The Timing of Kodak's Price Hikes

[Mike Welle]

I'm saying that Kodak shouldn't give money to the Republicans based on the fact that it's stupid. Sure, you'll get a short term tax break for the big wig types. But in the long run look at what has happened to their stock:

 

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchar...&freq=2&time=20

 

That performance in the 90s is really a testament to Mr. Clinton's masterpiece. I mean were talking like $60.00-$90.00 a share before good old Bush got in and look at how the stock has performed under him. Hovering around $30.00. Why give money to these clowns? Sure, you could argue that the success of the stock market was attributable to Bill and Al--Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan. But the truth is that both of them were still around after the real reason (Bill and Al Gore) was out of the oval office. At one point Clinton said to Greenspan "I have to congratulate you. You've done a great job." Greenspan replied: "I couldn't have done it without what you did on deficit reduction. If you had not turned the fiscal situation around, we couldn't have had the kind of monetary policy we've had." He also called Clinton's masterpiece: "The longest economic expansion in the nation's history."

 

Mike Welle

Charleston, SC

 

Mike,

The last thing I want to do is have an argument about this. I was merely commenting on the fact that the performance of the Dow isn't the only thing that determines whether a president is doing a good job or not. I was never attempting to say that you didn't know the facts. Your argument was that Kodak shouldn't give money to the Republicans based on the performance of the Dow. There are and were many different issues involved with the economy, some of which were and are effected by our current and past leadership and some that aren't and weren't. These are complicated issues. Whether Kodak makes contributions to one party or another doesn't matter. It's up to their own leardership to do as they please with their money. The stockholders will decide whether they like it or not, and buy and sell their stock accordingly. I guess I just don't see the connection you're trying to make.

Edited May 16, 2006 by Mike Welle

[Mike Welle]

And you didn't address the fact that Clinton created 20 million jobs while Bush has created 5 million. And you did not address the graphs that I presented earlier that showed the huge difference between the two parties that you were trying to prove was non-existent. What are are saying that: Kerry and Bush both worshipped the devil at Skull and Bones at Yale? "My lord you do me shameful injury falsely to draw me in these vile suspects." Please substantiate this argument with facts, then I will respond.

 

Sincerely,

Mike Welle

Charleston, SC

 

you didnt address the fact they are both Skull and bones members. With all due respect are you aware of Skull and bones?

Edited May 16, 2006 by Mike Welle

[Phil Thompson]

This relates to your government and is very interesting.

 

Remember when the government building in Oklahoma was blown up by Timothy Mcveigh?

 

 

The Final Jihad: When the "Best of the Worst" Finally Come for Us (Hardcover) by Martin Keating

 

 

Governor Of Oklahoma Frank Keating's brother, Martin Keating, wrote a manuscript in 1991, roughly four years before the OKC bombing. Gov. Frank Keating is a former FBI hot shot. His brother, Martin could not get this work published until after the bombing. This manuscript, now a published book, is titled The Final Jihad. In this book, Keating lays out a story of terrorists, based in OKC, who decide to bomb a federal building. Guess what the name of the one of the key "terrorists" in the book is? Tom McVey. And for the kicker of this fictional work: The terrorists in The Final Jihad are stopped by an Oklahoma highway patrolman for a broken tail light...

 

How's that for fiction being stranger than reality? In this book, remember it's written in 1991, our author also predicts the TWA downing and the World Trade Center bombing. Was this just a premonition that Mr. Keating had?

 

The book is also dedicated to the Knights of the secret circle. (a known illumanti group)

 

 

Inside job?

Edited May 16, 2006 by philie-t

[Brad Grimmett]

I'm saying that Kodak shouldn't give money to the Republicans based on the fact that it's stupid. Sure, you'll get a short term tax break for the big wig types. But in the long run look at what has happened to their stock:

 

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchar...&freq=2&time=20

 

So you're saying that Kodak's stock has gone down because of the Republicans? Are you kidding? Have you completely forgotten the fact that digital cameras flooded the market in the exact time frame that you're talking about?

