Dave wrote:
... the Times has time and again been blinded by its reporters'
biases and sloppy editorial supervision. Remember Jason Blair?

So, just one anecdote "proves" the whole thing is rotten, as far as
you're concerned?

... But generally the reporters tend to be of a moderate to very
slightly liberal bent.


The Wall Street Journal? Surely you jest.

This is symptomatic of your problem... and lots of other people... you
are enslaved by your prejudices. If you disagree, it's liberal bias. If
it's pro-Bush/Cheney, it's hard fact. The direct evidence of your own
eyes doesn't seem to weigh in. You don't want to see America prosper &
succeed, you want to see "liberals" suffer.



Cyclical volume of orders for durable goods.
Increasing demands for off-clock work, unpaid overtime, and overtime
paid at regular wage.
Increasing demand for low-cost low-quality goods
Accounting irregularities skewing returns
Offshore production counted as domestic (ie more accounting tricks)
Consistently low interest rate (ie low demand for capital)


So you are persuaded that productivity has not increased? I don't find the
above very persuasive.

Of course not. It doesn't agree with the pro-Bush/Cheney propaganda you
so eagerly swallow.

In any event, I'm not claiming that productivity has definitely not
increased, but I find it hard to believe that it has increased
significantly enough to affect the US economy... because the US economy
remains unaffected by signs of it.



In any event, if productivity has truly increased, it hasn't been
unequivocal and it has not led to increased profitability.


Jon's claims were about productivity, not profitability.

True.

... I'm sure he would
be screaming like a stuck pig if corporate profits were also up.

Why is it all about hatred for those you disagree with? That's a very
poor attitude, Dave.

DSK

The Wall Street Journal? Surely you jest.


Dave wrote:
Not at all. Remember, we're talking about the news staff, not the editorial
pages.


The WSJ is rather conservative, in the real sense of following
conservative principles. They don't go in much for neo-conservative
hogwash, but they lean more that way than the other. If you see "liberal
bias" in any of their articles it's because your sight is warped.



The topic under discussion is whether it has increased, not by how much.


OK riddle me this... if these wonderful tax cuts are so great for the
economy, how come most economic indicators are still either luke warm or
outright in the dumper, and the only thing you can say is that
"productivity has increased" and that really can't be proven, nor has it
had any notable effect. Now you're reduced to saying that the
"productivity increase" still counts the same if it is so small it can't
be measured, just to try and prove all those dadgum libby-rulls wrong.

You're talking through your hat. Bush's tax cuts have put millions in
the pockets of the US's wealthiest citizens, and that's about all it's
done. If you're in favor of that, then fine. Just be honest about it.



... I'm sure he would
be screaming like a stuck pig if corporate profits were also up.


Why is it all about hatred for those you disagree with? That's a very
poor attitude, Dave.


Calling somebody on something when he's got his facts wrong isn't hatred.

Probably not, but going on and on about "stuck pigs" is not an example
of "calling somebody on it."


It's simply an interest in truth.

Oh yeah.

DSK

....Bush's tax cuts have put millions in
the pockets of the US's wealthiest citizens, and that's about all it's
done. If you're in favor of that, then fine. Just be honest about it.


Dave wrote:
Ever heard the term "straw man?" In case you haven't, it's the technique of
fabricating an argument the other guy didn't make so you can attack your own
fabricated argument. The above is a classic example.

???

Did you say that President Bush's tax cuts were good for the economy?
Did you offer this hypothetical productivity increase as a prime example
of how the Bush/Cheney economy is booming? Did you call Jonathan Ganz
names and cast aspersions at his statements on the subject?

I don't see a straw man at all. Looks like a major backpedal...
retrorocket with aftrburners...

DSK

selective memory is a powerful thing


Dave wrote:
Yes. In your case it seems to take the form of forgetting who said what.


O contraire.



On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:17:24 -0800, "JG" said:
You mean like the tax cut improving productivity, when in fact the reverse
has happened?


Dave wrote:
Sorry, Jon, you're just plain wrong here, unless you propose to argue that
the increase in productivity over the last 4 years is the result of some
other factor than the tax cut. Those of us who read the financial press
rather than the liberals' propaganda sheets know that productivity has been
increasing.

Due to the tax cut???

Propaganda sheet?
4 years?


So touting a "productivity increase" is supposed to make up for all the
other negative factors in the current economy?

Dave wrote:
Not making any arguments about anything's "making up" for anything. Just
pointing out Jon's gross error in claiming that productivity had been
declining.

"Gross error"??


Dave wrote:
No. Because the Times has time and again been blinded by its reporters'
biases and sloppy editorial supervision. Remember Jason Blair?


Jason Blair happened once. So why the "again and again" unless it simply
drives home the fact that you don't like the Times because it's somewhat
liberal.

OK, I'll bite. What's the case for the proposition the productivity hasn't
increased.


