I am interested in people's opinions on G.W.'s new "stimulus" package. I like a lot of the things in it that I have read about so far, like cutting taxes on dividends so more people will invest in the stock market. I agree with extending unemployment benefits, and I wholeheartedly agree with accelerating the tax cuts that were not scheduled to go into effect for 3 or 4 more years. I believe that the best way for the gov't to "stimulate" the economy is to cut taxes and let people and businesses keep more of what they earn so they can spend more and hire more people. I am also curious what people think about the immediate criticisms that seem to spring simultaneously from all the democratic leaders about how it "favors the wealthy." I do not agree that handing out "rebate" checks of $300 and $600 is the way to go however. Anyone care to comment?

I guess most of the plan is an improvement. I am hardly enthusiastic. Real reform of tax law is needed as opposed to this typical centrist tinkering of the tax code, making it less stable, less predictable, and more complicated. It is a new coat of paint on a house with foundation problems.

I don't think either strategy will work. Dividend taxes impact a small minority of working people and have no effect on the unemployed. We are required to trust that the tax cuts will result in job creation. This is not necessarily true. The extra money can very well find itself in offshore corporations or going toward lobbying efforts to import more HB-1 high-tech workers to displace US workers.

I believe it is time to leverage government to 1) heavily invest in high tech R&D, 2) require corporations who take the money to hire US workers, and 3) fund training and retraining for unemployed US workers.

This recession has been brought to you by the Secret Committee to Undermine US Worker Income, based in some offshore island nation hiding from the IRS.

The Democrats want to toss us a bone like Congress did last time. Eh, it's only politics, eh?

I believe that the economy needs real stimulus from government right now, else we can kiss our futures good bye. It may already be too late.

Best thing the gov't could do, is stay the heck out of it!!

But if they HAVE to intervene, then so be it.

Like someone said, its little more than a patch on a crumbling foundation.

I like the idea of increasing the child deduction from 600 to 1k. I don't have any kids, but many of my friends do.... That deduction benefits everyone with kids...not JUST one small group...

--cheers

I agree. All these changes are so trivial that it won't help much.

If we are going to crank up the deficit, let's build up the infrastructure. Dividend breaks are corporate breaks. Have they earned anything like a break in the last three years?

I don't think we can take new tax cuts without paying for them. Why are we taxing the next generation by running up our debt?

The main thrust for economic recovery must be to get everyone back to work. Unemployed people pay no tax; tax breaks don't help if you have no income. Unemployed people don't buy much of anything. They suck down their investments held in 401-K and other retirement accounts. They eventually head into bankruptcy and foreclosure. This costs the economy too. After foreclosure, then what? Wards of the state? Homeless?

Bush throws 26 more weeks unemployment insurance at the most recently laid off. Yeah? And what will the cash-strapped states do with this money? Colorado only gave half of it to the unemployed last year, keeping the other half to avoid raising the UI taxes on corporations. This was done in the hope that hiring would pick up.

It has not.

There will come marches in the streets, I do declare. An 8 million unemployed person march.

This economic recovery plan is like treating cancer with vitamins.

The Democrat's plan isn't any better other than being cheaper and more direct. They treat cancer with a little more green roughage in the diet.

What we need is major surgery after a stiff dose of chemo. We can either do this through direct influx of money (socialistic) or by drastically reducing the tax burden on everyone (Libertarian). The Libertarian way will make it necessary for the US to bow out of international influence and nation-building. We'll have to scrap a good portion of the military, too. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS will need to whither away.

If I'm missing a third workable alternative, please enlighten me.

Hehehe, maybe I *am* ignoring a possible alternative: The big corps have conspired to create this recession in order to get the tax breaks! Gee, if suddenly bajillions of bucks enter the economy after the dividend break, that might be incriminating, no? Yeah, that's probably it.

Interest rates are low, obviously our debt to gdp ratio is no problem.

I quite beg to differ with this. Unemployed people must pay taxes on UI income, speaking from experience. Just felt the need to point that out.

Stefan,

You are technically correct. I'll rephrase: Unemployed people who have exhausted their UI benefits pay no tax. However, the top rate of UI for Colorado is $390/week. The high tech workers who have been, are, and will be pounding the streets make around an average of $50,000 per year when employed, or about $962 per week.

