|
|
On September 11 2012 20:34 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 15:18 Defacer wrote:If anyone is in the mood to read something extremely depressing ... The Deafness Before the Storm: Bush White House ignored adamant warnings from CIA of imminent Al-Qaeda attackOn April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. Dick Cheny knew that terrorists had taken over planes and did nothing to stop it + Show Spoiler +Fun fact is that they did not include his testimony in the 9-11 report ^_^
Where in that video do you get that idea? Minera says in the video that to his understanding that Cheney had ordered them to shoot down the plane heading for the Pentagon, but they did not get there from Langley in time. Or at least that was my understanding of the video when I watched it.
He does say that the plane that crashed in Penn. was not a plane that he had ordered to be shot down, though it was being intercepted, was that the one you were talking about?
Or are you talking about something not in the video? I admit I have not followed this subject.
|
On September 11 2012 20:34 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 15:18 Defacer wrote:If anyone is in the mood to read something extremely depressing ... The Deafness Before the Storm: Bush White House ignored adamant warnings from CIA of imminent Al-Qaeda attackOn April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. Dick Cheny knew that terrorists had taken over planes and did nothing to stop it + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y Fun fact is that they did not include his testimony in the 9-11 report ^_^
You realize that the video you linked to directly contradicts your assertion? They're talking about the order to shoot the plane down, and Mineta clearly recalls Cheney saying:
And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
The order therefore was to shoot the plane(s) down. They simply did not react/reach them in time. This claim by conspiracy theorists that Cheney deliberately let the hijackers hit the towers has been debunked countless times.
|
On September 11 2012 16:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 15:50 Defacer wrote:On September 11 2012 15:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 11 2012 15:08 Defacer wrote:On September 11 2012 13:00 ziggurat wrote:On September 11 2012 08:58 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 11 2012 08:35 ziggurat wrote:On September 11 2012 07:09 Roe wrote:On September 11 2012 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:
[quote]
Whoever wrote this is just dumb. Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality. No. If taxes are high people are incentivized to think "I could work really hard and start a great business ... but I'd lose most of the profits in taxes anyway so why bother?" Or, they think "I'm going to invest my money, should I invest it here where the govt will take a ton of my profits? Or should I invest it offshore where I'll get to keep most of the profits myself?" Starting a business is a big risk. Many businesses fail. So when a smart person is trying to decide if they will start one or not they look at the possible outcomes, and reasistically assess the risk/reward ratio. For example, say I am considering $1,000,000 in a business and I see the following possible outcomes: Scenario 1 - 10% chance that this will happen - Huge success - I make $500,000 a year from this business Scenario 2 - 50% chance that this will happen - moderate success - I make $200,000 a year from this business Scenario 3 - 40% chance - business fails, I lose my investment You can make up whatever numbers you want, but if the tax rate is really high a lot of people will simply look at the numbers and decide its not worth it. If tax rates are low people are encouraged to start businesses because the rewards are that much greater if they are successful. Yet you're forgetting an important part of the equation. Are you fucked if your company does not succeed or not? The higher the taxrate the less likely you are to be fucked if your business fails. I actually find your argument highly lacking due to this. Also, people are, in general, risk averse, which means that a safer society (one where you don't fail at life if your company fails in this scenario) would make people more willing to start a new company, not less. No, I think you have it all wrong. If my business fails I'm not fucked -- unless I invested every last cent I own into it, which few people would do. Even if I did, I can always go out and get a job. I doubt the social safety net is much of a factor. The highly motivated people who are going to start successful businesses are not likely to end up on welfare no matter how bad the economy is. But the fact the govt will take half of any money I make is a huge disincentive. Have you ever started your own business (and no, being self-employed doesn't count). I think there are a lot of people that do invest every last cent into their business. Hell, the average 'successful' small business that employs 50 to 60 people typically need massive bank loans in order to insure they make pay roll. For many undereducated or under-skilled people, entrepreneurship is the only way to ascend from the lower-middle class to upper middle class, unless you want to be a wage slave forever. Do you think your local bakery owner would give up his business so he can work for a bakery? You'll always make more money as an owner, and there is value in simply being your own boss. I think there is truth in what you're saying -- that only highly motivated people can start and maintain a successful business. But even if they were successful enough to be taxed at 50%, that wouldn't be enough of a disincentive to stop being an entrepreneur or not start a business to begin with. No, you won't always make more money as an owner. Yes, being taxed at 50% may be enough of a disincentive for the entrepreneur to decide to not start the business. It depends on what specifics we're talking about. Sorry, your right, let me rephrase that. Some entrepreneurs assume greater risk and responsibility for the opportunity to make significantly more money than they could otherwise, due to their education or skill level. If you're a designer, for example, there is a ceiling that you'll hit when you work for other people -- despite being the driving creative and productive force for a product. Which is why more and more designer consider starting their business or developing their own products. Sure, I think taxes still play a role there though. When the designer considers starting her own business she'll figure out how much more she'll make and then decide if it is worth the effort or not. The higher the taxes the smaller gain in income. So I'd have to assume that fewer designers would decide to go it alone at a higher tax rate than a lower one.