 

That performance in the 90s is really a testament to Mr. Clinton's masterpiece. I mean were talking like $60.00-$90.00 a share before good old Bush got in and look at how the stock has performed under him. Hovering around $30.00. Why give money to these clowns? Sure, you could argue that the success of the stock market was attributable to Bill and Al--Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan. But the truth is that both of them were still around after the real reason (Bill and Al Gore) was out of the oval office. At one point Clinton said to Greenspan "I have to congratulate you. You've done a great job." Greenspan replied: "I couldn't have done it without what you did on deficit reduction. If you had not turned the fiscal situation around, we couldn't have had the kind of monetary policy we've had." He also called Clinton's masterpiece: "The longest economic expansion in the nation's history."

 

Mike Welle

Charleston, SC

 

In my opinion you're looking at this with complete tunnelvision. Sure, Clinton did a great job, but there were many other factors that contributed to the booming economy. Ignoring those other factors is extremely short-sighted.

[Mike Welle]

No, I'm simply saying that the 1990s were a huge, masterful boom for the economy and President Clinton was presiding over the economy during this time. During much of the 1990s Kodaks stock was increasing as you can see by the chart. But yes, when the stock market suddenly goes down because a new president comes in (who gives huge tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% and very little to the average joe). Unemployment was at 3.9 percent when Clinton left office and Greenspan himself called it the "greatest economic expansion" in history and attributed it to him. Look how the pattern of Kodak's stock mirrors the Dow Jones industrial average. There are larger issues at play than simply Digital Cameras flooding the market (though your point is taken). Tunnelvision is defined at dictionary.com as "An extremely narrow point of view; narrow-mindedness." Failing to see his hand in all of this is in my opinion "complete tunnel-vision." There's really no arguing with Clinton's masterwork. There are those who try to deride and belittle it by making comments about his sexual promiscuity, or calling him a draft-dodger, or trying to say there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans. But they are wrong and the figures I gave above speak for themselves. The economy performed much better under Bill Clinton than George W. Bush. Therefore Kodak's stock performed much better under Clinton than Bush. Clinton is a Democrat and Bush is a Republican. Therefore in the last two decades the Democratic administration presiding over a stock market has performed far better for Kodak than a Republican administration. (3,500 to 11,700--11,200 to 11,400) Call this tunnel vision if you like--ignoring or failing to see the petty little reasons why Kodak's stock goes down, but looking at it from a macro perspective rather than a micro perspective--as you are--is the exact opposite of "tunnel vision." I believe it is short-sighted to simply name "digital cameras coming into the market" as the reason Kodaks stock went down. There are many other factors including the end of the Clinton economic boom--because Clinton left office--that contributed to this, including the fact that a butterfly flapping his wings over in China caused all of the genes in the world to be disrupted unknowingly. Am I God? Do I know all the reasons. All I know is that when Clinton was in things were going a HELL of a lot better than they were right now and if you don't believe that than you've really got tunnelvision. That's all I'm saying.

 

Mike Welle

Charleston, SC

 

 

So you're saying that Kodak's stock has gone down because of the Republicans? Are you kidding? Have you completely forgotten the fact that digital cameras flooded the market in the exact time frame that you're talking about?

In my opinion you're looking at this with complete tunnelvision. Sure, Clinton did a great job, but there were many other factors that contributed to the booming economy. Ignoring those other factors is extremely short-sighted.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Mike Welle

[Mike Welle]

Are you kidding that the stock market didn't go down because of Republicans? Are you kidding? Gee whiz, let's see here the markets go from 3,500 to 11,700 when Clinton is in and they suddenly fall and now stay at 11,400 when Bush gets in. Oh, wait a second you are totally right. The rise in the markets had absolutely nothing to do with Bill Clinton (and how dare me for bringing that up and failing to mention--I'm such a prick--failing to mention something about Digital Cameras--I am so full of tunnel vision). Bush has done a spectacular job with the economy and Kodak should continue to shovel money into their accounts. What in the hell was I thinking to infer that when the stock market tripled that might have actually had something to do with a DEMOCRAT being in office! How dare me? I should be deported for thinking so unpatriotic a thought! All hail Reagan and Bush! All hail Kodak! The gays and the sodomites are evil! I love Hitler! Clinton is a draft-dodger! Kerry is an elitist! I drive a pick up truck and listen to Toby Keith! Theres no such thing as global warming! I love Jesus!