At $390 per week, annual income (if UI went that long) would be $20,280. I imagine the amount of revenue due the state and IRS wouldn't amount to much of anything after standard deduction & so on.

I'll find out by the end of January after the 1099s come in. 2002 was a stinker of a year!

hugo,

Yeah, production keeps going up as the jobs go away. I guess people are either working a lot harder or more efficiently, or both. How long before this situation breaks? Reservists are heading out to Saudi now, and since these folks hold down full-time employment (generally speaking), this will also put pressure on the still-employed.

Maybe 2003 will be the year that the flood gates open for employment as overstressed still-employeds raise a ruckus.

Just as an aside, I see that The Plan includes $3,000 training/retraining accounts for the unemployed. That's a good move as many high-techers will need to update skills, finish college work, and/or get the certified stamp of approval.

Here's something that raised my hackles: Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said that the Demos wanted to extend UI bennies indefinately and that would let someone stay out of work the rest of their lives. Yeah? Gee, I so want to bring in a stinking $390 a week instead of that burdensome $1,500 a week I was making through my work. This DeLay guy is way out of touch.

My wife makes ten more dollars a week working full time. She would choose to stay home with the gets instead of netting that extra ten dollars. We would save a big chunk of money on daycare costs.

She would first need to be laid off. She would then get a lot less than the $390 per week maximum. She would need to prove that she is looking for work each week. Her net would be reduced by state and federal taxes.

The notion that anyone would use UI as a free ride is rediculous. So is DeLay.

THis whole stimulus scam reminds me of 1993. Bill CLinton took control when the economy was already recovering from the 90-91 recession. He tried to pass a huge, bloated stimulus package that went down in flames in Congress. ANd guess what the economy became strong without any stimulus. Capitalism is crazy like that. It is called business cycles, correcting, whatever you want to name it, but it happens every 10 years or so. No stimulus is needed. I read the unemplyment numbers, the durable goods orders, housing starts, interest rates, new business start-ups. The economy is growing, and has been for a few months. Let the business community recover on its own. But cutting the payroll tax would not be a bad idea. That would put money back into AMericans pockets and cut the governments power with regards to Social Security, which should be privatized, that's another topic. I agree that rebates are a short-term, popular scheme, that do not produce long term results. A permanent payroll tax cut, say 1-2% less, would mean much more.

Today's quote from one of my favorite guys, Thomas Sowell:

[quote=HeatherRob,Jan 10 2003, 09:17 PM][QUOTE=stotty203,Jan 7 2003, 05:39 PM]But cutting the payroll tax would not be a bad idea. That would put money back into AMericans pockets and cut the governments power with regards to Social Security, which should be privatized, that's another topic. I agree that rebates are a short-term, popular scheme, that do not produce long term results. A permanent payroll tax cut, say 1-2% less, would mean much more.[/quote]
The last round of rebates had a great deal to do with the American economy weathering the worst of post 9/11--how much of that was pumped back into the economy? Almost all of it, I'd guess. So you're right, not a solution for long-term prosperity, but a good jump-start when needed. And really, IMO, any money in the hands of taxpayers is better than in Washington. So I can't complain about the rebates.

RE: a payroll tax cut, that's popular with those who want to see the "poor" get their fair shake, but if you institute a 1-2% payroll tax cut, how do the things that payroll tax pays for get, well, paid for? We're talking about SS, Medicare, things that workers actually get back. How does all that get paid for without cutting benefits? Any economists out there?

Why cyclone, that gets paid for by the rich, remember they have too much money anyway

I'm no economist, but 'payroll taxes' should be called what they are....premiums.
You pay into medicare and Social Security, and you get something back, granted...not much.

Someone explain to ME why we should cut 'payroll taxes'.
Will I be able to pay less on my life insurance and still get the same amount for my family when I die?

Didn't think so.

Yeah, it's not as though rich people earned their money or anything. Less than 10% of America's millionaires inherited their money--the rest, presumably, won the lottery or were given it by leprechauns or something.

I have heard several pols (dems, primarily) suggest the payroll tax cut, but none of them have suggested a means of paying for it--that's a crapload of money. I suspect they suggest it because they know it sounds good and is completely unfeasible (like reparations for slavery). Plays well in the sticks, and they never have to deliver.

