Asp Forum - The default array print format

Bart Braem

9/20/2006 1:07:00 PM

Hello,

I was playing around with some LDAP results in a Rails system and it did not
work at all, I kept getting strang --- and - in the results. It turned out
I did not index the array properly and I was converting it to strings...
Another thing I noticed lately is that when I try to print arrays they don't
look as good as in say PHP.
Now I wonder: isn't it possible to make array print nicer and clearer by
default? I know there is a pretty print package, but why stick to a less
clear default implementation?
Just wondering of course...

Bart

7 Answers

Robert Klemme

9/20/2006 1:43:00 PM

On 20.09.2006 15:07, Bart Braem wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was playing around with some LDAP results in a Rails system and it did not
> work at all, I kept getting strang --- and - in the results. It turned out
> I did not index the array properly and I was converting it to strings...
> Another thing I noticed lately is that when I try to print arrays they don't
> look as good as in say PHP.
> Now I wonder: isn't it possible to make array print nicer and clearer by
> default? I know there is a pretty print package, but why stick to a less
> clear default implementation?
> Just wondering of course...

Did you probably miss one of the standard methods available?

>> a=%w{foo bar baz}
=> ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
>> puts a
foo
bar
baz
=> nil
>> p a
["foo", "bar", "baz"]
=> nil
>> puts a.to_s
foobarbaz
=> nil
>> puts a.inspect
["foo", "bar", "baz"]
=> nil

Granted, the version using to_s is certainly questionable but the other
two alternatives (especially p, which uses #inspect internally) are
pretty clear, aren't they?

Kind regards

robert

Bart Braem

9/21/2006 6:21:00 AM

Robert Klemme wrote:

> Granted, the version using to_s is certainly questionable but the other
> two alternatives (especially p, which uses #inspect internally) are
> pretty clear, aren't they?

They sure are, but some projects, in this case Rails, seem to use the to_s
method. And I don't understand why that remove-all-spaces approach is
chosen. But perhaps there are good reasons for this, I'm not a longtime
ruby user so I just wonder.

Thanks for your explanation
Bart

Robert Klemme

9/21/2006 7:17:00 AM

Bart Braem <bart.braem@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>> Granted, the version using to_s is certainly questionable but the
>> other two alternatives (especially p, which uses #inspect
>> internally) are pretty clear, aren't they?
>
> They sure are, but some projects, in this case Rails, seem to use the
> to_s method.

I have no insight at which exact point it does this. But I guess you can
change that, or explicitly invoke another method.

> And I don't understand why that remove-all-spaces
> approach is chosen.

Probably because it is not a "remove all spaces" approach: there are no
spaces in an array, Array#to_s just appends string representations of all
its elements. It's like Array#join called without arguments (or with an
empty string as argument). :-)

> But perhaps there are good reasons for this, I'm
> not a longtime ruby user so I just wonder.

My guess at the reasoning behind this goes like this: to_s does the simplest
thing possible (i.e. converting all elements to string via their #to_s and
then concatenate them). If the user wants something more fancy, she has to
explicitly use another method, e.g. join with an argument that denotes the
string that is inserted in between.

> Thanks for your explanation
> Bart

You're welcome!

Kind regards

robert

Carlos

9/22/2006 1:04:00 AM

Robert Klemme wrote:

> Bart Braem <bart.braem@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert Klemme wrote:
>>
>>> Granted, the version using to_s is certainly questionable but the
>>> other two alternatives (especially p, which uses #inspect
>>> internally) are pretty clear, aren't they?
>>
>>
>> They sure are, but some projects, in this case Rails, seem to use the
>> to_s method.
>
>
> I have no insight at which exact point it does this. But I guess you
> can change that, or explicitly invoke another method.
>
>> And I don't understand why that remove-all-spaces
>> approach is chosen.
>
>
> Probably because it is not a "remove all spaces" approach: there are no
> spaces in an array, Array#to_s just appends string representations of
> all its elements. It's like Array#join called without arguments (or
> with an empty string as argument). :-)
>
>> But perhaps there are good reasons for this, I'm
>> not a longtime ruby user so I just wonder.
>
>
> My guess at the reasoning behind this goes like this: to_s does the
> simplest thing possible (i.e. converting all elements to string via
> their #to_s and then concatenate them). If the user wants something
> more fancy, she has to explicitly use another method, e.g. join with an
> argument that denotes the string that is inserted in between.

