By that measure FDR would qualify as "evil" - his policies (including the US' insistence on the gold standard long after other nations abandoned it) extended the Depression for the US for at least 6 years and caused suffering to millions of people.
I agree with your sentiment, but I have to say that your "facts" about FDR are a little off. First, most people say that FDR took the US off the gold standard.
Second, the claim that he "extended the Depression" is based, from what I can tell, entirely on work by Cole and Ohanian that is not exactly universally accepted by economists. It assumes that neoclassical growth theory is correct and then tries to explain why it fails to account for the slow recovery from the Great Depression.
They only 'prove' that FDR's policies were at fault if you assume that their theory correctly accounts for the growth that didn't actually occur. Yes, sounds pretty convoluted - that's the great part about the social sciences. You can make claims about causes based on data that doesn't exist.
Ah, you blame BABBA, but I think we're looking at a case of BABBABBA or even BABBABBABBA. I also suggest considering the role of ABBA. Damn meddlesome Swedes.
If someone rolls over when told what to buy, even in the most subtle marketing terms, it's entirely their own fault.
First of all, in this case, it doesn't matter what the people working at Google believe as much as it matters what they do. Even if they aren't "evil" people, their actions can have serious consequences.
Second, I understand the appeal of reframing every social problem in terms of personal responsibility, but your moral grandstanding isn't a solution. While I don't think we're just dumb automatons who will buy whatever we're told, the issue of Google both being a gatekeeper of information (via search) as well as a broker of transactions (via advertising) has the potential to be a serious issue.
Why? Marketing is about persuasion, not about helping us make rational decisions. Even the most rational person sometimes behaves irrationally. You even allude to that in your post. Exploiting those irrationalities is what a great deal of marketing is about. If someone knows the sort of thing that convinces you to buy something, they'll use it to the fullest advantage. That's what provides competitive advantage, particularly when consumer goods are relatively homogenous in terms of quality and features.
Up to this point, a lot of advertising has tried to exploit common themes that they know will appeal to many people - sex, security, comfort, etc. What Google (and others) are working on is developing fine-grained persuasive techniques. While it's pretty clumsy at the moment, don't think that can't change.
The 6% unemployment rate refers to people who are actively seeking work but haven't found it. That is a small percentage of the total number of adults.
To be pedantic (since you were): it's a large percentage of the total number of adults (people over the age of 16) - about 66%. That includes retirees, students, housewives, house husbands, the independently wealthy, etc. So although the 6% figure underestimates actual unemployment, it's not completely inaccurate.
But you need to learn that just because a fact is surprising to you that does not make it untrue.
So, because you say it, it's a fact?
So your claim is that when money is at stake in a futures market people favor a rational strategy of prediction, specifically a poll of polls corrected for bias. That is consistent with my claim that when money is at stake people respond to surveys about future events by attempting to predict outcomes instead of by expressing their own wishes.
Your claim is that when money is NOT at stake, people behave more irrationally. My claim is that this is not always true. My explanation - that the informed people participating in these markets probably consult multiple polls - is independent of your assertions about motivation.
You, like many people, confuse the question being asked in your market example (i.e., "who is going to win?") with the question being asked in most polls (i.e., "who will you vote for?"). Is there any evidence of a poll of experts being asked to make a prediction vs. a market of experts? That would be more convincing.
The issue is, you claim that it's a question of a cash incentive, while I'm saying it's more about the effective use of multiple sources of information by informed people. Try a market of ill-informed people and see how farm you get.
Historical trends or models are other sources of information used for predication.
Fair enough. This neither supports nor contradicts your argument.
Well, I'm a graduate student in sociology, so, I just sit on the sidelines and complain about what other people do. That said, it really depends on how the survey was introduced - i.e., if it said anywhere that "we want to get economists' opinions on the US presidential candidates", that alone could have an impact. But it's really impossible to say whether respondents and non-respondents were systematically different.
When there is reward or penalty for getting the answer wrong or right people are more inclined to tell you what they expect to happen than what they want to happen. That is why markets, such as the IEM outperform surveys
Right, because $5-10 is a huge motivator.
You realize that another explanation is just as likely? The people making those markets work look at MULTIPLE polls and use their critical thinking to see which seem reasonable, what sorts of biases there may be, etc. Otherwise, where do you think they are getting their information?
His CNN writeup was an excuse to repeat three times that he would have his taxes raised by Obama.
