(clic the pic for an even more glorious image)
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Democracy
An astonishing number of folks have jumped on the "he said the US is not a democracy! kill him!" wagon. here, and here, and et cetera.
Look, I did explain. And I have explained before, at greater length. And, it was a DEBATE, not an attack.
There is even a video, for the Daily Kos folks, with your gnat-length attention spans.
But perhaps this explanation is better. (Do click for a more democratic image)
Democracy without rule of law is simple tyranny. You bed-wetters all claim to hate capital punishment. Me, too. It's state murder. Why do we have it? Majority rule. Why would you expect rectitude in the bloodthirsty multitude? Majority is not morality, it's just what most people happen to think.
Look, I did explain. And I have explained before, at greater length. And, it was a DEBATE, not an attack.
There is even a video, for the Daily Kos folks, with your gnat-length attention spans.
But perhaps this explanation is better. (Do click for a more democratic image)
Democracy without rule of law is simple tyranny. You bed-wetters all claim to hate capital punishment. Me, too. It's state murder. Why do we have it? Majority rule. Why would you expect rectitude in the bloodthirsty multitude? Majority is not morality, it's just what most people happen to think.
Outtakes from "Bill Dance Outdoors"
I especially enjoyed the "Oklahoma blade" incident at about 4:10. Those Okies.... a mind of their own!
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Economist's Valentines
I don't think you are great.
I think you're fantastic.
For what you're supplyin'
My demand's inelastic
(with a drawing a of a demand curve, standing up tall and proud)
There's more.
Nod to J. Orestes D.
I think you're fantastic.
For what you're supplyin'
My demand's inelastic
(with a drawing a of a demand curve, standing up tall and proud)
There's more.
Nod to J. Orestes D.
I kissed a boy, and I liked it....
Peter J does a nice job on Canadian tv.
Peter and I go way back. There are pictures. This may be my favorite, Peter's interpretation of the agony of man in a post-industrial world:
And then there was the kissing. That's all I'm saying. A gentleman doesn't tell.
Peter and I go way back. There are pictures. This may be my favorite, Peter's interpretation of the agony of man in a post-industrial world:
And then there was the kissing. That's all I'm saying. A gentleman doesn't tell.
I love YOU more. No, I ....
In that contest to see who loves who more (and what better way to have a Valentine's sports contest?), there may now be an answer.
You'll need an fMRI, of course. Is that a problem?
You'll need an fMRI, of course. Is that a problem?
The Love Competition from Brent Hoff on Vimeo.
This Year's English Gift to German
The word is "Sh*tstorm"
There was a prize.
If Michael Lewis was not totally off base, I'm surprised this concept was not already firmly embedded in the German consciousness.
Nod to frequent commenter Tom.
There was a prize.
If Michael Lewis was not totally off base, I'm surprised this concept was not already firmly embedded in the German consciousness.
Nod to frequent commenter Tom.
The CBO and potential output
Jim Bullard from the St. Louis Fed has been pilloried for his comments about what affects potential output.
Noah Smith accuses him of being a Solow Model denialist (saints preserve us)!
Tim Duy says that can't be right because Bullard is too dense to even realize that Potential GDP is calculated using the Solow model.
People, I'm not here to defend Jim Bullard. But I am here to say that according to the link provided by Duy to the CBO's description of how they calculate potential output, the statistic is a mess. Making sausage is a much cleaner enterprise.
First off, it's based on an accounting identity! God I love the government:
(this is my crudely typed version of equation 3 in the CBO document)
Sadly they forgot the third bar in the equal sign. This is an accounting identity! A is TFP which is defined as what's left over in output after we impute the effects of labor and capital (the CBO freely admits this by the way). a is assumed to be 0.30 and constant over time.
So, forecasting potential output means forecasting potential TFP, potential labor, and actual capital (read the document if you doubt me) and plugging those values into the equation.
People, they ain't using the Solow model to accomplish those tasks!
Potential labor and potential TFP are forecasted by piecewise linear regressions where the breakpoints ARE NOT DETERMINED BY ANY SORT OF STATISTICAL CRITERION (again, read the document if you doubt me).
The CBO method is arbitrary and weak. Defending it via appeal to authority by saying "it's based on the Solow model" is pathetic.
First of all, the Solow model stinks! It cannot come close to describing the evolution of the world income distribution since 1950.
Second, the measure of potential output is crucially dependent on all the forecasting assumptions used to produce potential Labor and potential TFP, which are not based on any real economic theory or optimal statistical algorithm.