You can just set $, to the separator you want.

$ ruby -e '$,=","; puts [1,2,3,4].to_s'
1,2,3,4

It's also the default argument to #join.
--

Khadijah@forteinc.com

10/18/2011 11:28:00 PM

On 11-10-18 04:55 PM, wy wrote:
> On Oct 18, 1:52 pm, "Khadi...@forteinc.com"
> <khadijahbintmuham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11-10-18 12:50 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Khadi...@forteinc.com"<khadijahbintmuham...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> messagenews:qOinq.454057$Li5.257430@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...
>>>> On 11-10-18 12:15 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Khadi...@forteinc.com"<khadijahbintmuham...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> messagenews:Rginq.276304$Ky6.119349@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
>>>>>> On 11-10-18 12:11 AM, wy wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 11:36 pm, "Khadi...@forteinc.com"
>>>>>>> <khadijahbintmuham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11-10-17 09:37 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 9:48 pm, "Khadi...@forteinc.com"
>>>>>>>>> <khadijahbintmuham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11-10-17 07:55 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 7:55 pm, "Khadi...@forteinc.com"
>>>>>>>>>>> <khadijahbintmuham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11-10-17 06:14 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Capitalism is incapable of existing on its own without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government aid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of some kind, direct or otherwise. Even when plants get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built, who do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you think forks over the cash to help a multi-billion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dollar company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with multi-billion dollar profits of their own to build the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plant and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even throw in a few tax relief incentives?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The state government, not the federal. They do so on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strict ROI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formula, and as long as that formula is held to, it's all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The government shouldn't be in the business of forking over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cash to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big business for such development. That's what you have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big banks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for. You know, capitalism should be feeding capitalism, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government feeding it.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have an issue with it, I don't. If a local jurisdiction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bribe a major employer with tax breaks and low interest loans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not seen financial GIFTS, as you infer there are) because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they'll profit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off the increased tax base in the back end, I have no issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with that.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seriously believe that? Using a local example of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bombardier, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> major builder of transportation and air technology here in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quebec, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would think the billion dollar company would've benefitted this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> province by now, but it seems that every time they get into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rut,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it's the economy or shortfall in orders or just plain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "corporate losses," they always seem to threaten the provincial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> government into pouring more money into them or they'd just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shut down
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or pack up and leave. That's what's called extortion and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> capitalist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> companies practice it very effectively, which again only goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the point that true self-sustaining capitalism is a fantasy that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists only in Repugnants' minds.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you must believe that Bombardier's management is perfect and
>>>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>>>> errs, eh? That would have to be true for you to draw the
>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion you do.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I believe they're either incompetent with their financing and
>>>>>>>>>>> fail
>>>>>>>>>>> to plan for downturns or they just enjoy being a corporate welfare
>>>>>>>>>>> recipient. Either way, they demonstrate failed capitalism at its
>>>>>>>>>>> finest.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The real problem you have with your thinking is that you conflate
>>>>>>>>>>>> corporatism and capitalism. The fact is that corporations are all
>>>>>>>>>>>> capitalistic until they're not; they are more than happy to
>>>>>>>>>>>> indulge in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> little government socialistic protectionism if it helps the
>>>>>>>>>>>> bottom line.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So where's the problem in my thinking? You're just basically
>>>>>>>>>>> telling
>>>>>>>>>>> me what I've been telling you: there is no such thing as
>>>>>>>>>>> capitalism.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> By your definition, you're correct; there is no capitalism if the