It's cheaper than the dividend tax cut. How is that one going to paid for? How is the 2001 tax cut going to be paid for? How is the Reagan debt going to be paid for? The Republicans are much more to blame for proposing tax cuts with no means of paying for them. The 2000 democratic position was to use the surplus money to pay down our debt and shore up social security.

How is it phony if the majority of the tax break goes to the very wealthy? How do the conservatives get away with calling a tax break for the rich a stimulus package?

The dividend and estate tax cuts are not tax cuts designed to help out Mr. Everyman. They are rewards for the deep pocketed Americans who provided the war chest that Bush used to defeat McCain and Gore.

[QUOTE=Eeyore,Jan 14 2003, 04:52 PM]
[QUOTE]The only people whose taxes can be cut are people who are paying taxes. .[/QUOTE]
Oh God, not that again Darcine. Those poor people who pay no tax. That really eats into your gut, doesn it? I bet you'd take the food right off their table.

Madtown

Is it your contention that the "poor"--not sure whom that includes, but let's at least refer to those who currently pay absolutely no income tax whatsoever--would invest the money redistributed to them in businesses? If every so-called poor person were to get, say, $500 given to them, how exactly would that stimulate the economy? Where would they spend it?

Bush has maintained from the start that his tax cuts are based on principle. He ran on it and got elected on it. Eliminating the tax on dividends is right to do in principle, because they are currently taxed twice. If you can defend the government's right to double tax, go ahead.

MT - please refrain from attempting to inflame Darcaine. There is no repsonse he can give that will not start yet another round of nastiness.

TOPIC REMINDER: Bush's Stimulus Package.

The market has adapted to this double tax situation by tending to get the value of the stocks to rise. Now that that source of income is temporarily out of order, dividends sound like more of a sure thing as a reward for stockholders. As a bonus the stock market will get a boost as holding these stocks is now a tax free source of revenue. So Bush will look like he is stimulating the market by increasing the value of stocks. But the government will lose another source of revenue that is not being paid for.

Yes Bush got elected on these principles but that doesn't mean that it is good policy or that it is good for the economy. It also does not mean that a dividend tax cut is really a stimulus package. Why call it that?

I disagree that the government is losing another source of revenue that is not being paid for, in that subseqent investment will (as you say) boost the stock market and create business opportunies that otherwise wouldn't be there. More investors in the stock market, businesses expanding, new opportunities for employment=more revenues to the government. How is this NOT a stimulus package?

The increase on the value of stocks will be a boost for current stockholders. I don't see the direct connection to added investment. Having the economy circulate more money in the lower eighty percent of the population will stimulate consumption. When consumers buy things businesses react to that demand and supply more products. The increase in production increases jobs and those jobs create more consumers. I don't see a need for more investors right now. Are corporations saying there isn't available capital to expand production?

I guess the way I see it, people who currently hold stock are people who are willing to invest in the stock market, which is exactly what they will do with their returns on dividends. And yes, increasing consumer spending a la rebates is a good way to jump start a slow economy, but not exactly a long-term fix. Once you've spent your dough, that's it. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "circulating money in the lower 80%"—I thought that's what the Bush tax cut was all about. Granted, nothing goes to the people who don't pay any income tax, but that's because they don't pay any income tax. And granted, the people who earn the most will see more dollars because, hey, they earn more money. Short of taking money from the rich (define that for me, please) and just giving it to the poor (define that too), I'm not sure what more you want done. That's just a shade too socialist for my tastes, and definitely for this administration. As a guy who is NOT rich, I'm appreciative that I'm paying $1000 a year (or whatever it is) less to the government, not angry that a guy who earns a hell of a lot more is paying a hell of a lot less, especially given that he's shouldering the burden for a bunch of people who aren't paying anything.

Cyclone,

I probable am a little too socialistic for your tastes. I think we have a great overall system. But the problem with capitalism is that money circulates up in the system. It creates a great discrepancy in wealth. In the long run this will create to much capital and too little consumption. I do not need the tax rates to go up for the highest tax brackets but I think it is quite fair for a higher percentage of taxes on the highest income brackets.

It is those brackets that benefit the most from our system and this wealth that is created by our system is fair game for taxation in my book.

My other point related to the Sowel quote has to do with the depiction of the average American receiving back $1000 in taxes. Or paying $1000 less in taxes to be more accurate. This is not accurate. The middle 20% of Americans tax payers (or filers might be more to your liking) will get an average of something more like $200 per filing. The $1000 figure is grossly misleading in this regard. Very few people will be getting that average number of $1000.

