From: Ross A. Finlayson (extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com)
Date: Tue Oct 01 2002 - 19:21:55 MDT
On Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at 01:42 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> --- Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>> In a message dated 9/30/2002 7:01:39 PM Central Standard Time,
>> extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com writes: There might be a definite
>> conflict
>> of interest. Halliburton is an "oil services company".
>>
>>
>> Yes, and then again there might not be. Heck I haven't even been
>> shown the original remard could be supported.
>
> This is a damned if you do/don't scenario. Bush was lauded after his
> inauguration for all of the highly competent people he drew from
> private industry to run the government. For example, Rumsfeld for his
> experience in the defence industry. Now that the opposition has its
> wind up, it claims this previously lauded expertise, intended to
> improve the operation of the government, is now a conflict of interest.
> The left can't have it both ways.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
I'm a moderate.
The most recent efficiency gains in government came under Clinton's
watch in the efforts for efficiency in government, although the gains
were unfortunately funneled into much pork.
Rumsfeld and Cheney were components of Bush' father's administration, or
the administration of the eighties/early nineties, what-have you.
However he gained office, in lacking the popular vote and the final
popular vote tallies and most specific estimates from Florida in 2000,
Bush' handlers are remarkably familiar. Some people may have
appreciated the renewed cabinet, some people didn't.
Many people plainly do not approve of the government trying to withhold
information.
If you're talking about running the government like the private sector,
let's call it a business and look at its balance sheet. Let's say we
look at its revenues and expenditures. Revenues are down, and
expenditures are up. There is a lot of red ink.
In calling the late nineties stock market boom an epic paper hustle,
it's possible to consider that the economy wasn't that great, but by all
rights it should be better now than it was six or seven years ago. It
is, in many ways, growth continued at some realistic rate, but
unfortunately the large-scale reallocations have lead to many
hard-working, middle-class families whose primary retirement savings are
in equities losing much of their stake.
In the late nineties and 2000 huge amounts of money was invested in the
stock market, and now two year later the market is around 2/3 of what is
was. Some people, somewhere, sold stocks to those people who bought
stocks, or whose primary personal savings non-risk-free investment
vehicles held those stocks. The money didn't evaporate, it changed
hands.
Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:23 MST