>>>>>>>>>> definition of it is "for profit activity with zero interaction
>>>>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>>>>> public sector." That's not my definition of it, and not the
>>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>> of it that is commonly used. Capitalism is merely the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>> socialism: the means of production are privately owned and
>>>>>>>>>> operated for
>>>>>>>>>> profit. The fact that the government might be a customer, or
>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure, or even provide a tax abatement, doesn't suddenly
>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>> that the venture is not privately owned, and that it's not
>>>>>>>>>> "capitalism."
>>
>>>>>>>>> That whole "privately owned for profit" thing is a nice way to
>>>>>>>>> define
>>>>>>>>> capitalism, but there's really only a razor thin difference
>>>>>>>>> between it
>>>>>>>>> and socialism where it really counts - source of cash, i.e.
>>>>>>>>> government, especially when capitalism fails to be self-sufficient.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your example of Bombardier (a company with which I am very
>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar) is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a perfect example of how companies put bottom line first
>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of
>>>>>>>>>>>> "free markets"; what your example actually proves is not that
>>>>>>>>>>>> capitalism
>>>>>>>>>>>> fails, but that your government is feckless and unable to either
>>>>>>>>>>>> (1)
>>>>>>>>>>>> determine if there are government conditions which are indeed
>>>>>>>>>>>> making it
>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult for them to continue operations, or (2) stare them
>>>>>>>>>>>> down.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Capitalism's working properly --- it's your government that's not
>>>>>>>>>>>> letting it work freely, because they are afraid of the dealing
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> aftermath.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, it's working properly alright, it's got the government by
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> balls and not only here, but everywhere else where capitalism
>>>>>>>>>>> expects
>>>>>>>>>>> to be spoon-fed cash just to establish itself "for the good of the
>>>>>>>>>>> community". Yeah, right. You're astoundingly more naive than
>>>>>>>>>>> you let
>>>>>>>>>>> yourself show to be.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Uh-huh. You have a problem in Quebec (which is not unique) and
>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>> lashing out at the free market, capitalism, and even me for
>>>>>>>>>> pointing out
>>>>>>>>>> the obvious: that in the end, the corporations have the
>>>>>>>>>> government by
>>>>>>>>>> the cojones, and there's not a damn thing the government can do
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> it. Look at the situation in the US and our prior discussions on
>>>>>>>>>> "uncertainty"; the government, or the political left, or
>>>>>>>>>> whoever, can
>>>>>>>>>> whine all they want about uncertainty NOT being the cause of the
>>>>>>>>>> lack of
>>>>>>>>>> hiring; the private sector just shrugs it shoulders and says "OK,
>>>>>>>>>> Kemo
>>>>>>>>>> Sabe, you give 160 million people government jobs, and we'll see
>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>> that works out for you."
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I especially like this when the Congress calls in the oil majors
>>>>>>>>>> executives for their semiannual asskicking. Each of the Dem
>>>>>>>>>> critters
>>>>>>>>>> hoots, hollers, berates them for their profits, for not paying
>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>> in taxes, for not drilling where they want them to and wanting to
>>>>>>>>>> drill
>>>>>>>>>> where they don't, yada yada yada. The oil execs just sit there,
>>>>>>>>>> toss out
>>>>>>>>>> their pat answers, look serious, and you know all the while
>>>>>>>>>> they're just
>>>>>>>>>> sitting there thinking "Yea, yea, yea --- without us, you're up the
>>>>>>>>>> creek with no paddle, and everyone knows it."
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Until the government gets real and admits that the country needs
>>>>>>>>>> to work
>>>>>>>>>> WITH business and not AGAINST it, we'll stay in the recession.
>>
>>>>>>>>> You've got that backwards. Business needs to work with government to
>>>>>>>>> ensure that the overall economic health of the country doesn't keep
>>>>>>>>> playing a yo-yo game decade in and decade out.
>>
>>>>>>>> No, it's NOT backwards. Intel, for example, cares about happy
>>>>>>>> shareholders, not the overall economic health of the US;
>>
>>>>>>> That's exactly what makes it backwards. By thinking just of the
>>>>>>> health of Intel, it's doing so only in the short-term. The long-term
>>>>>>> picture of health for Intel lies in the health of the US economy
>>>>>>> overall.
>>
>>>>>> No, it doesn't. It lies in the growth of sales in the high-growth
>>>>>> nations; well over half of their revenues come from overseas already.
>>>>>> They would PREFER to have all market segments contributing, of course,
>>>>>> but their market share is tied to success in the high growth segments,
>>>>>> not the slow growth US.
>>
>>>>>> And shareholders themselves got royally screwed by the crash
>>>>>>> when they saw huge losses, on average about 50%, in their portfolios,
>>>>>>> if not complete wipeouts. I myself had to listen to friends whine on
>>>>>>> about how much they've lost from the crash and only a few them are
>>>>>>> just now almost beginning to get back to where they were 3 years ago -
>>>>>>> so where's the real profit for them? One guy I know had over $80
>>>>>>> grand before the crash, estimating that maybe $10 grand was profit
>>>>>>> after about 15 years of investing, then he lost nearly $45 grand and
>>>>>>> he's only back up to about $67 grand now. He's now where he was back
>>>>>>> in 2003 or 2004. Again, what did he gain out of the stock market? He
>>>>>>> still hasn't even recovered some of the $10 grand profit he made,
>>>>>>> since a percentage of his loss would've been the profit itself. If
>>>>>>> he's lucky, he'll probably be back to where he was in 2008 by the time