 

Mike Welle

Registered Republican

Charleston, SC

So you're saying that Kodak's stock has gone down because of the Republicans? Are you kidding? Have you completely forgotten the fact that digital cameras flooded the market in the exact time frame that you're talking about?

In my opinion you're looking at this with complete tunnelvision. Sure, Clinton did a great job, but there were many other factors that contributed to the booming economy. Ignoring those other factors is extremely short-sighted.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Mike Welle

[Brad Grimmett]

Well, I guess the civilized conversation has ended, and you're turning into a broken record, so this will be my last post on this topic.

I never disagreed with you, I only said that there were more factors at work than simply who was president when the economy was booming. But you're still attempting to argue with me (even though I never once disagreed) and now you're implying that I'm some kind of hillbilly jesus freak. I'm not sure how you came to that stupid conclusion, and I don't really care. If you had any idea of who I really am you would see how baseless that accusation really is. But if you want to make black and white conclusions about huge issues based on one small part of the issue, then more power to you. But don't expect rational thinking people to agree with you.

You're ranting is a waste of space and unproductive, especially on a cinematography forum.

[K Borowski]

Are you kidding that the stock market didn't go down because of Republicans? Are you kidding? Gee whiz, let's see here the markets go from 3,500 to 11,700 when Clinton is in and they suddenly fall and now stay at 11,400 when Bush gets in. Oh, wait a second you are totally right. The rise in the markets had absolutely nothing to do with Bill Clinton (and how dare me for bringing that up and failing to mention--I'm such a prick--failing to mention something about Digital Cameras--I am so full of tunnel vision). Bush has done a spectacular job with the economy and Kodak should continue to shovel money into their accounts. What in the hell was I thinking to infer that when the stock market tripled that might have actually had something to do with a DEMOCRAT being in office! How dare me? I should be deported for thinking so unpatriotic a thought! All hail Reagan and Bush! All hail Kodak! The gays and the sodomites are evil! I love Hitler! Clinton is a draft-dodger! Kerry is an elitist! I drive a pick up truck and listen to Toby Keith! Theres no such thing as global warming! I love Jesus!

 

Mike Welle

Registered Republican

Charleston, SC

 

Mike, while I tend to vote republican, I would be angered by your comments regardless of partesan affiliation. Your stereotyping a particular political party is no better than stereotyping blacks, gays, Jews, or women. Bush is certainly not the best president ever, but he certainly isn't the worst either. Get over it! He's in office now. Short of some major scandal, he will stay in office until his term is up at which time both major parties as well as all of the independents will again have their chance to get their presidential candidate into office. As for Kodak subsidizing the Republicans, of course they do. Republicans *tend* to favor big business interests, which many democrats decry, but keeping it in perspective, do you have any idea how heavily government-subsidized Japanese businesses are? In any case both parties have gone about looking at different issues in different ways. Believe it or not, there is no "big conspiracy to F everyone over" on either side of the politcal coin. Each party is trying to do what is best for the people that it represents. Both parties have their weaknesses. In any case, the two-party system is a terrible system, because it does a terrible job of representing the needs of average joes like me. Only the most bible-thumping, wealthy, staunch conservatives truly feel that the republian party's views and theirs are one in the same. Likewise, only the most bleeding, irreverent, future-minded of liberals can really feel that the democratic party is fulfilling their wishes. Guess what! In either case, hardly anything changes because fortunately the two parties and their differing radicalities (yes I made taht word up) balance one another out, and nothing gets done, and the same mistakes continue to be made because of it. Please revel in the nostalgia of the Clinton administration. Clinton was certainly a better president than Bush, but he too, bombed Iraq, invaded Kosovo, signed a trade agreement with China that is allowing for a spiraling trade deficit, allowed women to be deployed in combat zones, mustered Guardsmen to fight in wars, laxened trade restrictions, and caused several -400+ point days on the Dow Jones when news of the Monica Lewinski scandal broke. Be fair. Most politicians are lousy people.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Mike Welle]