A gigantic assumption, of course. Defacer seems to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong here Defacer) that these conciderations aren't relevant up until a point long into the business cycle where the designer has achieved such success that, really, it's irrelevant. Let's say a designer makes $150k a year working at a designer firm. The designer then concludes that he'd make about $50k more if he was working for himself. Now your argument would only really be valid here if the designer was to see that most of his newfound $50k would be gone in taxes, but that just wont happen. Rather what happens is when one of these designers creates a business and suddenly comes in to the, say, $400k+ bracket (a lot more money than what could be expected from the start) and then they are taxed harshly on their income.
Meaning two things;
1. It's outside of the initial equation. Unless you're an idiot you can't expect to be super successful. You can hope, but you plan realistically.
2. The taxation simply wont hurt as much, as you never expected to make so much money to begin with.
"But what if you expect to make $400k+?!". Then you're making too much money anyway, and everyone who looks to enter the same business is in the same situation, so who cares? The bottom line is that you'll make more money either way.
Lastly, if we combine this with less of a punishment for failure then your argument does not stand.
|
On September 11 2012 20:59 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 16:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 11 2012 15:50 Defacer wrote:On September 11 2012 15:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 11 2012 15:08 Defacer wrote:On September 11 2012 13:00 ziggurat wrote:On September 11 2012 08:58 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 11 2012 08:35 ziggurat wrote:On September 11 2012 07:09 Roe wrote:On September 11 2012 06:41 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality. No. If taxes are high people are incentivized to think "I could work really hard and start a great business ... but I'd lose most of the profits in taxes anyway so why bother?" Or, they think "I'm going to invest my money, should I invest it here where the govt will take a ton of my profits? Or should I invest it offshore where I'll get to keep most of the profits myself?" Starting a business is a big risk. Many businesses fail. So when a smart person is trying to decide if they will start one or not they look at the possible outcomes, and reasistically assess the risk/reward ratio. For example, say I am considering $1,000,000 in a business and I see the following possible outcomes: Scenario 1 - 10% chance that this will happen - Huge success - I make $500,000 a year from this business Scenario 2 - 50% chance that this will happen - moderate success - I make $200,000 a year from this business Scenario 3 - 40% chance - business fails, I lose my investment You can make up whatever numbers you want, but if the tax rate is really high a lot of people will simply look at the numbers and decide its not worth it. If tax rates are low people are encouraged to start businesses because the rewards are that much greater if they are successful. Yet you're forgetting an important part of the equation. Are you fucked if your company does not succeed or not? The higher the taxrate the less likely you are to be fucked if your business fails. I actually find your argument highly lacking due to this. Also, people are, in general, risk averse, which means that a safer society (one where you don't fail at life if your company fails in this scenario) would make people more willing to start a new company, not less. No, I think you have it all wrong. If my business fails I'm not fucked -- unless I invested every last cent I own into it, which few people would do. Even if I did, I can always go out and get a job. I doubt the social safety net is much of a factor. The highly motivated people who are going to start successful businesses are not likely to end up on welfare no matter how bad the economy is. But the fact the govt will take half of any money I make is a huge disincentive. Have you ever started your own business (and no, being self-employed doesn't count). I think there are a lot of people that do invest every last cent into their business. Hell, the average 'successful' small business that employs 50 to 60 people typically need massive bank loans in order to insure they make pay roll. For many undereducated or under-skilled people, entrepreneurship is the only way to ascend from the lower-middle class to upper middle class, unless you want to be a wage slave forever. Do you think your local bakery owner would give up his business so he can work for a bakery? You'll always make more money as an owner, and there is value in simply being your own boss. I