>>>>>>> time 2013 or 2014 rolls around, that's if nothing else crashes in the
>>>>>>> meantime to suck him under again. And he's not the only case, there
>>>>>>> are likely millions like him that got hit bad and still haven't
>>>>>>> recovered. So by always thinking about what you can get now, you only
>>>>>>> doom yourself by not getting what you should get in the long run, and
>>>>>>> the only way you can ensure getting your share in the long run is to
>>>>>>> ensure that the economy runs smoothly. Business has proven time and
>>>>>>> again that it doesn't do things in its own best long-term interests
>>>>>>> but in its worst short-term greed, which is why government needs to
>>>>>>> reing in business with sensible regulations, much like Canada has
>>>>>>> reined in the banking system to prevent them from going crazy with
>>>>>>> other people's money, explaining why Canadian banks are among the most
>>>>>>> envied in the world for how they got through the crash relatively
>>>>>>> unscathed, especially compared to the US banking system.
>>
>>>>>>> and if they can
>>>>>>>> keep the shareholders happy on all non-US growth, they will be
>>>>>>>> happy to
>>>>>>>> do so, and not employ a single additional person here in the process.
>>>>>>>> It's *government* that needs them to employ people here, and
>>>>>>>> therefore
>>>>>>>> needs to find a way to incent them to do so.
>>
>>>>>>>> Four recessions in the
>>
>>>>>>>>> last 30 years, as well as a subprime crash, an S&L crash and a Wall
>>>>>>>>> St. crash, with the result being flatlined wages for everybody
>>>>>>>>> but the
>>>>>>>>> rich, virtually no job growth throughout the Bush years, up to 25
>>>>>>>>> million out of work now, unregulated and deregulated practices,
>>>>>>>>> unwarranted tax breaks and various other expensive perks billed to
>>>>>>>>> taxpayers for a system that should actually take care of itself
>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>> than rely on Uncle Sam, all of it have added up to more havoc than
>>>>>>>>> actual success. Reagan asked the question three decades ago: Are you
>>>>>>>>> better off now than 4 years ago? The same question could've been
>>>>>>>>> asked by Bush 1 and Bush 2 and, though it's not his fault, Obama.
>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>> repeatedly keep asking the same question for 30 years? Shouldn't you
>>>>>>>>> be a hell of a lot better now than 30 years ago or just 4 years ago
>>>>>>>>> the way the filthy rich are?A lot of people, quite likely the
>>>>>>>>> majority of the 99%, would resoundingly say they aren't. So
>>>>>>>>> capitalism, particularly its ugliest form of the last three decades,
>>>>>>>>> overall has failed not only for businesses to operate and compete
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> true capitalist businesses, but also for the population at large -
>>>>>>>>> except, of course, the filthier rich.
>>
>>>>>>>> Real hourly wage in the US peaked in 1972 at $19.75 per hour. It
>>>>>>>> fell to
>>>>>>>> $18.50 in 1975, went back up to $19 by 1978, then started a crash
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> didn't abate until it hit $16 in 1996.
>>
>>>>>>>> The inflection point occurred after Bretton Woods II, when the world
>>>>>>>> moved to fiat currency, when Nixon cranked up the printing presses to
>>>>>>>> pay off LBJ's Vietnam Debts (referred to as the "Nixon Shock"),
>>>>>>>> and is
>>>>>>>> co-incident with an increase in the slope of M2. So, we devalued the
>>>>>>>> currency, inflation kicked off, wages did not keep up with inflation.
>>
>>>>>>>> Instead of running around blaming every Republican you can find,
>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>> you should consider the fact that (1) Americans stopped becoming
>>>>>>>> "richer" in 1972, not on Reagan's inaguration day, (2) that the day
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> stopped becoming richer was co-incident with (a) Bretton Woods
>>>>>>>> II), (3)
>>>>>>>> Nixon debasing the currency, and (4) a marked increase in the
>>>>>>>> supply of
>>>>>>>> dollars in the world.
>>
>>>>>>> Americans actually stopped becoming richer under Carter. It may be
>>>>>>> only 75 cents difference between Carter and Nixon, but clearly the
>>>>>>> real hourly rate wasn't mortally wounded after Nixon as it rebounded
>>>>>>> under Ford and continued to strengthen into the first half of Carter's
>>>>>>> term to almost match Nixon's peak, which actually could be considered
>>>>>>> as an aberration when comparing the trajectory of the climb under
>>>>>>> Nixon between 1970-73 to the years preceding it, it having been a more
>>>>>>> severe surge at a faster rate.But even the decline under Carter
>>>>>>> would've seen the rate rebound again if it hadn't been for Reagan's
>>>>>>> policies interfering with the normal ebb and flow of things. His
>>>>>>> policies proved disastrous to middle class earners as they saw no
>>>>>>> increase in their hourly rate at all by the time he ended his run. So
>>>>>>> they definitely weren't better off in 1989 than they were 8 years
>>>>>>> earlier - so much for trickle down.
>>
>>>>>> Indeed? You think they would have been better off with 10%
>>>>>> unemployment, 10% inflation rate, and 15% mortgages, which is the
>>>>>> situation that Reagan inherited from Carter. :-)
>>
>>>>>> Carter contributed a horrible economy to Reagan. Reagan reversed
>>>>>> course and generated a robust economy which halved all the rates
>>>>>> mentioned above, and a rocketing stock market which all benefitted
>>>>>> from. Did he reverse the decline of real hourly wage which started
>>>>>> under Carter? No, but he significantly altered the slope of the
>>>>>> decline to one which was not as severe.
>>
>>>>>> Perfect record? No president has one. But the facts of history are
>>>>>> that he took office during a recession arguably as severe as the
>>>>>> 08-09, and he left behind him a robust economy.
>>
>>> St Reagan "Let the good times roll" was the beginning and makings of
>>> today's financial problem.
>>> Reagan borrowed our way to prosperity.
>>
>>>> I have posted facts to the contrary.
>>
>>>> Khadijah
>>
>>> I was there watching.
>>> Your "facts" are wrong.
>>
>> Then disprove them with other facts. Your words are worth nothing.
>
> This pretty well sums it up succinctly:
>
> http://tinyurl.c...
>
> Try thinking outside of your well-structured box as you give it a
> token glance.

