Only those of us in the industry were just getting started with the Internet. The standard modem speed at the time was 14400. We were developing HTML using Mosaic. At that time it was used for exchanging technical information, such as usenet groups, external email and job resumes.
It wasnt until the issue of 'commercializing' came to light that it started getting a lot of attention (mid 90's).
|
|
|
Spot on. Matt Lewis should have thought about this one a little longer before he posted it. |
|
Matt Lewis did not say this.
Nor did Newsweek originate the quote.
(And your lapdog, "nihilist" jumped on it like a duck on a Junebug. Absolutely hilarious)
AN OBAMA OFFICIAL DID SAY IT. So---if you want to misconstrue its meaning---give credit to same.
The entire quote can be read by one who actually took the time to look at the article:
"Lately, I've been dining out on a line I heard not long ago from a senior Obama administration economic official: In all the briefing papers prepared for the famous Clinton Little Rock summit in late 1992, the word Internet never appeared."
Most importantly----myopically, laughably, you MISSED the entire point.
Indeed, there was no "commercial" internet during the period quoted----therefore, there was no way to plan for it to be the boost it turned out to be to the economy in the 1990's----yet, many shortsightedly gave this same Clinton administration "credit" later that decade for the "internet-induced", economic surge (which was actually a direct result of Gingrich's 1994, "Conservative Coalition")---also resulting in its own, "tech bubble". |
|
I was commenting on Matt Lewis headline/blog post. I wasn't commenting on the Newsweek article which I did read. Matt's post was designed to debunk the healthcare proposal by comparing it to Clinton's. It's become commonplace these days to try and compare the two (on the right and the left) when in reality they are wholly different b/c of differences in the economy since and the rise of digital technology.
Posts like this are designed to confuse everybody without actually saying anything. And before you try to write off Matt's innuendo on the Obama administration you should read the headline he applied to the qoute. "Proof Central Planning doesn't work", please explain to me how that quote in any way proves central planning doesn't work. |
|
I thought Iraq and Afghanistan were proof enough that central planning doesn't work?
Oh yeah, silly me, I forgot.
Conservatives are for "limited" government, except when it comes to the military.
Then it is Ronald Reagan spend baby spend!
That Democrat Eisenhower warned us against about the dangers of big government, military government complex.
Small government! except for the military!
Central planning doesn't work, except for the military!
OK, I'm back on track now. I just get so easily confused.
|
|
"there was no way to plan for it to be the boost it turned out to be to the economy in the 1990's"
I'm assuming you apply this criteria "written in stone, never to change plan" to military planning as well, eh?
Why do you believe in military planning by the government and not health care planning, eh?
Doesn't the military every day have to change with the times?
|
|
I don't know how anybody read the Newsweek article - the link takes me to a story about the real estate market.
As I recall, the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign usually referred to the coming "information superhighway." The internet has been around for decades, of course, but the World Wide Web only reached critical mass in 1995, when Netscape went public and made a lot of people rich, for a while anyway. |
|
NO----YOU DID NOT.
Rather, you chose to celebrate "J"'s nitpicking the details regarding modem speeds and the utter nonexistence of the "commercial" internet in 1992. You annihilated (w/your "spot on" remark)any desire to argue a larger point. You simply did not attempt, in any form or fashion, to clear up what you now call, Lewis' intent to confuse everyone. At best-----you can be credited with providing further confusion--since you now make the claim about the post being confusing.
If yours was the intent to argue the "headline/blog post" as you now bluster about....you should have chosen to focus on that from the get go---rather than supporting claims of 1992 internet speeds of, "14400", HTML Mosaic applications and the like. Incredibly feckless counter argument.
|
|
Finally, regarding the "central planning" theme. I do agree that this was a very cavalier remark by its author. Not at all well positioned. Matt Lewis would do well to expound a bit more vis a vis rendering his statement inchoate.
