter crowd of the far left. The audience for their economic doom and gloom message is quickly disappearing. Last time I checked it was about 5.6% of the population, and getting smaller every day.

Mavdog
06-07-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

And just what "Clinton actions made that...crash much harsher"??? Be sure to differentiate between Clinton and Greenspan.


Clinton's administration made the most horrible blunder of the 90's as affecting the economy and that was their prosecution of Microsoft. While it did line Clinton's and other official's pockets with a great deal of money as well as several big businesses, it cost honest hard working American's billions of dollars and led to a nose dive of the stock market and the economy that was not necessary as part of the market correction for the internet bubble.

yeah, that slap on microsoft's wrist just sent our economy into a tailspin...what a joke. The prosecution of MSFT wasn't the pin prick to the bubble that was the stock market, it was the lack of real earnings by those overvalued stocks.
Guess that awful government "blunder" of going after the unfair trade practices of MSFT is what has allowed MSFT to split twice since the government's case was first brought... they were so cruel weren't they?


Clinton was in office for many years longer than the tech bubble, and that was a small influence on the economic expansion of the 90's. Free trade had more to do with the boom than tech IMHO.


How you could so causually dismiss the internet bubble is beyond me. No single factor came anywhere close to the economic prominence of this during the 90's IMO. And your beloved free trade was greatly increased in effectiveness by the internet and tech developments. It was only when the tech industry went south that the 90's boom began to be a bust.

BTW one of the best things that Bush did in restoring the economy is killing that dumbass lawsuit against Microsoft. However it wasn't until after a great deal of damage had already been inflicted.[/quote]

Funny that the internet boom didn't begin until 96/97 while the economic expansion began in around 93. So much for your contention that the internet bubble caused the 90's boom...

They didn't "kill" anything, a consent was agreed to by both parties.


You are using a very short term economic swing to give accolades to GWBush, so a commensurate short term look at the employment figures seems appropriate. The short term perspective shows employment growth peaking in March and decreasing decreasingly since...that's the falacy in short term looks such as you want to do.

Let me get this, you're saying just because not as many new jobs are being created as in previous months that this makes it negative? Talk about spin doctoring. I guess if I lose 5 lbs one week and only lose 21bs the next week that I'm actually gaining weight according to you. i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/quote]

Yes, if there is a decrease in positive totals from one month to the next that is "negative" trend. Pretty simple concept really, if you need some education in this just ask. I'm sure there are many here on the board who understand it and can explain it to you.

according to your example you would be losing weight yet on a decreasing basis. Again, if this is too tough a concept just ask for help...

LRB
06-07-2004, 02:42 PM
yeah, that slap on microsoft's wrist just sent our economy into a tailspin...what a joke. The prosecution of MSFT wasn't the pin prick to the bubble that was the stock market, it was the lack of real earnings by those overvalued stocks.
Guess that awful government "blunder" of going after the unfair trade practices of MSFT is what has allowed MSFT to split twice since the government's case was first brought... they were so cruel weren't they?


Talking about needing an "education", splitting stocks means nothing in the context of this discussion. Microsoft's stock is still below what it was when the government brought suit and greatly below what it was when the 1st verdict was rendered. Microsoft issued a 2 for 1 split on March 26, 1999 and another 2 for 1 split on February 14th, 2003. So if I owned 1 stock on March 25, 1999 and held on to it I would own 4 stocks today. On March 24, 1999 that one stock was worth approximately 178.13. When I last checked the Microsoft site the stock was valued at 26.24. So the stock I purchased for 178.13 on 3/25/1999 is now worth only about 104.96. So I would have lost about 41% of my investment. Now consider that Microsoft stock has recovered from the lows when the verdict hit in 2000, and you can see that this had a huge effect. Considering at the time that Microsoft was trading places with CISCO as the company whose stock had the most outstanding value, this was a huge hit to the stock market.

