1
   

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

 
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 12:47 pm
Nonsense. Besides the larger issue is that these systems are not easily verifiable. It is a fact that systems can be hacked. Were they? it appears that there are enough investigations being conducted to ascertain the truth. Without verifiable election systems, democracy no longer exists.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 12:48 pm
Harper wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Professor Freeman's CV and accredidations are singularly absent of indication of qualification, let alone expertise, in the fields of statistical analysis or socio-political studies. I am unaware of any relavantly accredited academician who is in support of Freeman's hypothesis in this matter, while a number of suitably qualified academicians outright reject both Freeman's methodology and his assertions.



Name them and links to quotes, please. Or is this just a case of when you can't argue the message, attack the messenger?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 03:19 pm
Harper wrote:
Name them and links to quotes, please.


Fair enough, here's a representative sample, with links, of what I've found re Freeman and his hypothesis;

Quote:
University of Pennsylvania: Organizational Dynamics Faculty - Steven F. Freeman

BIO

Steven F. Freeman is Visiting Scholar and Affiliated Faculty in the Center for Organizational Dynamics. Since 1998, he has been Professor of Management at INCAE (Central American Institute of Business Administration), Alajuela, Costa Rica, an international MBA program established by Harvard University. During 2002, he was Karel Steuer Chaired Professor in Entrepreneurship at Universidad de San Andreas, Buenos Aires, Argentina. His research interests include strategy, entrepreneurship, loss, change, and resilience. A recent paper (with Maltz and Hirschorn), "Moral Purpose and Organizational Resilience: Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. in the Aftermath of September 11th" has been chosen by the Academy of Management as 2003 Best Paper on Organizational Change and Development. He received his Ph.D. in Organization Studies from the MIT Sloan School of Management.



CLASSES

DYNM 672: A Systems Approach to Crisis Preparation and Building Organizational Resilience




Quote:
Applied Research: Publications and Presentations (Steven F. Freeman)

Refereed Academic articles
Freeman, Steven F., Marc Maltz and Larry Hirschhorn (In Press) The Power of Moral Purpose: Sandler O'Neill & Partners in the Aftermath of September 11, 2001 Organizational Development Journal (scheduled for publication December 2004)

Freeman, Steven F., Marc Maltz and Larry Hirschhorn. 2003. Moral Purpose and Organizational Resilience: Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. in the Aftermath of September 11th. In D. Nagao (Ed.) Academy of Management BEST PAPERS 2003

Freeman, Steven F. (2001) Cómo manejar la pérdida y el cambio (How to manage loss and change). Revista INCAE

Freeman, Steven F. 2000. Tres perspectivas para entender las organizaciones (Three perspectives to understand organizations). Percepción Gerencial 3(2)

Freeman, Steven F. 1999. Identity maintenance and adaptation: a multilevel analysis of response to loss. In B.M. Staw and R.M. Sutton (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 21:247-294 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Abstract

Freeman, Steven F. 1998. Good decisions: reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics. In B. Keys and L.N. Dosier (Eds.) Academy of Management BEST PAPERS 1998. Madison, WI: Omnipress

Freeman, Steven F. 1997. Organizational loss. In B. Keys and L.N. Dosier (Eds.) Academy of Management BEST PAPERS 1997, (pp. 264-68). Madison, WI: Omnipress



Other Publications
Freeman, Steven F. (2002) Empresarialismo y Resiliencia (Entrepreneurship and Resilience). Gestion (Buenos Aires, Argentina)
Freeman, Steven F. 2000. Entendiendo Organizaciones in Kettlehorn, (ed.) Forjando el Futuro (Forging the future) p. 159-176. Alajuela, Costa Rica: Prensa INCAE

Freeman, Steven F. (1988) Notes to a friend who is planning to start a business Problems marketing, financing, and managing a new venture. Has been widely used in entrepreneurship classes around the country. .

Reynolds, Paul D. & Steven F. Freeman. 1987. The 1986 Pennsylvania new firms study: four volumes and an executive summary. Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission.



Dissertation (1998) Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The problem of identity in organizational behavior and human decision processes. An academic exploration of why it took the American auto industry so long to respond to Japanese advances in design and production.