I see you're doing anything you can to avoid having to deal with the
issue of historical real monthly wage and the fact that it began its
slide a decade before Reagan.

But, I'll be glad to point out the glaring errors, lies, and
exagerations in the article you believe "sums things up".

1) "Supply-side Economics was a dangerous new direction". Nonsense. Read
up on Calvin Coolidge's economics during the 20's.

2) If Reagan's total package was "catastrophic" (adding 1.2T or so
during his term) then by the same metric, Obama's is a nightmare. If you
or Sid condemn Reagan but refuse to condemn Obama, then you're hypocrites.

3) Since redistribution of wealth does not occur from the poor to the
rich (if "trickle-down" doesn't work, how can "trickle up" work?) the
entire 4th paragraph is invalid.

4) The author omits the fact that the progressive policies of Roosevelt,
Kennedy, and Johnson led to the stagflation of the 70's, virtually
destroying the economy and creating a "misery index" higher than we have
had during this current recession. The same situation occurred a few
years earlier in Great Britain. In both cases, well established
Austrian-theory solutions were employed to save the economies.

5) The 'custom' of robbing the Social Security surplus happened after
and during Reagan's term, and by both parties; currently, the Democrats
defend this practice more than Republicans do. The author lies by making
it seem that this was unique to the Reagan period.

6) Reagan did not cut taxes for the rich. That has been proven to you
using the CBO numbers on at least three occasions now. Horse-water-drink.

There's more, but you ought to be more selective on what you read. It
amazes me that guys like this author were tenured professors. If an
amateur like me can easily poke holes in the account, what could a real
economist do?