Now Microsoft did not receive a "slap on the wrist" in the 1st trial. No they were ordered to be broken up into separate companies. The decision was ever bit as harse if not more so than was forced on AT&T several decades ago when it was forced to break up. This is not what the sentence ended up being, thanks a large part to the fairness of the Bush administration.

But what was Microsoft's crime? Well 1st of all, Bill Gates was just too damn honest and didn't bribe the administration as did his competitors who were getting their collective butts kicked. Make no mistake that Gates was and still is a ruthless businessman. However he does have an ingrained sense of honesty that initially kept him from forming the multibillion dollar political pacts that his competitors did.

But what was Microsoft's big crime. Well according to the official trial document it was selling their product too cheaply. That's it in a nutshell. Selling a product too cheaply. Damn if that isn't a crime. Doesn't it suck not having to pay a couple of hundred dollars more for your PC? Well you may think it does, but most Americans would think that was a bunch of BS, and rightfully so. But Clinton made millions pressing this meritless case for no other reasson than to line his own pockets at the expense of millions of Americans. This was nothing but pandering to big businesses willing to spend a lot of money to get their way.

As for your "negative trend", call it whatever you will it is purposefully misleading and smacks highly of spin doctoring. I don't need nor want any lecturing on the art of deception, thank you very much.

Mavdog
06-07-2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

yeah, that slap on microsoft's wrist just sent our economy into a tailspin...what a joke. The prosecution of MSFT wasn't the pin prick to the bubble that was the stock market, it was the lack of real earnings by those overvalued stocks.
Guess that awful government "blunder" of going after the unfair trade practices of MSFT is what has allowed MSFT to split twice since the government's case was first brought... they were so cruel weren't they?


Talking about needing an "education", splitting stocks means nothing in the context of this discussion.

When you made the assertion "the most horrible blunder of the 90's as affecting the economy and that was their prosecution of Microsoft" it is germaine. The prosecution and settlement with Microsoft did not put the stock amrket into a tailspin, the overvaluing of stock as a ROE did.


Microsoft's stock is still below what it was when the government brought suit and greatly below what it was when the 1st verdict was rendered. Microsoft issued a 2 for 1 split on March 26, 1999 and another 2 for 1 split on February 14th, 2003. So if I owned 1 stock on March 25, 1999 and held on to it I would own 4 stocks today. On March 24, 1999 that one stock was worth approximately 178.13. When I last checked the Microsoft site the stock was valued at 26.24. So the stock I purchased for 178.13 on 3/25/1999 is now worth only about 104.96. So I would have lost about 41% of my investment.

The actual adjusted value (adjusted for splits/dividends) of the MSFT share that was bought in Oct '97 (when the DofJ suit was filed) is $16.43. Today's close is $26.43.

Historical MSFT pricing (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=MSFT&a=02&b=13&c=1986&d=10&e=7&f=1997&g=d)


Now consider that Microsoft stock has recovered from the lows when the verdict hit in 2000, and you can see that this had a huge effect. Considering at the time that Microsoft was trading places with CISCO as the company whose stock had the most outstanding value, this was a huge hit to the stock market.

Now Microsoft did not receive a "slap on the wrist" in the 1st trial. No they were ordered to be broken up into separate companies. The decision was ever bit as harse if not more so than was forced on AT&T several decades ago when it was forced to break up. This is not what the sentence ended up being, thanks a large part to the fairness of the Bush administration.

But what was Microsoft's crime? Well 1st of all, Bill Gates was just too damn honest and didn't bribe the administration as did his competitors who were getting their collective butts kicked. Make no mistake that Gates was and still is a ruthless businessman. However he does have an ingrained sense of honesty that initially kept him from forming the multibillion dollar political pacts that his competitors did.

But what was Microsoft's big crime. Well according to the official trial document it was selling their product too cheaply. That's it in a nutshell. Selling a product too cheaply. Damn if that isn't a crime. Doesn't it suck not having to pay a couple of hundred dollars more for your PC? Well you may think it does, but most Americans would think that was a bunch of BS, and rightfully so. But Clinton made millions pressing this meritless case for no other reasson than to line his own pockets at the expense of millions of Americans. This was nothing but pandering to big businesses willing to spend a lot of money to get their way.