Quote:
getCited: Dr. Steven F. Freeman

POSITION(S) / JOB TITLE(S): Professor
AREAS OF EXPERTISE: Creativity & Innovation in Work and Organizations; resilience; loss; change; Strategy; Entreprenuership; Latin American business and politics.
ACADEMIC RANK: Professor
FACULTY/DEPARTMENT: Organizational Dynamics
INSTITUTION/ORGANIZATION: University of Pennsylvania
EMAIL: [email protected] (Homepage) http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/
HIGHEST DEGREE: Doctorate (1998)
DEGREE FROM: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
SEX / LANGUAGE: Male / Spanish
LAST LOGIN: 2004/11/10 19:06:48
MEMBER ID: 1106-8805 (Last changed on 2004/11/10 19:10:05)
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
CURRENT ADDRESS:

Bibliographies: 0
Book chapters: 0
Book reviews: 0
Books: 0
Books, edited: 0
Conf. papers: 0
Conf. presentations: 0
Conferences: 0
Discussion groups: 0
Grants: 0
Journal articles 1: Author Freeman, Steven F. . (1999) Identity maintenance and adaptation: a multilevel analysis of response to loss (Journal Article in Research in Organizational Behavior )

Periodicals/series: 0
Proceedings: 0
Proceedings, papers: 0
Reports: 0
Special issues: 0
Theses 1 : Author Freeman, Steven F.. (1998) The problem of identity in organizational behavior and human decision processes (Thesis/Dissertation completed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) )

Treaties: 0
Working papers: 0

STATISTICS
Citations: 0
Rank: N/A
Publications: 2
Rank: 93,522
Viewers: 4
Views: 1445


Items in bold emphasised by timber, just to make it easier to keep score. Mr. Freeman's work does not appear to be a mine rich in source material for other researchers, whether relevant to his own field, Business/ Organizational Dynamics, or any other, let alone politics, sociology, or statistical analysis. I find that fact quite informative.

Quote:
Prof Questions Bush's Tallies
By charlie smith

Publish Date: 18-Nov-2004

A U.S. academic has written a paper suggesting that "systematic fraud" or "mistabulation" of votes could have occurred in the most recent U.S. presidential election. Steven F. Freeman, a professor of organizational dynamics at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote that this was a "premature conclusion" but an "unavoidable hypothesis", based on his comparison of exit polls with the final results in 11 key battleground states.

Freeman released his 11-page paper, called "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy", on November 10; it has not been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. He wrote that in 10 of the 11 battleground states, President George Bush's final-tally percentages were significantly higher than the predicted margin in the voting-day exit polls.

In three of the heavily populated states--Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida--Bush's final tallies were 6.7 percent, 6.5 percent, and 4.9 percent higher than the exit polls. Freeman, who has a PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claimed that there was less than a one-in-a-thousand chance of this occurring in Ohio, less than a two-in-a-thousand chance of it happening in Pennsylvania, and less than a three-in-a-thousand chance of it resulting in Florida.

"The likelihood of any two of these statistical anomalies occurring together is on the order of one-in-a-million," Freeman wrote. "The odds against all three occurring together are 250 million to one. As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."

Bush won Florida by five percent and Ohio by 2.5 percent; Kerry won Pennsylvania by a 2.2-percent margin. Exit-poll sample sizes in the 11 states ranged from a low of 1,849 in New Hampshire to a high of 2,846 in Florida.

Freeman stated in the paper that Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International conducted exit polling for the National Election Pool, which is a consortium of the major television networks and Associated Press. Freeman added that he relied on "uncalibrated" data (not yet "corrected" to conform with announced vote tallies), which remained on the CNN Web site (www.cnn.com/) until 1:30 a.m. election night.

"At that time, CNN substituted data 'corrected' to conform to reported tallies," he wrote. "I have attempted to obtain the raw exit poll data from AP, Edison Media Research, Mitofsky International, and the NY Times, but have as yet received no response."

Bush's differential between the final tallies and exit polls improved most markedly in New Hampshire (9.5 percent), but Kerry won this state. Kerry led exit polls in Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico, but in all three states the final tallies favoured Bush.