I completely disagree with you. In all seriousness, I have never and will never ever ever vote for a Republican in my life. They are the stingiest, rottenist, Old Testament, unmerciful devils in the world! Republicans have been screwing this country over so badly that in thirty years we won't recogzine this planet, mark my words--the polar ice caps are melting and if Al Gore was in it would be a hell of a lot better. What cowards! What fools! God bless the democrats! And a plauge on the Republicans house! How dare you equalize the two! You fools! You stupid, stupid fools! I love how Lou Dobbs gets on and tells us how both parties are so similar--fool and a**ho**! I love how Ralph Nader tells us theres no difference between the two parties---fool, stupid a**ho**. They will suffer for what they've done if there is any justice in this world. What a screwed up country! Gore cared about the environment, and wouldn't have wiretapped people. You are all liars and hypocrites--and Grimmett quit putting words in my mouth and saying what you think I mean--you Republican or Nader voter--whats the difference they both caused Al Gore to "lose." O what a monstrous world this is! As far as stereotypes go, how many Christians who dress themselves as bible-thumping types, wear prayer books in their pockets, look demurely, nay more while grace is saying hood their eyes thus with their hats and sigh and say amen, use all the observance of civility as one well studied in a sad ostent to please his grandam never trust me more. Hypocrites. Murderers! God bless the Democrats! God keep the two party system! And John, where are you to back me up? Ha, ha, look at Mike foolishly ranting! Live each of you the subjects to their hate, and they to yours and all of you to GODS!!!

 

Mike Welle

Charleston, SC

 

 

Mike, while I tend to vote republican, I would be angered by your comments regardless of partesan affiliation. Your stereotyping a particular political party is no better than stereotyping blacks, gays, Jews, or women. Bush is certainly not the best president ever, but he certainly isn't the worst either. Get over it! He's in office now. Short of some major scandal, he will stay in office until his term is up at which time both major parties as well as all of the independents will again have their chance to get their presidential candidate into office. As for Kodak subsidizing the Republicans, of course they do. Republicans *tend* to favor big business interests, which many democrats decry, but keeping it in perspective, do you have any idea how heavily government-subsidized Japanese businesses are? In any case both parties have gone about looking at different issues in different ways. Believe it or not, there is no "big conspiracy to F everyone over" on either side of the politcal coin. Each party is trying to do what is best for the people that it represents. Both parties have their weaknesses. In any case, the two-party system is a terrible system, because it does a terrible job of representing the needs of average joes like me. Only the most bible-thumping, wealthy, staunch conservatives truly feel that the republian party's views and theirs are one in the same. Likewise, only the most bleeding, irreverent, future-minded of liberals can really feel that the democratic party is fulfilling their wishes. Guess what! In either case, hardly anything changes because fortunately the two parties and their differing radicalities (yes I made taht word up) balance one another out, and nothing gets done, and the same mistakes continue to be made because of it. Please revel in the nostalgia of the Clinton administration. Clinton was certainly a better president than Bush, but he too, bombed Iraq, invaded Kosovo, signed a trade agreement with China that is allowing for a spiraling trade deficit, allowed women to be deployed in combat zones, mustered Guardsmen to fight in wars, laxened trade restrictions, and caused several -400+ point days on the Dow Jones when news of the Monica Lewinski scandal broke. Be fair. Most politicians are lousy people.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Mike Welle]

No, no, no, no!!! Bill Clinton is not a lousy person! And how dare you insult him! He will go down as one of the greatest Presidents ever! Better than that lying Reagan and shallow, Mary Lou Retton-ass kissing-rah-rah yuppies of the Eighities! You be fair! Someone ban me from this list, PLEEEEASSSEE!???!! Where's the NSA to arrest me? C'mon guys? Hey Karl Rove where are you with your hounds? Kick me off the list!!!

