Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Page 5 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5
Topic Options
#20374 - 03/06/01 03:52 PM Agree to Disagree
musick Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 12/24/00
Posts: 2658
Loc: Chicago
"I wouldn't say that. The economic boom is all over..." - I agree, everybody I know says it is easier to live every day life (the traffic boom here in the city will be 'splayn i't'y'all)

"All California's gotten from the economic boom is huge inflation." - It's about time they pay extra for the extra ego pollution (ducking from Bridget96 emoticon)

"Gee, Reaganomics took a few years to start helping the economy" - don't get me started on that fallacy... how much do YOU (the current collective YOU) expect to pay for 8 years of college (inflation my, but).

People are moving to warmer climates to escape the inflated gas prices that the Gas profiteers are used to because of Reaganomics... ... aside from this issue, is it not mainly the major metro's that are enjoying economic boom in the south and not the rural remainder?



Top
#20375 - 03/06/01 04:10 PM Re: Agree to Disagree
Anonymous
Unregistered


Bridget smiles amiably and assures *mr* musick that no offense was taken, then executes a nice clean roundhouse to the kidneys. Don't forget, in addition to exercising our egos, we have a fascination with healthy pastimes such as kickboxing.


Top
#20376 - 03/06/01 05:58 PM Re: Agree to Disagree
Jazzoctopus Offline
old hand

Registered: 07/03/00
Posts: 1094
Loc: Cincinnati & Loveland, Ohio, U...
"Gee, Reaganomics took a few years to start helping the economy" - don't get me started on that fallacy...

Any economist or historian would tell you that "Reaganomics" is an effective way of improving the economy. It's like a train engine that takes a while to get started, but then gets rolling along. Reagan's economic policies are what caused the successes of the '90s. Clinton was intelligent and didn't mess with it and then took all the credit.

As for Reagan creating the current national debt, it was a very effective method of crippling the Russians and ending the Cold War. Half of the reason the debt skyrocketed was because he had a Democratic congress that insisted of spending so much money on other issues while lowering taxes. (We often don't give the Congress enough credit when they're usually responsible for the state of the nation.)

(And Reaganomics is just the supply-side economics started by Alexander Hamilton, who just happens to be one of the only two non-presidents on US paper currency.)


Top
#20377 - 03/06/01 06:19 PM Re: Agree to Disagree
Max Quordlepleen Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/12/00
Posts: 3409
Any economist or historian would tell you that "Reaganomics" is an effective way of improving the economy.

Given the subjectivity intrinsic to those disciplines, one could always find a practitioner of either or both to say whatever one wished to hear. The one thing that can be said with certainty is that economists and historians are truly ayleurs, in the acronymic sense of the word.


Top
#20378 - 03/06/01 06:33 PM Tickle - vs trickle
musick Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 12/24/00
Posts: 2658
Loc: Chicago
My comment was of a personal nature based upon my experience of education costs doubling when the decision was made that certain grants were a "waste of money"!

Perpetuating the illusion that supporting only supply side economics is a good thing (ie, promoting commmercial goods to a point that they becomes consumables) builds a "false economy", or, more specifically, a specific view of economics... which brings us to politics. Talk to hand here - and me privately.

JazzO, funny how you answer a comment with a after it faster than one with a question mark.


Top
#20379 - 03/06/01 07:45 PM Re: Tickle - vs trickle
wwh Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 01/18/01
Posts: 13858
I am unable to understand the justification for college yearly tuition jumping from $400 in 1935 to $20,000 today.
The latter figure is hearsay, but I think it is nearly that.At least I have not deliberately exaggerated.


Top
#20380 - 03/06/01 09:26 PM Tickle, Tickle!
musick Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 12/24/00
Posts: 2658
Loc: Chicago
Interesting! There must be a word for this!

My exageration was not intended, though understandably deduced. My tuition rates actually doubled the year after I lost the aforesaid grant (effecting (useage?) an even larger proportion)!

Perception is reality?


Top
#20381 - 03/07/01 06:43 AM Re: Tickle - vs trickle
Jazzoctopus Offline
old hand

Registered: 07/03/00
Posts: 1094
Loc: Cincinnati & Loveland, Ohio, U...
college yearly tuition jumping from $400 in 1935 to $20,000 today.

I can't say much about the price for college in 1935 because it was some 50 years before I was born, but the public university that I'll be attending next year is about $5,500 per year for tuition. Room and board, tuition, books, etc. is a total of $60,000 over four years. (That's how much they give for their full scholarship, which I wouldn't mind receiving. ) I think part of the reason for the soaring price of college is that more people want to go and everyone is realizing how valuable a college education is in the current job market.

And musick, there wasn't a after the main comment that I replied to. But about the question marked statement, I think it's obvious that the economic boom is happening mainly in the 'burbs around the big cities. The inner cities aren't doing too well. The city of Cincinnati, for one, had a population decrease of around 30,000 over the last 10 years, while the suburbs are doing well. Good ol' urban sprawl.


Top
#20382 - 03/07/01 11:34 AM Re: Tickle - vs trickle
Bobyoungbalt Offline
veteran

Registered: 11/22/00
Posts: 1289
cost increases
The first thing you need to keep in mind is the increase in the cost of living and the decline in the value of money. In 1935, when my parents graduated from high school, my father went to work for $14 per week and that wasn't bad money for a single man. You could raise a family on $25 per week if you were frugal. A pair of Florsheim shoes cost $7.50; a good suit was $25.00; a new Chevrolet was $650; a small row house was $2000 to $4000.

As late as 1957, when I started college, $50 a week was not a bad salary and you could certainly live on it. In my first 2 years, I paid $600 per semester tuition; room and meals was another $300, books came to about $50 (a book costing $10 was high priced). By the time I graduated, in 1961, it had gone up about $100 per year. Now, the tuition at Johns Hopkins is, I believe, about $22,000 per year for an undergraduate.


Top
Page 5 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5

Moderator:  Jackie 
Forum Stats
8717 Members
16 Forums
13802 Topics
214499 Posts

Max Online: 3341 @ 12/09/11 02:15 PM
Newest Members
Laban, birdie, mepallav, discopig, Byz
8717 Registered Users
Who's Online
2 registered (tsuwm, 1 invisible), 36 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bazr 107
LukeJavan8 91
endymion6 89
wofahulicodoc 76
jenny jenny 64
A C Bowden 30
Faldage 7
Tromboniator 7
olly 3
tsuwm 2
Top Posters
wwh 13858
Faldage 13803
Jackie 11609
tsuwm 10514
Buffalo Shrdlu 7210
AnnaStrophic 6511
LukeJavan8 6313
Wordwind 6296
of troy 5400
BranShea 5282

Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 2014 Wordsmith