Khadijah

>
>
>>
>> Khadijah
>>
>>> Along with Grover Norquist, the plan was to weaken the American government.
>>> Republican bush,jr, incompetent and ignorant, took up the same path and
>>> took us to the edge of a depression worse than 1929.
>>> We were only saved when bush,jr, packed and waiting for the moving van,
>>> allowed some sane financial heads stop the crash
>

Khadijah@forteinc.com

10/19/2011 12:39:00 AM

On 11-10-18 04:59 PM, wy wrote:
> On Oct 18, 5:55 pm, wy<w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> St Reagan "Let the good times roll" was the beginning and makings of
>>>> today's financial problem.
>>>> Reagan borrowed our way to prosperity.
>>
>>>>> I have posted facts to the contrary.
>>
>>>>> Khadijah
>>
>>>> I was there watching.
>>>> Your "facts" are wrong.
>>
>>> Then disprove them with other facts. Your words are worth nothing.
>>
>> This pretty well sums it up succinctly:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.c...
>>
>> Try thinking outside of your well-structured box as you give it a
>> token glance.
>
> P.S. And, oh, yes, its companion piece for your token glimpse only:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html...
>

Did you want a commentary on this? It's a mixed bag.

Khadijah

wy

10/19/2011 12:51:00 AM

On Oct 18, 7:28 pm, "Khadi...@forteinc.com"
<khadijahbintmuham...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>> St Reagan "Let the good times roll" was the beginning and makings of
> >>> today's financial problem.
> >>> Reagan borrowed our way to prosperity.
>
> >>>> I have posted facts to the contrary.
>
> >>>> Khadijah
>
> >>> I was there watching.
> >>> Your "facts" are wrong.
>
> >> Then disprove them with other facts. Your words are worth nothing.
>
> > This pretty well sums it up succinctly:
>
> >http://tinyurl.c...
>
> > Try thinking outside of your well-structured box as you give it a
> > token glance.
>
> I see you're doing anything you can to avoid having to deal with the
> issue of historical real monthly wage and the fact that it began its
> slide a decade before Reagan.

I've already gone through that - that the slide really didn't happen
till Reagan came along, which you've already admitted yourself by
pointing to a second peaking of wages under Carter in 1978, which
clearly negates your fantasy that it began to slide a decade before
Reagan. I've already stated that the Nixon peak in 1970-73 was an
aberration in relation to what preceded it, the trajectory of its
climb was totally out of whack compared to the trajectory before it,
and just as precipitously it dropped before spiking up again, but not
as overdramatically as it did with Nixon. If you want to go by
decades, then clearly the 70s was the peak decade for wages once you
average it all out and the rundown for the last 50 years would go like
this:

1. The 70s
2. The 60s
3. The 00s
4. The 80s
5. The 90s

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/09.11/images/real-hourl...

Yes, the 90s were the worst decade for wages, no doubt as a result of
what had preceded it in the 80s. But after Clinton worked his magic,
his lingering effect into the Bush years helped pump up wages again.

So let's summarize:

Proof: It reached a second peak under Carter in 1978, meaning the 70s
had the two top peaks of the last 50 years, meaning wages were way up
on average, ranking at the top, and not having begun to go down as you
deludedly love to believe

Proof: Without Reagan's idiotic input, it might've reached a third and
even fourth peak under him in the 80s, but he thought it best to mess
with the formula.

Proof: Proof that it might've climbed again under Reagan is how it did
climb again under not only Clinton in his latter years, but Bush as
well.

Sure, under Bush it still settled at about 75 cents less than under
Carter, but the trend was clear - it was still going up since Clinton,
and the trajectory trend was for it to still keeping going up until,
of course, Bush thought that that was too much of a good thing and so
he decided to crash the economy.

But the articles should've explained the obvious to you; however, it
looks like they were too disruptive of the comfort zone you find
yourself in within your tight little box.

>
> But, I'll be glad to point out the glaring errors, lies, and
> exagerations in the article you believe "sums things up".
>
> 1) "Supply-side Economics was a dangerous new direction". Nonsense. Read
> up on Calvin Coolidge's economics during the 20's.

Which led to the Great Depression. Yeah, I know. Those who refuse to
learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

>
> 2) If Reagan's total package was "catastrophic" (adding 1.2T or so
> during his term) then by the same metric, Obama's is a nightmare. If you
> or Sid condemn Reagan but refuse to condemn Obama, then you're hypocrites.

