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?
Sorry you appear to have missed entirely my previous posts where I stated that this is not about the accuracy of 8.9 to the last decimal but the deliberate suppression of the real rate of unemployment.
TopQuark said the questions you pose are of a type called "double-barrel questions." in survey research.
So much for the use of sophisticated terminology "double-barrel questions." Since you have anyway later in your post downgraded my understanding to that of Stat 101 , well, we 101 level and comparatively less intellectual mortals consider the questions I asked you as Open ended Questions Open ended questions do not require an answer in Yes or No.
So tell me, Where in any of my previous posts have I asked you to reply in or restrict your answer to yes or no?
Making statements like “It is impossible to answer them with Yes or No, which you appear to seek from me” where no such intent has been demonstrated by the author anywhere in any post is not a valid response and it is called logical fallacy of the type argumentum ad stramineus homo (argument against a straw man).
TopQuark said: I personally know enough people, conservative beyond any doubt,
There you go again. “I” personally know…. Gosh! On one hand you speak of validity and invalidity of arguments, factual and logical correctness and on the other hand this statement. Sorry to say, a statement that begins with I is irrelevant and holds no credibility to others.
It also goes against Judeo-Christian morality. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not Matthew 23.3
If you are keen to demonstrate logical fallacy in my posts, then please apply the same standard to yourself
I said 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)
TopQuark said 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
Thank you for your unrequited effort. But you do misunderstand the question itself. It does not require a doctorate in economics to say that the CRA authorized a procedure that put continual pressure on the market. The subprime crisis is a complex economic phenomenon and a result of more than one inter-related factor in action. But since you have chosen to make an unworthy effort on a rhetorical question, I have honored your remark more than I should have.
TopQuark said It does not help anybody, my friend, to pose rhetorical questions only to reveal a misunderstanding of the issue at hand.
Neither does it help anybody, my friend, to answer rhetorical questions only to reveal a misunderstanding of the question itself!
TopQuark said Is this some kind of a game for you?
No, we at level 101 call it a discussion, at best a debate. What do you call it at your level?
TopQuark said This looks more like an interrogation than a discussion
You ask others -
Was the Fed lying when Republicans were in charge? (Post 13 by TopQuark)
Can you tell me what indicates that these reports are a lie? (Post 13 by TopQuark)
You’ve founded these statistics. So have they or have they not been published? (Post 16 by TopQuark)
And when someone engages you, then it is interrogation. Perfectly in line with Judeo-Christian morality and practicing what you preach.
TopQuark said Firstly, you yourself put "fraud" in quotation bars --- correctly, because it was not a fraud.
You pick on my use of quotation marks, how representative of somebody who refers to others as displaying knowledge of Level 101. Fraud is defined as deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage (lay your hands on any dictionary and verify the definition). The PhD provided to junior Gaddafi is under investigation as fake and has been reported as a direct return gift from LSE in anticipation of and in response to the donation.
You said further A factual error; there was not fraud and no detection at the LSE
What a logically and factually correct statement to make. Please update yourself with facts first if you want to be taken seriously.
TopQuark said: The previous posts have give numerous examples of evidence behind the alleged fraud
What evidence are you referring to? There was only one general comment about asbestos, tobacco companies. You did not name a single company other than Enron. Asking others to provide substantial evidence and then throwing general statements and expecting them to be considered as numerous examples. Very productive, indeed
TopQuark said: I gave an example of e-mails being damning enough for Enron.
I explained in detail why e-mails are not damning enough, which you chose to conveniently ignore. E-mails are not sufficiently damning as the only piece of evidence. So follow your own advice -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
TopQuark said can we respectfully agree to disagree?
You slammed the member who started this article, then in posts other than to me, spoke about everything except unemployment (to which this article pertains) and did not in a single reply specify clearly whether you believe the figure to be distorted or not.
In light of the above, I shall gladly take the Moral High Ground
I said If we say, that the figure is true and fair TopQuark said No, I am repeating for the tenth time: we are not sayingthat
All ten times you just said you are not saying THIS and THAT. And what is THAT. You have not given an answer anywhere of the ten times. You are only talking of the figure in terms of rounding up, recurring decimals and it being a statistical estimate and nothing about whether it is distorted or not
As all of the ten times you answered everything other than what is asked, for the eleventh time, do you believe in the figure of unemployment at 8.9 or do you believe that it is fudged? (At Stat level 101 this is an open ended question and does not restrict the answer to Yes or No)
This article among other things is about the rate of unemployment. You have accused the member who started this article of spewing commie propaganda. Let alone substantiating your accusation, you have conveniently ignored even a simple question yet. The onus is on you to substantiate that accusation. Otherwise you are violating even the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian morality
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (a fellow conservative)