Bring on the pork ...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, you don't get it at all.

I read the AP story fully and understood exactly what they were saying. But that doesn't make me responsible for defending them; they can do that on their own.

In other words, he doesn't endorse the view of what he posted. Don't you see? He posted it just because he thought it would be fun, not because he agreed with it. If he agreed, he would have to defend it, but he doesn't so he won't.

If you have ever read a single Tex post, you know he doesn't stand for or believe in anything.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

In other words, he doesn't endorse the view of what he posted. Don't you see? He posted it just because he thought it would be fun, not because he agreed with it. If he agreed, he would have to defend it, but he doesn't so he won't.

If you have ever read a single Tex post, you know he doesn't stand for or believe in anything.

Actually, I did agree with the AP analysis. It makes sense to me. That still doesn't mean I have to defend it. I know it's hard for you to separate the two, but you see ... I didn't perform the analysis, I just read about it. If it's wrong (and you've yet to prove that it is), it's the AP and five economists' fault, not mine.

But whether I agreed with it is irrelevant. The reason I posted it is because it totally contradicted what you said. I could be a 100% Cali sycophant and agree with everything you say (ala Chino "BOOM SHAKALAKA"), and the AP article would STILL have contradicted you.

It's amusing to watch the two of you go to such great lengths to miss a pretty easy point. *Shrug* I'm happy to guide you back to the path.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Actually, I did agree with the AP analysis. It makes sense to me. That still doesn't mean I have to defend it. I know it's hard for you to separate the two, but you see ... I didn't perform the analysis, I just read about it. If it's wrong (and you've yet to prove that it is), it's the AP and five economists' fault, not mine.

But whether I agreed with it is irrelevant. The reason I posted it is because it totally contradicted what you said. I could be a 100% Cali sycophant and agree with everything you say (ala Chino "BOOM SHAKALAKA"), and the AP article would STILL have contradicted you.

It's amusing to watch the two of you go to such great lengths to miss a pretty easy point. *Shrug* I'm happy to guide you back to the path.

So you are only posting things because they contradict me? That's your level of analysis now? Even if it is totally wrong, you will post it just because it contradicts what I said? Hm. Well- I had low expectations to begin with...

Acknowledge the article is wrong (and correspondingly, you were wrong) and you won't have to defend it. If you think it isn't wrong, then defend it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So you are only posting things because they contradict me?

No, not only. But it's low-hanging fruit.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Actually, I did agree with the AP analysis. It makes sense to me. That still doesn't mean I have to defend it. I know it's hard for you to separate the two, but you see ... I didn't perform the analysis, I just read about it. If it's wrong (and you've yet to prove that it is), it's the AP and five economists' fault, not mine.

But whether I agreed with it is irrelevant. The reason I posted it is because it totally contradicted what you said. I could be a 100% Cali sycophant and agree with everything you say (ala Chino "BOOM SHAKALAKA"), and the AP article would STILL have contradicted you.

It's amusing to watch the two of you go to such great lengths to miss a pretty easy point. *Shrug* I'm happy to guide you back to the path.

Haha. So you agree with something you didn't read. A study that no one has read and no one is reading. Even right-wingers like Tyler Cowen and the reputable right-wing think tank AEI say that's awfully suspicious.

It's much like the time you channeled Roubini who supposed critiqued the stimulus, when he was actually asking for more stimulus.

I've got an economic study that shows that every time Tex posts we all get dumber and consequently less productive at work. Don't ask me to disclose my methodology, and NO YOU CAN'T SEE MY STUDY!

[Tex]

First, I'm going to be charitable and assume you just didn't read the post where I explicitly said ""I read the AP story fully". You continue to repeat this "you didn't read it" foolishness, despite that I said the exact opposite in pretty plain English.

Second, there is no AP "study." As best I can tell, there never was a "study" and the AP never called it a "study." In the link I provided, they called it an "analysis", meaning they took some data, analyzed it, showed it to some other economists who agreed with their analysis, and then wrote an article. And apparently, as your new pal Tyler Cowen points out, they appear willing to share the sources of their data and their tests with anyone who wants to see them. I don't know why you keep insisting on referring to it as the "study no one has read" except maybe some nutty left-wing website has instructed you to. It's a total red herring.

