Dot-Com Craze Peaked 10 Years Ago This Week 192
netbuzz writes "When the NASDAQ stock index hit its all-time high of 5,133 on March 10, 2000, it had more than doubled in a year and the dot-com bubble was already leaking in a big way. A week later the NASDAQ had fallen 9 percent. A year later it was below 2000. Gone were such poster children of the era as Pets.com, Kozmo, and — who could forget? — Whoopi Goldberg's Flooz. Here's a look back."
Re:What is Up with Go.com? (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like you have yourself a Hijacker. Check your DNS.
Re:What is Up with Go.com? (Score:4, Informative)
The front page www does indeed seem worthless, but http://espn.go.com/ [go.com] and http://disney.go.com/ [go.com] and http://abcnews.go.com/ [go.com] look like they would account for traffic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go.com [wikipedia.org] has some info.
Re:What is Up with Go.com? (Score:5, Informative)
You may have heard of the following sites:
http://espn.go.com/ [go.com]
http://disney.go.com/index [go.com]
http://abcnews.go.com/ [go.com]
Re:What is Up with Go.com? (Score:2, Informative)
Take a closer look at the page? Does it say Disney on it?
Many of Disney's properties have their web presence on go.com. For instance:
http://abc.go.com/ [go.com]
(and someone already pointed out ESPN)
Re:the dotcom boom (Score:3, Informative)
Heh, I was only partly serious. The boom did weed out some of the codemonkeys, of course, but you only need to look at thedailywtf.com [thedailywtf.com] to see there are still some real idiots in our profession.
Re:Kozmo.com (Score:3, Informative)
"Get bought out" is not a business plan, it's an exit plan.
A business plan is "I'm going to do X, Y and Z. It will cost N (expenditure and arithmetic to prove it) and produce a product which can be sold for A (show arithmetic to prove it). Selling this product B number of times per week (show arithmetic to demonstrate this is realistic) will generate a gross profit of C. Heck, even if I only sell this product (B/2) times per week I'll cover my costs.
Competitors include Rod, Jane and Freddy - all of whom are making strong profits, which proves that in principle that such a business can work. But I'm better than all of them because my costs will be lower and I don't smell of old socks."
Re:the dotcom boom (Score:2, Informative)
HAHAHA no... [thedailywtf.com]
Re:What is Up with Go.com? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm just waiting on this .info thing to peak (Score:2, Informative)
Just for your information, Proud Domains is using Wild West Domains, a sister company of GoDaddy [godaddy.com], to register and manage your domains. Granted, the support you're getting is likely from people employed by or running Proud, but the actual product is still a GoDaddy-managed item. IAAWWDR (Wild West Domains Reseller)
Re:I'm just waiting on this .info thing to peak (Score:2, Informative)
I'm waiting for the "Cloud" craze to peak.
Not joking.
Lies, damn lies, and... well, you're full of shit. (Score:5, Informative)
True. How fortunate that the US is #1 in manufacturing, and vastly ahead of #2 (Japan) and very far ahead of #3 (China).
You know what the most important thing is for statistics? Context [nationmaster.com]. Our manufacturing per capita consistently places us outside of the top 10. It's like people celebrating a US or Canadian women's hockey victory despite the fact that we have more players by a factor of a thousand. Sweden, Norway, Japan, and Germany outperform us in a number of areas. And I bet if you took entertainment out of the equation it would really be illuminating.
You also may want to know that the #2 economy (by GDP alone) is now China. It also just overtook Germany as the world's largest exporter (again, by pure GDP, not per capita).
And worse, Bill Clinton signed a larger tax cut for the rich than George Bush ever did...
Alright, now you're just full of shit, by income tax and by effective tax rates. Read the tax rates here. [taxfoundation.org] Top bracket under Bush is 35%. Top bracket under Clinton is 39.6%. Capital gains tax was cut from 20% to 15%. Income from dividends went from 35% to 15%. The Estate Tax was halved, and even completely nonexistent for one year (this year, I think). And that's why you hear the babbling heads screaming bloody murder about keeping the Bush Tax Cuts.
There's even an article in the Times from 2007. This shit is no secret. "Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html [nytimes.com]
And before you say a word about the richest paying the most taxes - OF COURSE. The top 1% of households hold more than 50% the assets. Why wouldn't they be paying most of the taxes?
If you have any other questions about reality, feel free to ask.
Re:Lies, damn lies, and... well, you're full of sh (Score:3, Informative)
Oh NO! We're outside the top 10! Clear we "don't have a manufacturing sector" as you've said.
Who's "full of shit", now?
Manufacturing per GDP #75 [nationmaster.com]
Exports per GDP #179 [nationmaster.com]
That's not even remote what I said. I said Clinton gave them a bigger tax cut. Bush's tax cuts, on TOP of Clintons tax cuts, of course puts Bush's rate lower, because he came after.
Effective Federal Tax Rates
Top 1%
1988: 29.7
1992: 30.6
1996: 36.0
2000: 33.0
2004: 31.4
2006: 31.2
Top 10%
1988: 26.7
1992: 26.9
1996: 30.1
2000: 29.6
2004: 27.1
2006: 27.5
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456 [taxpolicycenter.org]
And I quote: DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Oooh! Look what else he said!
Well, this is one-- this is a great irony. George Bush owes almost his entire fortune to a tax increase that was funneled into his pocket and into the use of eminent domain laws to essentially legally cheat other people out of their land for less than it was worth to enrich him and his fellow investors...
One of the key sources I quote is a prominent Republican lawyer married to a United States senator who is the expert in Texas on municipal finance. The subsidy, he says, is $202.5 million. And Bush and his partners captured about 168 million of it.
Anecdotes are awesome... but I prefer the CBO's statistical analysis. Johnston may be right about the top 400 households, but I was unable to find any real data on that.