Hey Tim, anarchy in the UK, baby!! Stop this thread and that nut case Mike Welle!!! Please he's out of control.

 

I've been a bad boy with the standard leader,

Mike Welle

Instanbul, Turkey

 

Mike, while I tend to vote republican, I would be angered by your comments regardless of partesan affiliation. Your stereotyping a particular political party is no better than stereotyping blacks, gays, Jews, or women. Bush is certainly not the best president ever, but he certainly isn't the worst either. Get over it! He's in office now. Short of some major scandal, he will stay in office until his term is up at which time both major parties as well as all of the independents will again have their chance to get their presidential candidate into office. As for Kodak subsidizing the Republicans, of course they do. Republicans *tend* to favor big business interests, which many democrats decry, but keeping it in perspective, do you have any idea how heavily government-subsidized Japanese businesses are? In any case both parties have gone about looking at different issues in different ways. Believe it or not, there is no "big conspiracy to F everyone over" on either side of the politcal coin. Each party is trying to do what is best for the people that it represents. Both parties have their weaknesses. In any case, the two-party system is a terrible system, because it does a terrible job of representing the needs of average joes like me. Only the most bible-thumping, wealthy, staunch conservatives truly feel that the republian party's views and theirs are one in the same. Likewise, only the most bleeding, irreverent, future-minded of liberals can really feel that the democratic party is fulfilling their wishes. Guess what! In either case, hardly anything changes because fortunately the two parties and their differing radicalities (yes I made taht word up) balance one another out, and nothing gets done, and the same mistakes continue to be made because of it. Please revel in the nostalgia of the Clinton administration. Clinton was certainly a better president than Bush, but he too, bombed Iraq, invaded Kosovo, signed a trade agreement with China that is allowing for a spiraling trade deficit, allowed women to be deployed in combat zones, mustered Guardsmen to fight in wars, laxened trade restrictions, and caused several -400+ point days on the Dow Jones when news of the Monica Lewinski scandal broke. Be fair. Most politicians are lousy people.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

Edited May 17, 2006 by Mike Welle

[Brad Grimmett]

I'll paraphrase As Good As it Gets...."Go sell crazy somewhere else."

[K Borowski]

And they say Howard Dean has done serious damage to the credibility of the Republican party. Mike Welle, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I am agnostic, raised Catholic, but your rants strike me as very similar to those of fundamentalist Christians. You have made politics into a religion all its own, with the Democratic party as the force of righteousness, and the Republicans as the "evil ones". Don't forget that a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, freed the slaves. Is that a bad thing? Howabout Reagan's famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"? Should the iron curtain have remained in place until a democratic presidential administration? I am not bashing the democratic party in the slightest here, but believing that a political party has never done something good in its century-long existence is no better than a belief that God created the Earth in 6 days (no offense to those who believe that). This is a striking example of how reactionists and ultra-liberals have so much in common without even realizing it.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Chien Huey]

FWIW, I have Kodak's price list for 16mm film and the student discount is now 30% versus 20% the last time I checked.

[Phil Thompson]

FWIW, I have Kodak's price list for 16mm film and the student discount is now 30% versus 20% the last time I checked.

 

 

fuji student discount is %50. have some of that

[Canney]

Okay heres what I have to say.

 

1. Doesn't any one make paragraphs any more. I hate trying to read blobs.

 

2. A bunch of corolotations and random facts can be connected to prove and idea.

 

3. Kodak has taken a blow and its stock has gone down because of digital cameras in the market. Back in they day you had only one choice, film. Now you have reusable digital that is taking a chunk of the image pie.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Canney