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.
I am sorry but you are misusing terminology, which makes us difficult to understand each other. Apparently, in your mind "true and fair" and "not materially misstated" ere equivalent. They are not.
1. There is not such thing, as far as I know, as "fairness" of an estimator. If so, an estimate such as unemployment rate cannot be fair.
2. There is no such thing as "true" estimator or "true" estimate. Estimators are more or less accurate and/or precise. Previously, you and I used the word "accurate."
3. While qualities "accurate" and "precise" are those of an estimator, but "misstated" is not: it is a property of both the given number and the agent that gives that number.
I am sorry you appear to have missed entirely the lengthy portion of my previous post where I (i) stated that no one number can be accurate, (ii) gave an example where accuracy is not possible in principle, and said that (iii) most people who deal with unemployment numbers or other statistics understand those to be the "best shot."
At first, you were arguing against a straw man, that is, something I did not say. Now that I have actually said the opposite, you keep repeating the same argument. I am sorry, this does not make much sense.
You a free to mistrust my use of the terminology -- than please look it up on any textbook on mathematical statistics. Merely repeating the same thing is a waste of your time of mine.
One last comment: the questions you pose are of a type called "double-barrel questions." in survey research. It is impossible to answer them with Yes or No, which you appear to seek from me. To illustrate: "Do you believe that President is effective or he lost credence with the American public?" The respondent may be unable to answer the question with Yes or No: the president may be effective and still lose his credence with the public. Or, the credence is fine but the president is ineffective.
All conservatives know the intent.
Firstly, the statement is factually incorrect. I personally know enough people, conservative beyond any doubt, who don't "know" that intent.
Secondly, it is logically fallacious. Being old and common, this form of fallacy has its own name: argumentum ad potentiam (appeal to authority). To avoid the fallacy, you should demonstrate the existence of intent. If successful, the issue of what "all conservatives know" will become irrelevant.
Thirdly, it is irrelevant. As I already repeated numerous times, the question we were discussing was not whether "intent" may exist but evidence that it does exist. You speak now as if you have not read this in my posts before.
Everybody knows the intent.
Now you have added to the three difficulties above an unsupported generalization from the population of conservatives to the entire population. A researcher, whether in natural or social sciences, cannot do that in such a cavalier fashion (see Cook and Campbell, "Treats to Vaidty," 1956; and most texts on "Research Methods").
If you see bent on demonstrating some kind of inconsistency in my posts, than please apply the same standard to yourself .
Are we going to simply believe whatever figure he throws at us?
Another case of the logical fallacy of the type argumentum ad stramineus homo (argument against a straw man).
Nobody has ever suggested that we should "simply believe."
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)
Since questions are rhetorical, they are not worthy of my effort.
But you do misunderstand what the 1998 modification of the CRA. It was not some isolated action taking place in 1998: it authorized a procedure that put continualpressure on the market.
But, since you asked only rhetorically, I already honored your remark more than I should have.
It does not help anybody, my friend, to pose rhetorical questions only to reveal a misunderstanding of the issue at hand. OK so you are open to the possibility of a collusion but do not personally believe that it has taken place. Is that correct?
YES, for crying out loud! Is this some kind of a game for you? I've repeated the same thing numerous times.
This looks more like an interrogation than a discussion.
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.
No, another straw man argument. And, I don't know why you are asking the question whether I requested X where I already said, numerous times and with examples, that I requested Y.
The previous posts have give numerous examples of evidence behind the alleged fraud. They occur routinely in our society and courts, as I also stated earlier.
If you don't want to or can't for whatever reason read my posts, that's fine. But don't request that I waste my time on merely repeating them.
BHO has fudged figures to save his.. err… butt. Are we going to just sit back and watch him do so?
Another straw man argument: nobody suggested what you said.
In fact I already stated the opposite several times: do not just sit; by all means, do provide evidence supporting your statement.
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.
The debacle on Mars has the same level of relevance. Firstly, you yourself put "fraud" in quotation bars --- correctly, because it was not a fraud.
1. A logical error: when discussing detection of a fraud, you give as an example of something which is not a fraud.
2. A factual error; there was not fraud and no detection at the LSE.
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
One more argument against a straw man: I did not say that Enron died because of e-mails. I never even addressed hte question of why it died at all.
What did happen was that you posed the question of what kind of evidence may stand up court. I gave an example of e-mails being damning enough for Enron.
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).
Judging by the examples you give, your impression of what BLS does and what the practice of statistics is are based on Stat 101. I have tried to tell you that this perception is inadequate.
If we say, that the figure is true and fair,
No, I am repeating for the tenth time: we are not saying that.
As I said in my previous post, I remain unconvinced by your arguments. My failure is more significant: you appear to have misread almost every word I wrote. I am sorry if I contributed to that unfortunate outcome.
This discussion appears to be less than productive, which is why I asked you in the preceding post: can we respectfully agree to disagree?