Freeman cited several instances in the past in which exit polling produced accurate data. He also quoted former top Clinton advisor Dick Morris's contention that these surveys are "almost never wrong".

Freeman claimed that his purpose was not to allege "theft" in the recent U.S. presidential election. "Rather, I have tried to demonstrate that exit poll data is fundamentally sound, that the deviations between exit poll predictions and vote tallies in the three critical battleground states could not have occurred strictly by chance or random error, and that no solid explanations have yet been provided to explain the discrepancy," he wrote.

On November 11, Washington Post journalists Manuel Roig-Franzia and Dan Keating cowrote an article claiming that "spreadsheet-wielding conspiracy theorists are filling the Internet with head-turning allegations". However, their article alleged that the claims don't stand up to scrutiny. "Many experts say the theory that the exit polls were correct is deeply flawed because the polls oversampled women," Roig-Franzia and Keating wrote.

Freeman, however, refuted this in his paper. "CNN and others released data presenting male and female preferences separately, thus automatically weighting sex appropriately," he wrote.

According to Freeman's paper, pollsters Warren Mitofsky and Joe Lenski, whose companies conducted the exit polls, reportedly told Gallup Poll managing editor David W. Moore that Kerry voters were more willing to participate in exit polls than Bush voters. Freeman, however, wrote that this explanation requires independent evidence.

According to the CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project, 79 percent of the electorate in New Hampshire used optical-scan voting machines; in Florida, 53 percent used electronic machines and 47 percent used optical-scan voting machines.


Quote:
Wa Po: Latest Conspiracy Theory -- Kerry Won -- Hits the Ether

... Even as Sen. John F. Kerry's campaign is steadfastly refusing to challenge the results of the presidential election, the bloggers and the mortally wounded party loyalists and the spreadsheet-wielding conspiracy theorists are filling the Internet with head-turning allegations. There is the one about more ballots cast than registered voters in the big Ohio county anchored by Cleveland. There are claims that a suspicious number of Florida counties ended up with Bush vote totals that were far larger than the number of registered Republican voters. And then there is the one that might be the most popular of all: the exit polls that showed Kerry winning big weren't wrong -- they were right.

Each of the claims is buoyed by enough statistics and analysis to sound plausible. In some instances, the theories are coming from respected sources -- college engineering professors fascinated by voting technology, Internet journalists, election reform activists. Ultimately, none of the most popular theories holds up to close scrutiny. And the people who most stand to benefit from the conspiracy theories -- the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee -- are not biting.

"At this point the number of irregularities brought to our attention is not going to change the outcome of the election," said DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera. "The simple fact of the matter is that Republicans received more votes than Democrats, and we're not contesting this election." ...

The theories on exit polls are even more slippery. Because the early exit polls that were leaked and caused so much excitement among Democrats are not publicly distributed, the criticisms have not been based on statistics. Instead there are comments such as those from Zvi Drezner, a professor at the California State University at Fullerton business and economics school, who wrote that "the exit polls did not 'lie' " and described "a gut feeling that the machines did not report the correct count."

Many voting experts say the theory that the exit polls were correct is deeply flawed because the polls oversampled women. MIT political scientist Charles Stewart III also has said focusing solely on the early polls favoring Kerry in Ohio and Florida is the wrong approach because exit polls in some Democratic-leaning states tilted toward Bush, evening out the national picture ...


Quote:
MRC: "David Duke Effect....Voters Didn't Want to Admit" Vote for Bush

On Friday, for the fifth straight night, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann devoted a portion of his Countdown program to Internet-fueled rumors about massive vote fraud which benefitted President Bush and a guest compared Bush voters to David Duke supporters. Olbermann highlighted one professor's claim that "the exit polls are usually so precise, even on a state level, that it was virtually statistically impossible for them to have been so wrong last week." Olbermann relayed the professor's insistence that the chance all the exit polls, which found Kerry won, would be wrong, was 250 million to one. Dismissing another professor's contention that there wasn't any "national pattern" of fraud, Olbermann proposed that "you would not need to fix every state to win the whole election."

Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly and CBS suggested that the exit polls may have been wrong about Bush because of the "David Duke effect," an election in which he got many more votes than was reflected in what pollsters found because "people didn't want to admit to exit pollsters they'd voted for David Duke, the head of the Ku Klux Klan, because they didn't want to admit they were a racist. So perhaps a lot of voters didn't want to admit they voted for Bush."