My take on it was that Clinton and Gore made no mention of using the fledgling internet technologies to stimulate an economic resurgence in the decade of the 1990's. In 1991, their drumbeat in winning the election was to, rinse-lather-and-repeat with, "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID". One of their subsequent efforts was to develop an economic plan. And theirs did not include any mention of the internet, and related technologies------despite this being so integral to robust economic rebound of a few years later. Theirs was no CENTRAL PLANNING for this technology and the role it has played ever since. The internet was borne with far less starry-eyed intentions. It was to be an internal "bulletin board", as "J" mentioned. ONLY with free market influences and energies and efforts, the internet took off, and took on a life of its own----far surpassing any PLANNING for it.
AND------certainly not with any government planning, structuring, bloviating, interventions.
Mr. Lewis would have done a service to many of his readers had he spelled it out more clearly. However, both you and "J" missed his point entirely. Otherwise, you would not have so cavalierly posted as you did on the limited characteristics (at that specific moment in time) of the internet------rather than the wealth-creating, company-creating, opportunity-creating, which was right around the corner of Clinton's first administration.
|
|
writes,
"Internet
I don't know how anybody read the Newsweek article - the link takes me to a story about the real estate market."
DUH......she did not read the article either. Which is further proof that there remain too many on these threads that would rather post their blather than think.
|
|
"DUH......she did not read the article either."
Yes, you're exactly right. Good for you for figuring that out all by yourself, since that's exactly what I said myself.
Too bad you couldn't figure out that I was commenting on what other people said with basic facts about the internet.
You may return to your whining now. Thank you. |
|
We're not talking military planning, blood-nutter.
It's about Central Planning, by bureaucrats......you know, bureaucrats? |
|
"There will be another economic boom one of these days, but it will arrive suddenly and from an unexpected place."
Isn't that the crux of the headline? That despite whatever direction the Govt thinks they can lead us out of the recession, the solution will come from the marketplace.
btw, BaBaBarney Fwank just told Freddie and Fannie to 'loosen up' and lower standards on condo lending. Apparently the lesson learned from "roll the dice" a few years ago is very short-lived? More brilliant Central Planning?
|
|
WEll said about Barney Frank and his version of "regulation".
The schmoes who have been catterwauling that it was deregulation will never, "get it" that it was not about dereg. That is not what got us into trouble, rather it was ill-conceived regulation. Banks and financial institutions were told, instructed, forced into lending to high risk borrowers. It was demanded of them, that their portfolios were of a certain percentage to HIGH RISK customers. They had no choice if they were going to play in this marketplace.
It is what the C.R.A. was modified to be in Clinton's 1997-8 administration. Modified, of course, from Jimmy Carter's original manifestation of it.
These, by definition, are not deregulatory edicts----exactly the opposite. |
|
Ahh, so you are saying there are no bureaucrats in the military.
Lovely.
|
|
You are putting words in my mouth.
And, you are efforting to make a military issue of this thread, which is clearly about economic planning------CENTRAL PLANNING and how it specifically applies to this administration---not its military-----and their attempts to do so.
I understand, however, that it is far too challenging for someone such as yourself to FOCUS on such matters.
Now----if you want to start another thread on military planning and the ramifications of same, have at it. No wonder you concentrate on fantasies such as vampires. It helps in your unwillingness to stay on point. |
|
"That is not what got us into trouble, rather it was ill-conceived regulation. Banks and financial institutions were told, instructed, forced into lending to high risk borrowers."
Right, the banks all got on their knees and said, "Please, please don't make us loan our money to these people!" And the government regulators twirled their moustaches and said, "Dance, podna!" |
|
Ahh, the old "this bureaucracy is not a bureaucracy".
Nice.
I don't in believe big government, unless it is the military and it's 1/2 trillion dollar annual budget, and $100 billion additional war spending.
But, hey, you are right, I'm splitting hairs.
Yeah, the military is ok with planning an annual 1/2 trillion dollars, while the rest of the government is disfunctional, evil bureaucracy! Woooo hooo! |
|
BTW, the point of the Central Planning/no Internet mentioned post is that Central Planning either can't react or is slow to react with changing tides.
My point was the same could be said about the militray, except they do, of course change with the times. And of course my other point is that Republicans are in love with the huge success of the huge military bureaucracy planning and have no explanation as to why the huge government works over here spending trillions of dollars but fails over there spending trillions of dollars. Except the word "military".
Nice.
|
|
|
|