I don't know what you're reading, the issue was not "pricing" or microsoft selling their product "too cheaply", the issue is and was bundling, specifically IE. They used their market position to kill Netscape. The same issue is being tried even today in Europe, just now it is about Media Player.

"On October 20, the Justice Department's antitrust division filed a complaint which alleges that Microsoft exerts pressure on personal computer manufacturers to accept Microsoft's web browser as part of Windows 95, in violation of a 1995 federal court order. A federal district court judge will need to decide whether to hold Microsoft in contempt, and whether to grant the various remedies that Justice is requesting, including a one million dollar per day fine.

The central issue in the antitrust action is whether Microsoft's market-dominating Windows 95 operating system can incorporate web browser functionality, or whether Microsoft's web browser, called Internet Explorer, is a separate product.

Justice's Complaint: Microsoft Pressuring Computer Makers

The Justice Department complaint states that Microsoft violated the 1995 court order, because Section IV(E)(i) of the court order forbids Microsoft from requiring personal computer makers to license "other Microsoft products" in order to have a license to Microsoft's monopoly operating system products. Justice believes that when Microsoft required personal computer makers to license and distribute its Internet Explorer browser as a condition of licensing the Windows 95 operating system, Microsoft violated the court order. The Department of Justice feels that Microsoft is limiting the choices of personal computer manufacturers and consumers, that Microsoft is forcing personal computer manufacturers into an anti-competitive game, and even suggests that Microsoft may have threatened nasty reprisals for anyone who complained.

In addition to asking the court to fine Microsoft a million dollars per day, the complaint asks the court to order Microsoft to stop requiring that personal computer makers accept Windows 95 and Internet Explorer as a bundle. The requested court order would also require Microsoft notify Windows 95 consumers that they do not have to use Internet Explorer, and compel Microsoft to instruct Windows 95 users on how to remove the Internet Explorer icon from their Windows screen.

The antitrust chief of the Justice Department, Joe Klein, summarized the governments case by stating , "Anyone can give away a browser, but no one can force it onto a computer desktop unless you have monopoly power. .... When you use that power to snuff out a new entrant, that's what's prohibited."


As for your "negative trend", call it whatever you will it is purposefully misleading and smacks highly of spin doctoring. I don't need nor want any lecturing on the art of deception, thank you very much.

yeah, if it isn't what you wish to hear just dismiss the facts. sorry, that doesn't make the truth go away.
Do you put your hands over your ears and yell when you do this?

LRB
06-07-2004, 04:54 PM
The actual adjusted value (adjusted for splits/dividends) of the MSFT share that was bought in Oct '97 (when the DofJ suit was filed) is $16.43. Today's close is $26.43.


The major damage was not done until the 1st verdict was rendered. That was not until 2000. So it is completely immaterial what the price was in 1997. The action was started in 1997, however until the verdict was reached, no significant damage occured. After the verdict stocks, not just Microsoft, began a sharp nose dive.




I don't know what you're reading, the issue was not "pricing" or microsoft selling their product "too cheaply", the issue is and was bundling, specifically IE. They used their market position to kill Netscape. The same issue is being tried even today in Europe, just now it is about Media Player.


I bet I know what you've been reading and that was the spin placed on this by the media. However, my information was obtained by reading the official court verdicts and transcripts. Sadly, the majore complaint and reason for the Microsoft breakup was no bundling products but was selling products too cheaply. The entire rationale, as stated by the court in it's ruling, was that Microsoft MIGHT do something with it. Now you could argue that Microsoft did deserve some minor sanctions, as did their competitors and chief complaintants, however nothing in their behavior justified the government in asking for the death penalty or the break up for the company.

All the crap about IE and media player was simply political rhetoric to confuse the public and mislead people. That was a part, but an incredibly small part, of the case. The major points of prosecution and ruling had nothing to do with this. Although if you follow the media only it's no wonder that you wouldn't have realized this. The media refuses to report the truth when it can instead try and make it up into a better story.


yeah, if it isn't what you wish to hear just dismiss the facts. sorry, that doesn't make the truth go away.
Do you put your hands over your ears and yell when you do this?