Eeyore--

You said: "When consumers buy things businesses react to that demand and supply more products. The increase in production increases jobs and those jobs create more consumers." As a solution to the economic situation (which I maintain isn't that bad). I believe your assertion was that giving cash to the masses, a la tax rebates of $300 per, would solve the problem. I didn't think that was so, and I wasn't sure why until I read Larry Kudlow's article today, which makes sense (here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryku...k20030116.shtml )

This kind of economic shot in the arm doesn't do anything long term. Once that money's gone, it's gone--it's not a long-term change in spending habits, and that's the problem. Businesses will see a surge in demand only as long as the money holds out--in this case, not very long--and then it's back to business as usual. So the solution is to strengthen the stock market--its crash (thanks to the tech bubble of the late '90s) is what started all this. That's why it's necessary to cut taxes and think long term--these rebates are swell, I'm not complaining, but only long term tax cuts will create an environment for economic growth.

Thanks,

ML

P.S.: You said "I think it is quite fair for a higher percentage of taxes on the highest income brackets." You will be happy to know that the highest income brackets--the top 5%--account for 56% of tax revenues. Ask and ye shall receive

As I stated with my opinion on payroll tax reductions, Social Security should be proportionally reduced. I have no problem with no Social Security. I would invest that money myself. Social Security is nothing more than a ponzi scheme that allows government control of citizens money.

As for a payroll tax reduction being popular with "poor people", a permanent reduction would be for all Americans, how that means only poor people I fail to see.

Why would a person who has $10Billion "in the bank" invest more because he saves $20,000/year or so on dividend taxes? Will it really make a significant difference in his investment strategy? That is where the theory is drastically flawed. Give somebody who makes $30,000/year $1000 extra dollars, and it is going to be spent on goods and services. Give somebody who makes $10Million a year $1000 extra dollars, and he's just going to throw it in an offshore account with the rest of his tax-sheltered wealth. Trickle down economics is flawed because it places no weight on the demand side of the economy. Without demand, what is there to invest in?

Read my statement again. I didn't say this means only poor people; I said the people who most ardently desire a payroll tax cut are arguing for it on behalf of the poor--those most likely to put forth the argument that an income tax cut would leave the poor out in the cold. Yes, SS is a ponzi scheme, yes, it would be favorable to allow people to manage their own money, but do you really see that happening? Even Bush is only advocating a measly 1.5% to go into an individual's private account. And the system is pushing it even to get current benefits paid for, so if that revenue is taken from payroll taxes, where does it come from? I stick with my initial assertion: payroll taxes largely account for money and services people get back, at some point, so if you cut payroll taxes, you have to find another way to pay for all that stuff. Privatizing SS is fine, but I don't see how it makes the problem of financing the current system go away.

A couple things here:

1. The person who has $10billion in the bank (and you should know, NOBODY has $10billion in the bank, not even Bill Gates) will invest his $20K, because that's how billionaires make money. Yes, the $30K a year guy will go out and spend the money, but consumer spending isn't the problem right now. Sales over Christmas were up 5% from last year--the economy grew at a rate of 3% last year. The problem is the stock market. Check out your 401K and see how it's performing.

Your theory seems to be that a rich guy who gets $10K (of his own money, let's not forget) back is going to stick it in a savings account, earning 1%, or in an offshore account (which really exposes your agenda--all wealthy people have offshore accounts because they're tax cheats, huh?), rather than investing it in the market, which has traditionally far outperformed any other investment. There's the fundamental flaw in your theory--rich people don't get rich by stuffing their money in a mattress. They invest it.

A number of things here:

1. What will they invest in if the consumer isn't spending? If they know their return will be higher in their offshore accounts, why wouldn't they put their money there? An $82.00 share of IBM only pays me about 15cents/quarter (BEFORE taxes), which amounts to about 0.005% anually. The Dow has lost better than 10% in the last year the NASDAQ about 28%, so I can see how they'd be clammoring to throw their $20k into stocks. Why would they not put it into a money market savings which is currently paying 1.8% anually? Or perhaps a CD that pays me a guaranteed 4.5-5.5%, or so? If your bank is only giving you 1%, you need to find a new bank. You should also research your market conditions more carefully if you're going to use them in a post.