Of course, neither Obama nor McCain can raise taxes. That's a congressional power, not an executive power. Frankly, I'm hoping that someone will confront both candidates about why they believe that as president, they will have powers that the constitution clearly places with the congress. Obama's a law professor, who should sure as hell know this.
-jcr
Right, and the president has no influence on policy... huh? The last president was instrumental in getting the last round of tax cuts passed. Just because he doesn't officially propose it doesn't mean his staff isn't involved in crafting the policies.
The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right. Economics ought to be unbaised. The fact that it is baised indicatse that economists can't be trusted to understand economic issues objectively.
It says nothing of the sort. You assume that being "liberal" makes you see economics in a certain way. There's also the possibility that through a study of economics, you come to be a Democrat or Republican.
The big question is, what is meant by "the economy"? Are we talking pure growth in GDP, or an equitable distribution of wealth, as well?
The question is, if there's a disagreement in science (like, say, about how life on Earth started), should we look at intelligent design "scientists" and evolutionary biologists and say, "Wow, there's a disagreement about the origin of life! Therefore, scientists cannot be trusted to understand the issue objectively!" Umm.... what a scary world that would be.
I know it's encouraging that someone is trying to get 'unbiased' information about expert opinion on the candidates, and, as an Obama supporter, I would like to put some faith in this survey.
That said, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in this survey.
Unfortunately, the terrible response rate (about 8%) means that there is huge probability of non-response bias. In other words, we're probably not getting a representative group of economists. It may very well be that mostly pro-Obama supporters felt like responding (perhaps out of a sense of a need to defend his economic policies).
Additionally, there is no testing for statistical inference. For example, in the PowerPoint, there's a question of who has provided more advice to candidates (Democrats or Republicans). The authors make it sound as if the Republicans did, but the difference is almost certainly within the margin of error.
Finally, there's this common misconception that things are either "good for the economy" or "bad for the economy." In reality, there's more than one way of thinking about the economy as a whole. For example, some think of it merely in terms of GDP, while others consider the distribution of wealth as well. It's not clear from the survey what was meant, exactly, by "the economy."
Neither the 'believers' nor the 'skeptics' seem particularly credible. I don't care what you, personally, believe. I think policy should have a foundation in science.
As once again evidenced by your nice variables, weightings, and models (whether linearly "crude" or non linearly complex), showing the respective effect on the output average Earth temperature in your post.
They are rarely publishing in scientific journals. Why not? Because of some imagined liberal conspiracy?
Maybe just because you suck.
What's funny is there are thousands of threads and millions of posts with no such "science", most especially from the "believers". But keep barking loudly about your hick opponents.
Oh, and you're obviously not a hick - you use such fancy words:
3) The parent's comment was completely missing the point (no one was 'asking' anyone to prove anything). After all, the anonymous coward he was replying to put 'prove' in quotation marks, suggesting the irony of using this one piece of data to discredit global warming.
4) My point was, which side is following the scientific process? From what I've seen, global warming skeptics are mostly engaged in a media campaign for lay people. They are rarely publishing in scientific journals. Why not? Because of some imagined liberal conspiracy?
Neither the 'believers' nor the 'skeptics' seem particularly credible. I don't care what you, personally, believe. I think policy should have a foundation in science. Instead, we have leaders listening to people like Michael Crichton.
Oh, and you're obviously not a hick - you use such fancy words:
Nice variables, weightings, and models (whether linearly "crude" or non linearly complex), showing the respective effect on the output average Earth temperature in your post.
It's funny - instead of getting involved in the scientific process, most of you AGW skeptics would prefer to try to CHANGE PUBLIC OPINION. Or, you just harp on about how "liberal" or "biased" the scientists doing the work are, implying there is some sort of conspiracy at work.
The irony is, when Intelligent Design people make the same accusations ("conspiracy", "errors", "no proof"), you ridicule them for not doing science.
The numbers you give mean nothing.
Assuming your figures are true, the 5% figure includes all the money spent on primary and secondary education, technical training, and god knows what else. How much of that is dedicated to funding basic research at universities?
Actually following your links, it's more likely that most of them were examples of laziness and self-promotion on the part of the journalists and editors involved. You have almost no evidence of bias here, just sloppy, lazy journalists.