Cyclical volume of orders for durable goods.
Increasing demands for off-clock work, unpaid overtime, and overtime
paid at regular wage.
Increasing demand for low-cost low-quality goods
Accounting irregularities skewing returns
Offshore production counted as domestic (ie more accounting tricks)
Consistently low interest rate (ie low demand for capital)


So you are persuaded that productivity has not increased? I don't find the
above very persuasive.

Of course not... but at least you knocked off the slander & the innuendo.



In any event, if productivity has truly increased, it hasn't been
unequivocal and it has not led to increased profitability.


Jon's claims were about productivity, not profitability. I'm sure he would
be screaming like a stuck pig if corporate profits were also up.


But now he's "screaming like a stuck pig."

Where was that about a straw man? Looks like you're right in the
cross-hairs, Dave.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
Sorry, Jon, you're just plain wrong here, unless you propose to argue
that
the increase in productivity over the last 4 years is the result of some
other factor than the tax cut. Those of us who read the financial press
rather than the liberals' propaganda sheets know that productivity has
been
increasing.

Due to the tax cut???

Productivity has been increasing for hundreds of years, while taxation has
been increasing.

The main driving force behind productivity increases is *technology*.



Regards


Donal
--

just noticing the title of the this thread.
oh......i get it.
ganz is involved in this somehow.

gf.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:31:19 -0500, DSK said:

selective memory is a powerful thing

Yes. In your case it seems to take the form of forgetting who said what.

Due to the tax cut???


Dave wrote:
Note that in the first instance, I gave Jon the benefit of the doubt. His
statement could be read to claim either that productivity had gone down, or
that it increased for reasons other than the tax cut. (Admittedly a strained
reading in light of "the reverse" but I gave him an opportunity to back
pedal.) He declined to make the argument I suggested might be defensible.


How long have you practiced ballet, tap-dancing and back-pedaling like this?

Answer the question: In your opinion, is this hypothetical "increase in
productivity" due to the Bush tax cuts?


"Gross error"??


Dave wrote:
You wouldn't say it's a gross error to say productivity was declining when
in fact if was increasing?

The error wasn't Jon's, and it wasn't necessarily "gross."

I've already told you once, but I'll tell you again. I read the Times fairly
regularly. Blair was a single example people are familiar with. But the
Times regularly omits important facts, gets them wrong, or buries them at
the end of their stories.


As does *any* publication. The NY Times is no worse than many others,
and better than most. I can't believe I'm defending anything with the
name "New York" but your attitude is an example of head-in-the-sand
stupidity on the part of libby-rull hating "conservative" attitude
currently in fashion. It's nothing more than an updated version of the
bigoted stupidy of the Commie-chasers of decades ago.

DSK

The main driving force behind productivity increases is *technology*.


Dave wrote:
I think that's true. But when we talk "technology" we're talking capital
investment.

Huh?

... If you decrease the tax on
returns from capital investment you increase the incentive to make that
investment. Basic economics.


True enough, if a bit overly simplistic. But I think you should look up
the basic definition of "technology" in the context of economics. I'll wait.

DSK

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:10:39 -0000, "Donal" said:

Productivity has been increasing for hundreds of years, while taxation
has
been increasing.

The main driving force behind productivity increases is *technology*.

I think that's true. But when we talk "technology" we're talking capital
investment. If you increase the tax on returns from capital investment you
reduce the incentive to make that investment. If you decrease the tax on
returns from capital investment you increase the incentive to make that
investment. Basic economics.

I see that you have tried to sidestep the issue.

"Productivity has been increasing for hundreds of years, while taxation has
been increasing."

You need to rethink your understanding of the problem.

[hint] Overall production is more important than productivity.



Regards


Donal
--

Dave wrote:
As you've already indicated you don't buy the argument that productivity
didn't increase, why are you calling it "hypothetical/"

Because it's too small to measure reliably and has no effect whatever on
the rest of the economy. It's like designing a car with a very fuel
efficient engine, then throwing sawdust into it so it barely chugs
along, blowing smoke and burning excess fuel, and then raving about the
fuel efficient engine. It's a red herring at best.




I think productivity was affected by a number of factors, including earlier
increases in the number of temporary workers who could be let go more easily
than permanent employees when demand fell, caution on the part of most
businesses about increasing their numbers of employees as demand for their
products increased, and reduced costs of capital expenditures, including
both low interest rates and a reduction in the tax on dividends.

Not to mention cutting benefits & pay for workers, resulting in
increased productivity in terms of labor costs.

You're citing all this to show what, how great the Bush Administration
is managing the nation's economy?


I'd agree with that. But given the Times's history and reputation I would
expect it to be more than just a bit better than the average bear, just as I
expect the Metropolitan Opera to be more than just a bit better than the
average opera company, and the Royal Shakespeare company to be more than
just a bit better than your local repertory company. It hasn't come close to
meeting that expectation.

In other words, you demand that the NY Times meet your personal
standards of truth & accuracy, even though you're most often offended by
same; although you yourself tell fibs trying to support your
opinions... and you admit that it's a good publication, just not
superior enough to meet your double standard?!?

I knew that neo-conservatives were very short on logic & consistancy,
but you're nuttier than Bubbles.

DSK