Third, the AEI link Cali provided says nothing about the AP analysis. It doesn't mention construction. It doesn't mention infrastructure. It barely mentions unemployment. It is as irrelevant a link to this discussion as any, which you'd know if you bothered to read more than just the URL.

Lastly, Roubini. Cali claimed in his typical hyperbolic manner that, "Virtually every economist agrees that the stimulus package helped accelerate the recovery much quicker than it otherwise would have, and slowed job loss significantly." To which I responded, "Roubini is in the minority." Meaning, Roubini does not agree that the stimulus packaged has accelerated the recovery or slowed job loss significantly. That is a true statement (quote: "U.S. labor markets are awful and worsening"). Roubini may also think the solution is to spend more, and on that he and I part ways, but he clearly contradicts Cali's claim. You would be well-served to stop pretending otherwise.

Honestly, for someone who accuses me of not reading, not thinking, and/or not taking a position, you have had about as poor a reading comprehension as anyone I've ever discussed with. Your substantive contributions to these threads have consisted of "Bush's fault," "spend more money," and my personal favorite "BOOM SHAKALAKA", which I think is Na'vi for "I didn't click a single one of these links before responding."

You're welcome to continue repeating all this nonsense, if you wish. Fortunately, anyone with a browser scrollbar and a mouse can see for themselves with a few clicks that it's all complete rubbish.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

First, I'm going to be charitable and assume you just didn't read the post where I explicitly said ""I read the AP story fully". You continue to repeat this "you didn't read it" foolishness, despite that I said the exact opposite in pretty plain English.

Second, there is no AP "study." As best I can tell, there never was a "study" and the AP never called it a "study." In the link I provided, they called it an "analysis", meaning they took some data, analyzed it, showed it to some other economists who agreed with their analysis, and then wrote an article. And apparently, as your new pal Tyler Cowen points out, they appear willing to share the sources of their data and their tests with anyone who wants to see them. I don't know why you keep insisting on referring to it as the "study no one has read" except maybe some nutty left-wing website has instructed you to. It's a total red herring.

Third, the AEI link Cali provided says nothing about the AP analysis. It doesn't mention construction. It doesn't mention infrastructure. It barely mentions unemployment. It is as irrelevant a link to this discussion as any, which you'd know if you bothered to read more than just the URL.

Lastly, Roubini. Cali claimed in his typical hyperbolic manner that, "Virtually every economist agrees that the stimulus package helped accelerate the recovery much quicker than it otherwise would have, and slowed job loss significantly." To which I responded, "Roubini is in the minority." Meaning, Roubini does not agree that the stimulus packaged has accelerated the recovery or slowed job loss significantly. That is a true statement (quote: "U.S. labor markets are awful and worsening"). Roubini may also think the solution is to spend more, and on that he and I part ways, but he clearly contradicts Cali's claim. You would be well-served to stop pretending otherwise.

Honestly, for someone who accuses me of not reading, not thinking, and/or not taking a position, you have had about as poor a reading comprehension as anyone I've ever discussed with. Your substantive contributions to these threads have consisted of "Bush's fault," "spend more money," and my personal favorite "BOOM SHAKALAKA", which I think is Na'vi for "I didn't click a single one of these links before responding."

You're welcome to continue repeating all this nonsense, if you wish. Fortunately, anyone with a browser scrollbar and a mouse can see for themselves with a few clicks that it's all complete rubbish.

Wow- how did I miss your argument on Roubini earlier? Economics isn't your strong suit. Stick with pure obstinacy. That is your department.

Ironic that in a post which harps on the reading ability of others, you demonstrated you didn't read my post at all. "Accelerated the recovery" does not mean "fully recovered." Slowed the loss of jobs" doesn't mean job gains. Both are merely comparative statements- we are better off now than we would have been without the stimulus, but that doesn't mean where we are now is in jobs and growth nirvana. Even more amusing that you would cite Roubini to support your argument (whatever it is). Roubini quite clearly believes the stimulus has helped. Else, why support a second stimulus as the remedy for current ails? Are you taking the position that Roubini thinks the first stimulus did nothing, but for some reason he thinks a second one will? It's amusing you even noted Roubini favors more stimulus and still didn't connect the pieces.