For example:
- the Reuters photo was clearly a hack job by a photojournalist or editor who wanted a more impressive picture
- the "Tennessee newspaper" appears to have simply reproduced a blog photo (copyright infringement) without realizing it was doctored
- the Dan Rather incident was more than likely HIM getting duped and then being not enough of a man to admit it
- As for the captions, having worked at newspapers, I know that they are regularly wrong, since as often as not, the person writing it has NO IDEA what was going on.
- No idea why you linked the Iran controversy, unless you were trying to imply that most people think of their propaganda arm as a respectable news source
Speaking of vile, check out the comments about Palestinian children from the site you linked:
"'Like angry dumb red ants. Stupid beastly people. In a just world Israel could, and would wipe them out.'
This is why the IAF needs a second strike close behind the first. To clean up the swarm."
Most people I have dealt with (both guys and girls) view a tech girl more negatively then they would a tech guy at first and then have no trouble treating them as an equal after they have proven them self.
Are you sure it's not 'cause the girl's typically a newbie, and all newbies tend to be treated quite badly at first by a vocal subset of geeks. I
I dunno, I've never felt like anyone was viewing me negatively 'cause of my gender, more like a sparkly object 'cause yeah the # of girls interested in tech seems tiny. And actually, the sparkly factor may be where the negativity comes in, 'cause I've noticed it sometimes comes with kid glove behavior.
This is a problem a lot of women in tech have noticed - at least in the 90s, women sometimes had LESS expected of them at work, and as a result were not taken seriously when higher-level positions opened up.
Slashdot Mirror
By that measure FDR would qualify as "evil" - his policies (including the US' insistence on the gold standard long after other nations abandoned it) extended the Depression for the US for at least 6 years and caused suffering to millions of people.
I agree with your sentiment, but I have to say that your "facts" about FDR are a little off. First, most people say that FDR took the US off the gold standard.
Second, the claim that he "extended the Depression" is based, from what I can tell, entirely on work by Cole and Ohanian that is not exactly universally accepted by economists. It assumes that neoclassical growth theory is correct and then tries to explain why it fails to account for the slow recovery from the Great Depression.
They only 'prove' that FDR's policies were at fault if you assume that their theory correctly accounts for the growth that didn't actually occur. Yes, sounds pretty convoluted - that's the great part about the social sciences. You can make claims about causes based on data that doesn't exist.
Bad Assets Backing Bad Assets
Ah, you blame BABBA, but I think we're looking at a case of BABBABBA or even BABBABBABBA. I also suggest considering the role of ABBA. Damn meddlesome Swedes.
I could spend 3 million dollars to make my home hurricane proof, or I could move to Montana.
Where your house would promptly burn down due to global warming.
We don't know all the symptoms yet...
She's dead, of course.
Problem solved!
Oops, the unemployment rate is higher than I thought, so it's more like 8%. Sorry.
Are they really claiming that 7% of the unemployed are from their industries?
It's actually more like 10% of the "unemployed", since the unemployment rate only counts people actively searching for a full-time job.
If someone rolls over when told what to buy, even in the most subtle marketing terms, it's entirely their own fault.
First of all, in this case, it doesn't matter what the people working at Google believe as much as it matters what they do. Even if they aren't "evil" people, their actions can have serious consequences.
Second, I understand the appeal of reframing every social problem in terms of personal responsibility, but your moral grandstanding isn't a solution. While I don't think we're just dumb automatons who will buy whatever we're told, the issue of Google both being a gatekeeper of information (via search) as well as a broker of transactions (via advertising) has the potential to be a serious issue.
Why? Marketing is about persuasion, not about helping us make rational decisions. Even the most rational person sometimes behaves irrationally. You even allude to that in your post. Exploiting those irrationalities is what a great deal of marketing is about. If someone knows the sort of thing that convinces you to buy something, they'll use it to the fullest advantage. That's what provides competitive advantage, particularly when consumer goods are relatively homogenous in terms of quality and features.
Up to this point, a lot of advertising has tried to exploit common themes that they know will appeal to many people - sex, security, comfort, etc. What Google (and others) are working on is developing fine-grained persuasive techniques. While it's pretty clumsy at the moment, don't think that can't change.
The 6% unemployment rate refers to people who are actively seeking work but haven't found it. That is a small percentage of the total number of adults.
To be pedantic (since you were): it's a large percentage of the total number of adults (people over the age of 16) - about 66%. That includes retirees, students, housewives, house husbands, the independently wealthy, etc. So although the 6% figure underestimates actual unemployment, it's not completely inaccurate.
