you (a)consider that the unemployment figure reported is correct or not grossly misrepresented
No, please reread my numerous posts on this thread to confirm that I never said such thing. Firstly, an estimate may lack accuracy but be unbiased (I too trust that you know what an estimator and its bias are). Secondly, when an estimate is indeed biased it may be such for reasons other than deliberate misrepresentation. If the language I use does not suffice, ask an attorney why it is so much harder to prove fraud than negligence, and why a judge would throw out an allegation of fraud if intent is not demonstrated by the accuser.
(b) hold the opinion that the top management of the banks are blameless and has nothing to do with the failure of these banks e.g. GS, F&F, AIG
This begins to be really disturbing: where have I said that or anything remotely close? What I said was that it has become a hunting game wherein people (i) pin on the banks all, even nonexistent or someone else's sins, and (ii) do not bother to support their allegations with evidence.
Please reflect on the difference between this and your supposition.
(c) hold the opinion that the government is responsible for the failure of the banks (This is not an attempt to put words into your mouth, do correct me if I am wrong).
We had not one crisis but two related crises: a credit crisis and a housing bubble. No, the government has nothing to do with the failure of Lehman, which then startled lenders so much (reversal of too-big-to-fail) that they froze lending.
At the same time, yes, the entire housing bubble was created by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1998 and its implementation by Barney Frank and Maxine Waters.
you attempted to convince the members that there is no collusion on part of the BLS top level (in this case) or the top management in case of F&F,
No, (i) I explained why I personally do not believe in such collusion, and (ii) requested accusers of such collusion to provide evidence of it.
Why so? you may ask, because, they are as I said earlier, fragmented. Calculations are done on a regional basis.
You are absolutely correct. As I mentioned earlier, there are statistical methods to detect bias during aggregation (sorry I do not recall specific sources now to refer you to them). I expressed doubt that they would not be used in this case.
This cannot be reported to the Feds can it? What would the poor officer say... Officer to Feds: The rate of unemployment is 14% not 8%. I am here to report Mr. X who has deliberately taken a higher confidence level. Fed to Officer: Get lost
This is an exaggeration, but not too far from the truth. . One can indeed say and back up with documents: "At such an such meeting, A proposed to me that number X would not reflect well on administration's efforts and it would be better if we changed it to 0.95X."
That's how things are uncovered and proved in the court of law in the case of pharmaceutical, tobaco, asbestos companies --- dozens of times. Yes, people talk in the courtroom in terms of confidence levels, Student distributions, etc. Similar degree of technicality and sieving through e-mails to demonstrate intent was done in the case of Enron. You have seen how e-mails recently blew up into the faces of global-warming "scientists:" their owm, leaked e-mails condemned them. It's difficult to conspire for too long without being detected.
My only request to you is to refrain from attempting to convince people that the figure of unemployment at 8.9% is correct.
It is an absolutely justifiable request, and I am only happy to comply. I think I complied with it in the past. I personally would laugh if someone suggested that any figure is correct: it is nothing but an approximation, and most people (at least professionals in the economics, finance and policy fields) understand it as such.
To give an example: is 3.14 a correct figure for Pi? Of course not. Is 3.1415 a correct one? Of course not: it is a better approximation but not a correct value. As you know, I am sure, no decimal expression of finite length would be correct in this case. When someone says Pi = 3.14, most people understand what that means, and nobody is misled.
I trust you are also aware of the numerous political motivations behind distorting critical figures like unemployment rate.
Yes, of course. The question is whether they can and do get away with it, not whether they are motivated to do so.
I said: you (a)consider that the unemployment figure reported is correct or not grossly misrepresented
TopQuark said “No, please reread my numerous posts on this thread to confirm that I never said such thing”
When people said the figure is distorted you staunchly opposed that. Sorry again. I should have used the words true and fair instead of correct. So do you deny that you believe the figure presented by BLS is true and fair and not materially misstated?
TopQuark said “If the language I use does not suffice, ask an attorney why it is so much harder to prove fraud than negligence, and why a judge would throw out an allegation of fraud if intent is not demonstrated by the accuser.”
All conservatives know the intent. Everybody knows the intent. To suppress the real figure of unemployment in order to support BHO’s political agenda. Are we going to simply believe whatever figure he throws at us?
TopQuark said “We had not one crisis but two related crises: a credit crisis and a housing bubble. No, the government has nothing to do with the failure of Lehman, which then startled lenders so much (reversal of too-big-to-fail) that they froze lending. At the same time, yes, the entire housing bubble was created by the Community Reinvestment Act of 1998 and its implementation by Barney Frank and Maxine Waters”
Thank you. The CRA, 98 did play a significant role in initiating the whole subprime crisis but what caused it to spiral and then sustained it over so many years etc etc? (rhetorical questions) These are issues over which most noted academics are still breaking their heads. I also do not see how this is related to BLS fudging the unemployment levels.