Two entirely different stories. First of all, Reagan may've inherited
a weak economy from Carter, but it had been stabilized by the time he
took office. It wasn't until a year later that his own recession came
crashing down on everybody, lasting two years and peaking with an
unemployment rate of 10%-10.8% for a solid 10 straight solid months,
thanks to his idiotic policies which he thought would work but failed
miserably. But I'll give him credit for at least being smart enough
to know when to junk what he thought would work and jack up taxes on
everyone after he lowered them and saw it had no effect. It was only
after he jacked up taxes, three times (a large tax hike on business in
1982, higher payroll taxes in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984),
that by 1985 a turnaround became more apparent on all fronts.

In Obama's case, he didn't inheret a weak economy, he inherited a
stinker of one that was actually getting worse as he was being
inaugurated and continued to get worse for a few months before it
bottomed out and began to inch up again. What he's had to do with his
money was try to keep things afloat and you don't do it with just
pocket change when it's all about trillions in losses and trillions to
stabilize those trillions in losses. In case it still hasn't sunk in
for you, an almost identical scenario is happening in Europe right
now. You don't see them thinking about throwing only a few hundred
dollars at Greece to fix the problem, do you? So, yeah, two
completely different stories: one that was a case of messing with a
formula to actually make things worse and the other a case of trying
to keep a house of cards from totally collapsing after some of it
already has.

>
> 3) Since redistribution of wealth does not occur from the poor to the
> rich (if "trickle-down" doesn't work, how can "trickle up" work?) the
> entire 4th paragraph is invalid.

The rich get rich from the poor via the products the poor buy, i.e.
the Walmart folks bank on the poor and the cheap to get filthy rich
themselves, so it is trickle up. Trickle down hasn't proven itself to
work at all just by the second lowest level of real hourly wages that
existed throughout the Reagan years followed by the lowest into the
first half of the Clinton years.

>
> 4) The author omits the fact that the progressive policies of Roosevelt,
> Kennedy, and Johnson led to the stagflation of the 70's, virtually
> destroying the economy and creating a "misery index" higher than we have
> had during this current recession. The same situation occurred a few
> years earlier in Great Britain. In both cases, well established
> Austrian-theory solutions were employed to save the economies.

So what's the equation, then? High wages = stagflation = misery and
low wages = healthy economy = happiness? Really? Sounds like a rich
man's wet dream of an equation.

>
> 5) The 'custom' of robbing the Social Security surplus happened after
> and during Reagan's term, and by both parties; currently, the Democrats
> defend this practice more than Republicans do. The author lies by making
> it seem that this was unique to the Reagan period.

It was unique in the way Reagan and Greenspan restructured it. Among
other things, Reagan used revenue from the Social Security payroll tax
hike to fund tax cuts for the rich because that was where the money
was, not to mention he also diverted the surplus funds towards beefing
up the military big time as a show of force against Russia. An
exercise in pointless that was, because as early as 1975 the CIA knew
that Russia in its state at the time would be unsustainable for
another decade. Of course, what really was the deathblow to Russia
more than Reagan's build-up of the military was its decade-long war in
Afghanistan which dried up all their money and resources and rendered
their 5-year plans effectively useless. Gorbachev knew as early as
1985 that Russia didn't have much time left in its current form so
that's why he engaged in talks with Reagan to work things out to
Russia's advantage as best he could with nuuclear and other armament
talks before he'd have no leverage left. So the rich got all their
money meant for Social Security recipients and the military got all
their money meant for ending a Cold War that everyone on the inside
knew was going to end anyway. A simple solution to restore Social
Security to the fund level it should actually be at now is to impose a
clawback tax on the wealthy, getting back what was giving to them from
the SS piggy bank.

>
> 6) Reagan did not cut taxes for the rich. That has been proven to you
> using the CBO numbers on at least three occasions now. Horse-water-drink.

No, he didn't cut taxes on the rich, but he did give them more money
than they actually needed from Social Security. He did, though,
increase business taxes, so in a way that's like taxing the rich.

>
> There's more, but you ought to be more selective on what you read. It
> amazes me that guys like this author were tenured professors. If an
> amateur like me can easily poke holes in the account, what could a real
> economist do?

Still nice and cozy and all snugly warm in your tight little box, are
you? Now we know you're really on wobbly knees when you begin
belittling an economics professor. I bet he knows and understands
tons more than you do from all your Google searches.

comp.lang.ruby

The default array print format

Bart Braem

Robert Klemme

Bart Braem

Robert Klemme

Carlos

Khadijah@forteinc.com

Khadijah@forteinc.com

wy

x Login to ForumsZone