Of course, the GP did get it wrong.
but guess what? he found squat and diddly.
The kid was too stupid to keep from getting caught; why should we take his word for it?
Well, her address book was full of "alaska.gov" addresses. Not definitive either way, but kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?
But you need to learn that just because a fact is surprising to you that does not make it untrue.
So, because you say it, it's a fact?
So your claim is that when money is at stake in a futures market people favor a rational strategy of prediction, specifically a poll of polls corrected for bias. That is consistent with my claim that when money is at stake people respond to surveys about future events by attempting to predict outcomes instead of by expressing their own wishes.
Your claim is that when money is NOT at stake, people behave more irrationally. My claim is that this is not always true. My explanation - that the informed people participating in these markets probably consult multiple polls - is independent of your assertions about motivation.
You, like many people, confuse the question being asked in your market example (i.e., "who is going to win?") with the question being asked in most polls (i.e., "who will you vote for?"). Is there any evidence of a poll of experts being asked to make a prediction vs. a market of experts? That would be more convincing.
The issue is, you claim that it's a question of a cash incentive, while I'm saying it's more about the effective use of multiple sources of information by informed people. Try a market of ill-informed people and see how farm you get.
Historical trends or models are other sources of information used for predication.
Fair enough. This neither supports nor contradicts your argument.
Well, I'm a graduate student in sociology, so, I just sit on the sidelines and complain about what other people do. That said, it really depends on how the survey was introduced - i.e., if it said anywhere that "we want to get economists' opinions on the US presidential candidates", that alone could have an impact. But it's really impossible to say whether respondents and non-respondents were systematically different.
When there is reward or penalty for getting the answer wrong or right people are more inclined to tell you what they expect to happen than what they want to happen. That is why markets, such as the IEM outperform surveys
Right, because $5-10 is a huge motivator.
You realize that another explanation is just as likely? The people making those markets work look at MULTIPLE polls and use their critical thinking to see which seem reasonable, what sorts of biases there may be, etc. Otherwise, where do you think they are getting their information?
His CNN writeup was an excuse to repeat three times that he would have his taxes raised by Obama.
Of course, neither Obama nor McCain can raise taxes. That's a congressional power, not an executive power. Frankly, I'm hoping that someone will confront both candidates about why they believe that as president, they will have powers that the constitution clearly places with the congress. Obama's a law professor, who should sure as hell know this.
-jcr
Right, and the president has no influence on policy... huh? The last president was instrumental in getting the last round of tax cuts passed. Just because he doesn't officially propose it doesn't mean his staff isn't involved in crafting the policies.
The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right. Economics ought to be unbaised. The fact that it is baised indicatse that economists can't be trusted to understand economic issues objectively.
It says nothing of the sort. You assume that being "liberal" makes you see economics in a certain way. There's also the possibility that through a study of economics, you come to be a Democrat or Republican.
The big question is, what is meant by "the economy"? Are we talking pure growth in GDP, or an equitable distribution of wealth, as well?
The question is, if there's a disagreement in science (like, say, about how life on Earth started), should we look at intelligent design "scientists" and evolutionary biologists and say, "Wow, there's a disagreement about the origin of life! Therefore, scientists cannot be trusted to understand the issue objectively!" Umm.... what a scary world that would be.
I know it's encouraging that someone is trying to get 'unbiased' information about expert opinion on the candidates, and, as an Obama supporter, I would like to put some faith in this survey.
That said, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in this survey.
Unfortunately, the terrible response rate (about 8%) means that there is huge probability of non-response bias. In other words, we're probably not getting a representative group of economists. It may very well be that mostly pro-Obama supporters felt like responding (perhaps out of a sense of a need to defend his economic policies).
Additionally, there is no testing for statistical inference. For example, in the PowerPoint, there's a question of who has provided more advice to candidates (Democrats or Republicans). The authors make it sound as if the Republicans did, but the difference is almost certainly within the margin of error.
Finally, there's this common misconception that things are either "good for the economy" or "bad for the economy." In reality, there's more than one way of thinking about the economy as a whole. For example, some think of it merely in terms of GDP, while others consider the distribution of wealth as well. It's not clear from the survey what was meant, exactly, by "the economy."
Neither the 'believers' nor the 'skeptics' seem particularly credible. I don't care what you, personally, believe. I think policy should have a foundation in science.