I said: you attempted to convince the members that there is no collusion on part of the BLS top level (in this case) or the top management in case of F&F,
TopQuark said “No, (i) I explained why I personally do not believe in such collusion, and (ii) requested accusers of such collusion to provide evidence of it”
You first say “No” that means you are open to the possibility of a collusion.
Then you say “I explained why I personally do not believe in such collusion”
OK so you are open to the possibility of a collusion but do not personally believe that it has taken place. Is that correct?
TopQuark said “requested accusers of such collusion to provide evidence of it”
You expect us to provide evidence of exactly where the BLS figure is incorrect in calculations, in estimations, in making reasonable provisions for biases so as to avoid any gross misrepresentation. Honestly, do you believe it is practically possible for us to provide any such form of solid evidence?
All we can provide you with is the intent, BHO has fudged figures to save his.. err… butt. Are we going to just sit back and watch him do so?
TopQuark said “As I mentioned earlier, there are statistical methods to detect bias during aggregation”
Yes we do have methods to detect bias *but* even those methods are under the control of the BLS because you make a reasonable provision for bias and that provision is controlled by, well, the higher ups at BLS. (an important estimate like adjustment for bias cannot and will not be left to the middle level)
TopQuark said ‘This is an exaggeration, but not too far from the truth. . One can indeed say and back up with documents: “At such an such meeting, A proposed to me that number X would not reflect well on administration’s efforts and it would be better if we changed it to 0.95X.” That’s how things are uncovered and proved in the court of law in the case of pharmaceutical, tobaco, asbestos companies -— dozens of times. Yes, people talk in the courtroom in terms of confidence levels, Student distributions, etc. Similar degree of technicality and sieving through e-mails to demonstrate intent was done in the case of Enron. You have seen how e-mails recently blew up into the faces of global-warming “scientists:” their owm, leaked e-mails condemned them. It’s difficult to conspire for too long without being detected.”
True but please appreciate the fact that Enron is not an example of a company that died because of unearthed emails, it died because of an inflated revenue attributed to non-existent contracts and heavy collusion with the auditors (Please note that the auditors were none other than Arthur Andersen, an ex big 4 employing people who no one would have earlier suspected that they could participate and connive in a fraud as big and shameful as Enron) The guilt of the directors of Enron was not proved on the basis of emails (email may have served as secondary evidence, the primary evidence was non-existent contracts)
In order to explain the state of BLS, the debacle that immediately comes to mind is the London School of Economics. It required an entire civil war in Libya to uncover the ‘fraud’ by its director. Please note that this fraud would never have been uncovered without the (unfortunate) civil war. A report in the Financial Times (print edition UK and Ireland) dated March 4, 2011 informs us that (i) There were only two professors who protested the acceptance of grant from junior Gaddafi mooted through a nonprofit registered in Switzerland (note the tax haven – Switzerland!) (ii) One dissenting professor named Mr. Halliday stated while addressing the dean that British experts in Libya have clearly indicated that it would be against the principles and interest of LSE to accept this donation (iii) the dean replied stating he had already invited a second opinion (note that the dean invited second opinion without the consent of the committee and then threw the results at the committee). This second opinion, the dean wrote back, says that there is no harm for LSE accepting this donation (iv) The article ends with the dissenting professor Halliday writing in his mail to the dean that he appreciates the deans decision to accept the donation and certain changes (the article does not specify what changes) made in the committee to safeguard the interests of LSE (v) Both dissenting professors submitted to the deans views in the end and ultimately there were no dissenting professors left.
TopQuark said “The question is whether they can and do get away with it, not whether they are motivated to do so”
Yes they can. As we see from the LSE example. It now appears these changes were merely to protect the deans butt. The dean has now made a shameful exit from the school.
I have taken the pains to deliberate and deliberate further to make you understand that the BLS can get away with manipulating the figures. Essentially because they have only needed to do so in the past couple of years. Why would it have been necessary to distort them when unemployment was not the hot topic?
Also because they will and are doing it by ‘playing safe’ i.e. by deciding the critical factors like confidence intervals, provision for bias in justifiable ways (ways justifiable only to BHO’s agenda, mind you, not to us).
If we say, that the figure is true and fair, we are playing into the hands of BHO however innocently and without intent.
Boil our conservative blood, rise and protest against the deliberately suppressed unemployment figure by BHO, please.
Hope this helps.