Olbermann teased his November 12 show: "Rolled up scholarly papers at 50 paces: Cal Tech says the exit polling was just fine. University of Pennsylvania says exit polling was so bad, the odds against it being that bad were 250 million to one."

Olbermann soon announced his #3 story, as checked against the closed-captioning by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth:
"Intimidation, harassment, fabrication, doctoring, spinning, de-contextualizing and actual truth-telling have all been facets of the continuing firestorm over the probity of the elections on the Internet. The latest dueling weapons, scholarly analyses from researchers at major universities. One suggests that the actual statistical odds that the exit polling was wrong -- that wrong -- were 250 million to one. The other says that while the incorrectness of national exit polling can't be explained by the proverbial margin of error, on a state-by-state basis, it was within the margin of error. That study comes from the Voting Technology Project run by Cal Tech and MIT. In its report, 'Voting Machines and the Underestimate of the Bush Vote,' the researchers look at those state-by-state exit polls. They note that in 30 states, the exit polls predicted Senator Kerry would get more votes than he actually did get. And in 21 more states, they predicted President Bush would get more votes than he actually did get. The Cal Tech/MIT report also says there is no pattern evident between how badly exit polling did in a particular state and whether or not that state used electronic voting machines.
"But from University of Pennsylvania business professor Steven Freeman comes the reverse conclusion, that the exit polls are usually so precise, even on a state level, that it was virtually statistically impossible for them to have been so wrong last week.
Note here, please, that Mr. Olberman appears to favor the hypothesis of, in his own words, " ... University of Pennsylvania business professor Steven Freeman ..." over, again in his own words, the findings of " ... the Voting Technology Project run by Cal Tech and MIT ..."

I see little reason to go on in this vein; I believe my point is well made, and I believe others will disagree. I mentioned earlier I was unaware of any relevantly credentialed academicians who champion Mr. Freeman's hypothesis (which hypothesis, by the way, has not been peer reviewed nor has it been accepted for publication in any field-accredited journal). I remain, following further research, unaware of any such. I have found no reason to conclude Mr. Freeman to be authoritative in the relevant particulars, and considerable reason to be skeptical of his claims pertaining thereto.

As far as I can see, though he may be sincere, he just don't pack the gear.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 03:50 pm
I suggest that instead of arguing the effectiveness of computerized voting machines and voter disenfranchisement we agree that a simple way to dispell fears that machines register the wrong votes we make it mandatory the they spit out a slip of paper the way a teller machine does. After the voter looks it over for mistakes it gets put in a box. Recounts could be there if necessary and no one has anything to object about. Disenfranchisement is a bit more difficult, but the power to stop folks from voting should be taken out of partisan hands. It can be done, but there has to be a willingness to step back by those presently in control.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 03:54 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
kickycan wrote:
In answer to Foxfyre's earlier question, of course if Kerry won it would have been fair and square, as far as I know. He doesn't have a history of surrounding himself with scum who would shoot their own mother to win, like Bush has, as far as I know.

ROTFLMAO:


http://home.midsouth.rr.com/brodericksheets/current/edwards.jpg


Your delusions are indeed hilarious Bill.
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 04:10 pm
I disagree, kicky.
Slavishly partisan, perhaps, but far from amusing.

But any aspiring cabal needs its minions and lackeys; and when their machinations eventually cause the collapse of the systems they seek to dominate, all the lackeys unite to point the finger at their opposition...

How 'bout that deficit/debt, eh?

Looks like the Bushco Tax Breaks have done THEIR part to "stimulate the economy"...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 05:29 pm
Jobs up, home ownership up, personal income up, unemployment stable or edging consistently downward, savings up, stock market up, inventories shrinking. The economy can't stand a whole hell of a lot more stimulation without triggering unacceptable inflation thank you very much.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 05:41 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Jobs up, home ownership up, personal income up, unemployment stable or edging consistently downward, savings up, stock market up, inventories shrinking. The economy can't stand a whole hell of a lot more stimulation without triggering unacceptable inflation thank you very much.