As once again evidenced by your nice variables, weightings, and models (whether linearly "crude" or non linearly complex), showing the respective effect on the output average Earth temperature in your post.
They are rarely publishing in scientific journals. Why not? Because of some imagined liberal conspiracy?
Maybe just because you suck.
What's funny is there are thousands of threads and millions of posts with no such "science", most especially from the "believers". But keep barking loudly about your hick opponents.
Oh, and you're obviously not a hick - you use such fancy words:
Like, STFU Dumbass.
I win!
1) I'm not a climate scientist.
2) This isn't a scientific forum.
3) The parent's comment was completely missing the point (no one was 'asking' anyone to prove anything). After all, the anonymous coward he was replying to put 'prove' in quotation marks, suggesting the irony of using this one piece of data to discredit global warming.
4) My point was, which side is following the scientific process? From what I've seen, global warming skeptics are mostly engaged in a media campaign for lay people. They are rarely publishing in scientific journals. Why not? Because of some imagined liberal conspiracy?
Neither the 'believers' nor the 'skeptics' seem particularly credible. I don't care what you, personally, believe. I think policy should have a foundation in science. Instead, we have leaders listening to people like Michael Crichton.
Oh, and you're obviously not a hick - you use such fancy words:
Nice variables, weightings, and models (whether linearly "crude" or non linearly complex), showing the respective effect on the output average Earth temperature in your post.
It's funny - instead of getting involved in the scientific process, most of you AGW skeptics would prefer to try to CHANGE PUBLIC OPINION. Or, you just harp on about how "liberal" or "biased" the scientists doing the work are, implying there is some sort of conspiracy at work.
The irony is, when Intelligent Design people make the same accusations ("conspiracy", "errors", "no proof"), you ridicule them for not doing science.
Try doing some science!
The numbers you give mean nothing. Assuming your figures are true, the 5% figure includes all the money spent on primary and secondary education, technical training, and god knows what else. How much of that is dedicated to funding basic research at universities?
Actually following your links, it's more likely that most of them were examples of laziness and self-promotion on the part of the journalists and editors involved. You have almost no evidence of bias here, just sloppy, lazy journalists.
For example:
- the Reuters photo was clearly a hack job by a photojournalist or editor who wanted a more impressive picture
- the "Tennessee newspaper" appears to have simply reproduced a blog photo (copyright infringement) without realizing it was doctored
- the Dan Rather incident was more than likely HIM getting duped and then being not enough of a man to admit it
- As for the captions, having worked at newspapers, I know that they are regularly wrong, since as often as not, the person writing it has NO IDEA what was going on.
- No idea why you linked the Iran controversy, unless you were trying to imply that most people think of their propaganda arm as a respectable news source
Speaking of vile, check out the comments about Palestinian children from the site you linked:
"'Like angry dumb red ants. Stupid beastly people. In a just world Israel could, and would wipe them out.' This is why the IAF needs a second strike close behind the first. To clean up the swarm."
Where's your outrage about that?
It's going to be interesting, a large number of Republicans don't want McCain and a large number of Democrats don't want Obama.
The Democratic party strategy - be 1% better than the Republicans. Unfortunately, the margin of error is 3 percent.
Most people I have dealt with (both guys and girls) view a tech girl more negatively then they would a tech guy at first and then have no trouble treating them as an equal after they have proven them self.
Are you sure it's not 'cause the girl's typically a newbie, and all newbies tend to be treated quite badly at first by a vocal subset of geeks. I
I dunno, I've never felt like anyone was viewing me negatively 'cause of my gender, more like a sparkly object 'cause yeah the # of girls interested in tech seems tiny. And actually, the sparkly factor may be where the negativity comes in, 'cause I've noticed it sometimes comes with kid glove behavior.
This is a problem a lot of women in tech have noticed - at least in the 90s, women sometimes had LESS expected of them at work, and as a result were not taken seriously when higher-level positions opened up.
Have you seen a normal squid? Half a ton of squid sounds pretty giant to me!
From Wikipedia , the source of all truth and wisdom: "Maximum weight is estimated at 275 kg (606 lb) for females and 150 kg (331 lb) for males."
Err, not half a ton exactly, but still a lot...
Have you seen a normal squid? Half a ton of squid sounds pretty giant to me!
From Wikipedia , the source of all truth and wisdom: "Maximum weight is estimated at 275 kg (606 lb) for females and 150 kg (331 lb) for males."