Behaps you should read your own words. Maybe you just don't want to face the fact that your boy Clinton screwed the pooch on this one big time.

Mavdog
06-07-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

The actual adjusted value (adjusted for splits/dividends) of the MSFT share that was bought in Oct '97 (when the DofJ suit was filed) is $16.43. Today's close is $26.43.


The major damage was not done until the 1st verdict was rendered. That was not until 2000. So it is completely immaterial what the price was in 1997. The action was started in 1997, however until the verdict was reached, no significant damage occured. After the verdict stocks, not just Microsoft, began a sharp nose dive.

The adjusted value for a share purchased in 12/00 is $28.07
The adjusted value for a share purchased in 11/01 (when the Stipulation was agreed to) is $28.82.
As I said, todays close is $26.43.
that is certainly NOT a "sharp nose dive"...except in your surreal world.


I don't know what you're reading, the issue was not "pricing" or microsoft selling their product "too cheaply", the issue is and was bundling, specifically IE. They used their market position to kill Netscape. The same issue is being tried even today in Europe, just now it is about Media Player.


I bet I know what you've been reading and that was the spin placed on this by the media. However, my information was obtained by reading the official court verdicts and transcripts. Sadly, the majore complaint and reason for the Microsoft breakup was no bundling products but was selling products too cheaply. The entire rationale, as stated by the court in it's ruling, was that Microsoft MIGHT do something with it. Now you could argue that Microsoft did deserve some minor sanctions, as did their competitors and chief complaintants, however nothing in their behavior justified the government in asking for the death penalty or the break up for the company.

All the crap about IE and media player was simply political rhetoric to confuse the public and mislead people. That was a part, but an incredibly small part, of the case. The major points of prosecution and ruling had nothing to do with this. Although if you follow the media only it's no wonder that you wouldn't have realized this. The media refuses to report the truth when it can instead try and make it up into a better story. [/quote]

What a bunch of BS. I've shown the focus of the case by the quotes from the judgement. Ignore them if you wish, the crux of the US Government's case against Microsoft was the bundling and failure to allow the OEM vendors to seperate IE from Windows.


yeah, if it isn't what you wish to hear just dismiss the facts. sorry, that doesn't make the truth go away.
Do you put your hands over your ears and yell when you do this?


Behaps you should read your own words. Maybe you just don't want to face the fact that your boy Clinton screwed the pooch on this one big time.[/quote]

here we go again, that preoccupation with Clinton. When the facts are against you, just blame Bill...

reeds
06-07-2004, 05:42 PM
SORRY LRB- when I am wrong I am corrected by you guys..So i will tell you this is way wrong..I trade stocks- your are not looking at it correctly..

"Talking about needing an "education", splitting stocks means nothing in the context of this discussion. Microsoft's stock is still below what it was when the government brought suit and greatly below what it was when the 1st verdict was rendered. Microsoft issued a 2 for 1 split on March 26, 1999 and another 2 for 1 split on February 14th, 2003. So if I owned 1 stock on March 25, 1999 and held on to it I would own 4 stocks today. On March 24, 1999 that one stock was worth approximately 178.13. When I last checked the Microsoft site the stock was valued at 26.24. So the stock I purchased for 178.13 on 3/25/1999 is now worth only about 104.96. So I would have lost about 41% of my investment. Now consider that Microsoft stock has recovered from the lows when the verdict hit in 2000, and you can see that this had a huge effect. Considering at the time that Microsoft was trading places with CISCO as the company whose stock had the most outstanding value, this was a huge hit to the stock market. "

This is totally incorrect...your education was wrong.. I was about to show you, but it looks like MavDOG beat me to it...

dude1394
06-07-2004, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394

the 3 month trend on job growth is now negative btw.


http://www.geocities.com/~kashalinka/ReadingRm/photos_images/climber.jpg