Fine for the Europeans, but we live in the US where are all those things you mentioned are down in real terms. The worse is yet to come, can you spell stagflation?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 06:17 pm
Yeah, what the hell's up with that? It's always these great economonic indicators that are spouted off by the Bush supporters, which only affect the richest a-holes in America and abroad, while my company has been cutting my benefits and pay in subtle ways, little by little, taken away any perks that employees might have once enjoyed, and basically stuck it up the employees' collective asses and broken it off any chance they get.

But ain't it grand that some f*cking statistic says personal income is up?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 06:43 pm
That happens here - where the rich have become much richer, and the poor way more numerous and poorer, over the last 25 years.

Income appears to have risen in that time (when adjusted for inflation, of course) because of the hyper rich folk.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 06:46 pm
I read something crazy recently like the richest 5% in the United States own more than the poorest 40%.

If that's not a symptom of a sick society...
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 07:09 pm
And under Bush CEO salaries are now something like 500 times their bottom rung workers, if I recall under Clinton, it was less than 100x.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 07:25 pm
Real income is down like 30%, home ownership always grows with population. as do jobs, job growth, of course, has not kept up with population, the DJIA , if I recall is still lower than when Bush took ofice (being a contrarian I made quite a bit taking a bearish view in this market) If you delusional folks think we are in a bull market, God bless you, as I wil be profiting from your stupidity.

Unemployment is stable because of so many have given up looking and/or taking contractor jobs like delivering phone books for $4.00 an hour.

I just heard Mel Martinez say one of his priorites was to end the death tax. Are any of you economic geniuses aware that due to limitations only the estates of the super rich are taxed now?

The more time I spend here the more I understand how Bush so easily fooled the faithful.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 07:27 pm
And in the fifties it was 10x.

Sick... we's sick. Yeah, I know this is a digression... but <shrug> it bears repeating.

Here's a statistic or two:
Quote:
... corporations' highest-ranking executives grossed an average of $10.6 million in 1998, as compared to $1.8 million in 1990, vastly outpacing the rate of corporate growth.

The study emphasizes that the workers who actually produce the goods and services that result in corporate incomes continue to be unfairly compensated. If average production worker pay had risen at the same rate as CEO pay between 1990 and 1998, worker pay would be $110,399 today, rather than the current $29,267. The minimum wage would be $22.08, rather than the current $5.15 per hour, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.


(The Bureau of Economic Analysis is an agency of the US Department of Commerce.)

Quote:
Another argument against high compensation is that it results in disproportionate contributions by lower-income citizens to the federal coffers. This is because many corporations can deduct CEO pay from their federal taxes. This trend has resulted in a dramatic drop in the share of federal taxes paid by corporations. In 1960, corporations paid 23.2 % of federal taxes. In 1998, they paid only 11.4%.


http://texis.seattletimes.nwsource.com/nw100/static/ceopay/hardcash20.html
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 07:57 pm
Magus wrote:

How 'bout that deficit/debt, eh?


Since 1962, the average Budget Deficit as percentage of GDP has been 2.19%, marked by the extremes of 1983's 6.0% Deficit and 2000's Surplus of 2.4%. In 37 of those 42 years, there has been a budget deficit, in 5 there has been a surplus. Taken alone, the average deficit for the period has been 2.66%. For the 20 year period 1984 - 2004, the average budget deficit has been 2.32%, deficits having been recorded for 16 of those 20 years, ranging from 1985's 5.1% shortfall to the relatively small 0.3% deficit of 1997. Considering only the deficits themselves, the average of the 16 deficits recorded over the past 20 years has been 3.31%.
Data: Congressional Budget Office: The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005 to 2014 (Download note: 3.2 MB pdf file), Appendix F; Historical Data

Harper wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Jobs up, home ownership up, personal income up, unemployment stable or edging consistently downward, savings up, stock market up, inventories shrinking. The economy can't stand a whole hell of a lot more stimulation without triggering unacceptable inflation thank you very much.

Fine for the Europeans, but we live in the US where are all those things you mentioned are down in real terms.