2. No matter how well my 401k performs, that doesn't put any spending money in my pocket, right now. Sure, you could invest some money into building some product, but if nobody is able to buy it, you're just stuck with inventory that doesn't move. Soon, you find yourself running a "going out of business sale" to try to recouperate some of your losses. See the point?

3. If you're going to give a statistic, please cite a source here for confimation.
3a. Here, find the holiday 2002 spending forecasts.
3b. Here, find the holiday 2002 retail spending estimated results.
3c. According to the major indexes, it seems that there was only about 2% growth in consumer spending in 2002, compared to 2001, not 5% as you suggested. December was the worst year over year dip in growth since September, 2001, and part of the worst holiday growth season in about 30 years.
Consumer spending is the problem, here. Consumer spending accounts for 70% of all movement in the economy.

4. I know quite a number of "higher-income" people, and every single one of them shelters themselves from as much taxation as possible. They even hire attorneys and accountants to do it for them. I know of none that refrain from using every trick in the code to get out of paying whatever they can. Can you name one that doesn't?

5. My 401k is down 35% from where it was on January 17, 2000, despite my continuing payments into it. That doesn't seem particularly good to me, does it to you? And I also want to say thanks allot for making me look at it again. I had vowed not to until the Bush fiasco was over with, and it had a chance to recover a bit.

6. Please pardon my use of the phrase "$10billion in the bank". Please replace it with, "$10billion in available resources". It was actually just a sample figure that meant nothing to the meaning of the post, but since you felt the need to bring it up, I'll correct myself.

People who make $30,000 a year don't hire people, don't create jobs. People who make 1 million dollars a year do. liberals call anyone who makes $100,000 a year or more rich, yet those people pay 85% of the taxes in America. Any tax break is going to go to those who pay the most taxes, pretty simple. The liberal agenda of class warfare is so disingenious. THe top 10 richest people in the Senate, 8 are Democrats, 2 are Republicans. How liberals like John"Ambulance Chaser" Edwards know the common man better than President Bush is a lie. Here's another bullet for you liberals, the "poor guy" who makes $30,000 and spends his tax breaks on consumer goods keeps Wal-Mart aloat. But the millionare who invest and keeps money in offshore accounts finances good jobs in the banking and finance industry. Don't be jealous of "rich" people, liberals, either get rich yourself, or just enjoy life with what you earn now. You liberals are always mad that someone is rich, or that someone is doing well. How about quit being such busybodys and worry about your own darn self.

People who are smart invest in the stock market when it is down Fargus, ever heard of buy low, sell high? It is the oldest game in the market. Your hypothesis about offshore accounts is off. How are rich people going to "know" offshore investments get a better return? They don't. These mythical offshore accounts are a liberal urban legend. Rich people who earned their money know that the stock market will always return over the long run. The stock market(NYSE) is not a get rich quick scheme. Long, consistent investment, using dollar cost averaging to take advantage of the peaks and valleys are the best way invest ones money. The Clinton Bubble, the fake good economy that was the 90's has come to roost. Thank GOd we have actual respectable adults running the country now who will enforce the laws that the Clinton Administration considered mere annoyances.

HeatherRob - I'm not very good with economics. Do you have anything to support what you say? That would be very helpful for me.

I'm no economist either, but I know that when the market is down, my IRA picks up more volume in stocks than when the market is up. And that will help me out in the long run.
So maybe I'm being more optimistic here, and not retiring tomorrow, I'm not overly worried, but I'm learning a lot on this thread, so by all means keep going with this.

I don't know much about economics either but I know I will never have to worry about 1 million no less 10 billion. Oh I am in the wrong business!!