The rest of your argument is reduced to hair-splitting on the difference between a study and an analysis. The point remains the same- the data they "analyzed" isn't available for review. Yes- Cowan was told he could see the data. Then he never received it. It begs the question- when Tex says he "agrees with the AP analysis," what is it he agrees with? He doesn't know what data was reviewed, he doesn't know their methodology, he only knows their conclusion. Tex didn't say he agrees with their conclusion, though. He agrees instead with their analysis, which he has since admitted he doesn't understand at all. Nice work, Tex. If your goal was to make me laugh, mission accomplished.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ironic that in a post which harps on the reading ability of others, you demonstrated you didn't read my post at all. "Accelerated the recovery" does not mean "fully recovered." Slowed the loss of jobs" doesn't mean job gains.

Um yes, I know. He said "awful and worsening." If you think that implies an accelerated recovery, you need English lessons.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The rest of your argument is reduced to hair-splitting on the difference between a study and an analysis. The point remains the same- the data they "analyzed" isn't available for review. Yes- Cowan was told he could see the data. Then he never received it. It begs the question- when Tex says he "agrees with the AP analysis," what is it he agrees with? He doesn't know what data was reviewed, he doesn't know their methodology, he only knows their conclusion. Tex didn't say he agrees with their conclusion, though. He agrees instead with their analysis, which he has since admitted he doesn't understand at all. Nice work, Tex. If your goal was to make me laugh, mission accomplished.

You are criticizing me for hair-splitting? Oh, the irony!

I missed the follow-up post from Cowen where he says the AP never gave him the data/tests. Feel free to link to the post where Tyler Cowen says, "I asked for the data, and they refused, after telling me they would."

As for the difference between agreeing with the "analysis" and the "conclusion" ... well, that's hair-splitting.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Um yes, I know. He said "awful and worsening." If you think that implies an accelerated recovery, you need English lessons.



You are criticizing me for hair-splitting? Oh, the irony!

I missed the follow-up post from Cowen where he says the AP never gave him the data/tests. Feel free to link to the post where Tyler Cowen says, "I asked for the data, and they refused, after telling me they would."

As for the difference between agreeing with the "analysis" and the "conclusion" ... well, that's hair-splitting.

Let's go back to some fundamentals here, Tex. Are you aware that economic recovery is not dependent upon job growth? Roubini's quote of "awful and worsening" relate to the labor market in the US, not to the rate of recovery of the economy as a whole. Note that in the very next paragraph he has this to say about job losses:

While losing 200,000 jobs per month is better than the 700,000 jobs lost in January, current job losses still average more than the per month rate of 150,000 during the last recession.

As I said, the stimulus slowed the rate of job loss and accelerated recovery. Once again, that doesn't mean we have economic recovery or job growth. It merely means we are better off with the stimulus than without it in terms of job losses and recovery. Please recall that the person you cited strongly FAVORS even more stimulus. Would that make sense if he didn't think stimulus worked?

As for "hair splitting" (your favorite parlor trick, other than pure obstinacy), "analysis" and "study" are synonyms, Tex. Really. Look them up. "Conclusion" and "analysis" are not. One refers to the end result of an analysis, the other refers to the process as a whole. English lessons indeed.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Let's go back to some fundamentals here, Tex. Are you aware that economic recovery is not dependent upon job growth? Roubini's quote of "awful and worsening" relate to the labor market in the US, not to the rate of recovery of the economy as a whole. Note that in the very next paragraph he has this to say about job losses:



As I said, the stimulus slowed the rate of job loss and accelerated recovery. Once again, that doesn't mean we have economic recovery or job growth. It merely means we are better off with the stimulus than without it in terms of job losses and recovery. Please recall that the person you cited strongly FAVORS even more stimulus. Would that make sense if he didn't think stimulus worked?

As for "hair splitting" (your favorite parlor trick, other than pure obstinacy), "analysis" and "study" are synonyms, Tex. Really. Look them up. "Conclusion" and "analysis" are not. One refers to the end result of an analysis, the other refers to the process as a whole. English lessons indeed.

ad hoc ergo proctor hoc.