Finally, the CBO itself says things that are remarkably Bullard-like right in the document Duy links to:
Noah Smith accuses him of being a Solow Model denialist (saints preserve us)!
Tim Duy says that can't be right because Bullard is too dense to even realize that Potential GDP is calculated using the Solow model.
People, I'm not here to defend Jim Bullard. But I am here to say that according to the link provided by Duy to the CBO's description of how they calculate potential output, the statistic is a mess. Making sausage is a much cleaner enterprise.
First off, it's based on an accounting identity! God I love the government:
Qnfb = ALaK1-a
(this is my crudely typed version of equation 3 in the CBO document)
Sadly they forgot the third bar in the equal sign. This is an accounting identity! A is TFP which is defined as what's left over in output after we impute the effects of labor and capital (the CBO freely admits this by the way). a is assumed to be 0.30 and constant over time.
So, forecasting potential output means forecasting potential TFP, potential labor, and actual capital (read the document if you doubt me) and plugging those values into the equation.
People, they ain't using the Solow model to accomplish those tasks!
Potential labor and potential TFP are forecasted by piecewise linear regressions where the breakpoints ARE NOT DETERMINED BY ANY SORT OF STATISTICAL CRITERION (again, read the document if you doubt me).
The CBO method is arbitrary and weak. Defending it via appeal to authority by saying "it's based on the Solow model" is pathetic.
First of all, the Solow model stinks! It cannot come close to describing the evolution of the world income distribution since 1950.
Second, the measure of potential output is crucially dependent on all the forecasting assumptions used to produce potential Labor and potential TFP, which are not based on any real economic theory or optimal statistical algorithm.
Finally, the CBO itself says things that are remarkably Bullard-like right in the document Duy links to:
"CBO's framework explicitly models the factors that determine the accumulation of capital, so the projection for the capital stock is fully consistent with CBO's projections for private saving and the federal budget. Specifically, a higher projected rate of saving will lead to faster accumulation of capital and faster growth of potential output. Therefore, a higher projected federal surplus, which generally raises
the rate of national saving, will speed up the growth of the capital stock and potential output in the model. Conversely, a recession or other event that depresses the saving rate will temporarily slow the accumulation of capital and the growth of potential output."
That's right, according to the CBO, federal deficits lower the path of potential output! It must be true, after all, it's based on the Solow model.
Give me a break.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Sad, Really.
Gotta love Ohio. Not sure poll workers anywhere are any better, on average.
But the fact that they aren't good could be...well, a thing. Like this court case.
In at least one instance, a poll worker appeared to be unable to distinguish between even and odd numbers. (Hr’g Tr. (Hampton) 2-202 to 2-205.) When asked whether the house number 798 was even or odd, the poll worker responded:
A. Odd.
Q. And why do you think that’s odd? I’m sorry. Why do you think her address is an odd address?
A. Because it begins with an odd number.
Q. It starts with an odd number?
A. Yes. Nine is an odd number. Eight’s even.
. . .
Q. . . . So on Election Day, if somebody came in with an address 798 and you had two ranges to choose from, you would choose the odd for them?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And is that how you did it for all the ballots that you looked up on Election Day?
A. To determine if they were even – yes.Q. To determine if they were even or odd, you looked at the first digit of the address?
A. No. I looked at the whole address.
Q. And you chose however many – if there were more odds than even numbers, it would be an odd address?
A. Yes.
Nod to Chateau, who KNOWS from odd...
But the fact that they aren't good could be...well, a thing. Like this court case.
In at least one instance, a poll worker appeared to be unable to distinguish between even and odd numbers. (Hr’g Tr. (Hampton) 2-202 to 2-205.) When asked whether the house number 798 was even or odd, the poll worker responded:
A. Odd.
Q. And why do you think that’s odd? I’m sorry. Why do you think her address is an odd address?
A. Because it begins with an odd number.
Q. It starts with an odd number?
A. Yes. Nine is an odd number. Eight’s even.
. . .
Q. . . . So on Election Day, if somebody came in with an address 798 and you had two ranges to choose from, you would choose the odd for them?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And is that how you did it for all the ballots that you looked up on Election Day?
A. To determine if they were even – yes.Q. To determine if they were even or odd, you looked at the first digit of the address?
A. No. I looked at the whole address.
Q. And you chose however many – if there were more odds than even numbers, it would be an odd address?
A. Yes.
Nod to Chateau, who KNOWS from odd...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)