For one I have my own personal experience. I starting buying Texaco stock in the mid 90's. I invested a fix amount each month, no matter if the price went up or down, because as a "small potatoes" investor the daily, monthly, even yearly fluctuations of the NYSE mattered not to me. When the price was lower, my $50 bought more shares, when the stock was higher, the $50 bought less. That is dollar cost averaging, because over the long haul(5-10 years), you will get the benefit of riding the peaks and valleys. My Texaco stock eventually rose over 100%, then it was split, which is where they issued a 2 for 1 stock split, and the price was halved. Now I had twice as many shares, but at half the value. ANd the stock continued to rise until I sold it in 2000 to take a vacation. Because of the different capital gains tax rates, it is better for small investors to hold for over 12 months. Over 12 months is considered a long term gain, the tax rate is lower, 10% versus 15% for the lower tax brackets. Despite the fact that so many Americans are invested in the market, and AMerica has been capitalist since its inception, I am amazed by the continuing ignorance of most Americans on money matters. The stock market is not a get rich quick scheme for 95% of the people in it. I only invest in the NYSE, the Nasdaq is much to volatile for me and my family. I also do not day trade, or trade on margin, or deal in derivatives. I wish more people would look at the market as a long term investment. The liberal media will scare you with nightly reports of the rise and fall of the market. But for small playaz(like that), such hysteria is needless. I say invest it, forget it, then when you retire, enjoy it.

That post is so bogged down with personal attacks on liberals, it was hard to see what you were trying to post. I suppose if you feel name calling and inflammatory comments are the only way you can debate its ok, but it really doesn't say much to your credibility.

You also missed the point I was trying to make... A wealthy person can create a new business and hire people to build a product anytime he/she wants, obviously... You are correct about that... But if there is no consumer demand for the product, that business isn't going to last very long, is it?.

If you werely offended by my views, don't take it personally. I love to argue, and I argue with my mother-in-law constantly. But after the arguement, I still love her, still think she is a good person. I may doubt the entire liberal agenda, but I have no personal emnity towards you. Your comment about trickle down economics not working spirred my juices. That economic theory was responsible for the best economic times in this country post WWII. As has been born out in the last 2 years, the "Clinton" years were a phony economy, marked by false income statements from Fortune 500 companies (Enron, WorldCom, Tyco). Ronald Reagan knew enough to leave things alone, cut taxes, and the business people of AMerica would do the hard work. He also never took credit for the 83-87 good times, unlike Bill Clinton, who had absolutely no hand in the 93-2000 good times. Simply put, politicians in general take credit when they don't deserve it, liberal or conservative.

I'm not offended by your views, only by your name-calling and blanket attacks against liberals, which are wholly unnecessary, and completely irelevant to the debate.

I want to make sure I have what you're saying here correct, because, I'm perceiving from your post a large number of contradictions.

First one:

So by this same theory, one could also say that Reagan was responsible for the recession of the early 90's, yes? I also believe that false income statements were occurring LONG before Clinton ever took office, and has been a general practice of business for as long as there has been business.


It was also responsible for the largest increase in the national debt in our nation's history, and as yet, nobody seems to have a clue of how we'll ever pay it down. I really don't think increasing it even more is the correct answer, do you?


He didn't take credit for that? Did you miss the 1988 presidential campaign, altogether? He took ALL the credit for it. None of us missed the recession that ensued after the fact, either.


Ok, so you're suggesting that the Reagan/Bush policies had something to do with it, I'm guessing? By that same theory, one could also suggest that Jimmy Carter was responsible for the economic boom of the 80's.

One last item that you didn't bother to address, so I'll re-ask the question:
If there is no consumer demand for product, what is there for the wealthy to invest in?

Well we finally got to it, and I'm glad you addressed it. The government gets no credit from me on the state of the economy, be it good or bad. If things are looking down today, we can blame the CEO's, the boards of Enron, Tyco, GE, Microsoft. These are AMerica business leaders, not the president. Reagan wasn't running for President in 1988, so any credit he claimed was inconsequential. As for the national debt, I've never been too concerned with that. It is miniscule compared with our GNP, something like 2-3% of the total GNP. Your question about consumer demand and wealthy people's investment therein, check this out. When people's discretionary income falls, and they have less to spend on "wants", sure the companies that make those products may have to lay off, thus starting a whole cycle. But in a down time, smart businesses that saved cash still invest. A business still needs to evolve in down times, that's how America reinvented itself after the 1980's. We went from a manufacturing economy to a technology/communications based economy. I remember all the books and doomsday, mostly from the left, about how Japan was going to surpass us and we would be a second rate power. Never happened did it? And today Japan is currently in the 10th year of a recession. AMerica attracts smart, innovative entrepeneurs, who together will get us through this cycle. These cycles happen every 10 years. And as investors learned in 2000, when the internets blew up, the stock market isn't always a win-win game. Perhaps our country needed a dose of reality to show us we aren't perfect, that there are always better ways to do things.