No publically available, independently verifiable official figures of which I am aware lend credence to any of that assertion.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 08:15 pm
BTW, Harper ... my personal portfolio has done quite well, particularly over the past 5 years, outperforming all indices handsomely, despite my stubborn refusal to accept and cut my losses in the damned Telecom sector Rolling Eyes . If not for that idiocy, I'd be doing far better, but still I make a damned decent living at it (I actively day-trade stocks, commodities, futures, financial instruments, and currencies, devoting on average 10 to 12 hours per day to the pursuit - I'm online and at the keyboard a lot, visiting A2K and other websites, and following live newsfeeds, inbetween revenue-producing transactions, along with doin' some contract IT Security/Privacy-related stuff) even after plowing money into a farm that is more of an expensive hobby than anything resembling an income source.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 08:26 pm
I am an auditor by trade and make the bulk of my income these days going from business to business, up to a couple of dozen a week, to do my thing. I see a lot of payrolls, sales journals, and P & L statements. This past year in New Mexico, a fairly sparsely populated and low income state, has been amazing. I think I've seen two businesses all year that have reduced staff; most have been hiring. Gross receipts, wages and payrolls are up across the board and many businesses have added health plans and retirement programs for their employees. And all this with a largely anti-business legislature.

You simply can't tell me things aren't getting better. I've seen the evidence with my own eyes.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 08:36 pm
Your personal ability to make money and your limited experience at seeing the wealth of your clients is beside the point. Either you agree with objective economists or you listen to the partisans you've chosen to elect.

Since you have say you see the "evidence with your own eyes" rather than needing to pay attention to standard government reports, there is not much that anyone on a public internet forum can do to change your mind. We can still say you are wrong.

The fact that the Piffka portfolio has done well is also beside the point. It sure doesn't mean much to those people who don't have a portfolio and even less to those who used to work for these wonderfully profitable companies but no longer have a job. The Piffkas use a contrarian formula and don't buy and sell much except to toss the dividends back in. <shrug> Does that have anything to do with whether the regular American worker is getting a raw deal right now?
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 08:49 pm
Timber claims to be a day trader yet doesn't know the DJIA is down since Bush took office???
If I were him or her, I would cut out the posting during market hours, pehaps that is why so many of his or her posts make so little sense.

Investors can make money in any market, it is just that you need to guess which way the market is going. I was going to go long on January Euros but I thought that the Kerry election would cause the dollar to rally.

Just read on Blomberg that Bush is going to cut defiicits and boost the dollar. Where is he going to get the $2 trillion to privatize Social Security?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 09:10 pm
I don't pay a helluva lot of attention to economists - objective or otherwise (though the term "Objective Economist" strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron ... sorta like "Government Assistance" or "Military Intelligence")

The economic indicators of which I am aware portray a contemporary US Economy characterized by sustained, sustainable, historically robust growth, with promise of more of the same into the foreseeable future.

I submit, however, that with the turn of the immediate past Century, as with the turn of its predecessor, we entered into a new socio-economic paradigm, and things are not nor will they ever return to "the way they were".

A century ago, sail makers were an endangered species, harness crafters, wheelwirights, wagon builders, blacksmiths and farriers did not realize it, but their days were numbered. Women were being drawn from farms and sweatshops to fill typing pools and telephone exchanges, and farmboys were deserting fields un-needful of their labor due to the technological advances in productivity made possible by the products of the factories to which they began gravitating, thus hastening the urbanization and industrialization of what had been a horse, wind and steam-powered, largely agrarian society and economy.

A century ago, mercantile-industrial capitalsism entered its golden age. Today, we awake to the dawn of The Information and Technology Age. What the internal combustion engine, the telephone, electricity, and the airfoil did for The Twentieth Century, at the expense of the thusly supplanted traditions of The Nineteenth Century, so will the silicon chip, photo-optic technology, genetic engineering, and space exploration do for The 21st Century, at the expense of the traditions of The Twentieth Century. The sweat of the factory worker has been replaced by the productivity enhancements brought on by the computer. While fewer people are involved in manufacturing today than even a half generation ago, industrial output has never been higher and is increasing exponentially.

The future lies before us all, and will reward those who embrace it, the past is gone forever, and pursuit of it offers no profit even to those who refuse to let it go.

The times they are achangin'.



Like it or not.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/28/2024 at 08:28:59