think there is truth in what you're saying -- that only highly motivated people can start and maintain a successful business. But even if they were successful enough to be taxed at 50%, that wouldn't be enough of a disincentive to stop being an entrepreneur or not start a business to begin with. No, you won't always make more money as an owner. Yes, being taxed at 50% may be enough of a disincentive for the entrepreneur to decide to not start the business. It depends on what specifics we're talking about. Sorry, your right, let me rephrase that. Some entrepreneurs assume greater risk and responsibility for the opportunity to make significantly more money than they could otherwise, due to their education or skill level. If you're a designer, for example, there is a ceiling that you'll hit when you work for other people -- despite being the driving creative and productive force for a product. Which is why more and more designer consider starting their business or developing their own products. Sure, I think taxes still play a role there though. When the designer considers starting her own business she'll figure out how much more she'll make and then decide if it is worth the effort or not. The higher the taxes the smaller gain in income. So I'd have to assume that fewer designers would decide to go it alone at a higher tax rate than a lower one. A gigantic assumption, of course. Defacer seems to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong here Defacer) that these conciderations aren't relevant up until a point long into the business cycle where the designer has achieved such success that, really, it's irrelevant. Let's say a designer makes $150k a year working at a designer firm. The designer then concludes that he'd make about $50k more if he was working for himself. Now your argument would only really be valid here if the designer was to see that most of his newfound $50k would be gone in taxes, but that just wont happen. Rather what happens is when one of these designers creates a business and suddenly comes in to the, say, $400k+ bracket (a lot more money than what could be expected from the start) and then they are taxed harshly on their income. Meaning two things; 1. It's outside of the initial equation. Unless you're an idiot you can't expect to be super successful. You can hope, but you plan realistically. 2. The taxation simply wont hurt as much, as you never expected to make so much money to begin with. "But what if you expect to make $400k+?!". Then you're making too much money anyway, and everyone who looks to enter the same business is in the same situation, so who cares? The bottom line is that you'll make more money either way. Lastly, if we combine this with less of a punishment for failure then your argument does not stand.
Getting that extra $50K requires investment and risk. You can't characterize it as free money.
|
On September 11 2012 15:08 Defacer wrote:
Have you ever started your own business (and no, being self-employed doesn't count).
Could you please explain how being self-employed doesn't count as starting your own business ?
You'll always make more money as an owner, ...
This is another one that is completely wrong. If it were true, everyone would have their own businesses. How can you actually think this stuff ?
|
It's just not about looking at your paycheck and weighing it against what you'd earn running your own business. There's alot of smart people that quit their jobs and start businesses knowing they will earn less money but have more freedom and potential for a pay increase in the future.
|
On September 11 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 02:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 11 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 10 2012 21:04 paralleluniverse wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-keep-parts-obama-healthcare-law-155146420.htmlSo Romney flip-flops on Obamacare again, saying that he would keep some provisions that he likes, for example, coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. No doubt he's cynical enough to flip-flop on this given that virtually all the provisions of Obamacare have overwhelming popular support apart from the mandate. I had this covered all the way back on page 128: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=128#2553And as I said then, it's not possible to cover pre-existing conditions without a mandate because of adverse selection, i.e. people waiting until they are sick to get coverage, because they can't be denied, driving up the price of healthcare for everyone.Of course, Romney knows this, that's why Romneycare has a mandate, because that's what Jonathan Gruber, the man who designed Romneycare told him. Yes, Romney is a flip-flopping and lying hypocrite. Don't take it from me: here's what Gruber, the architect of Romneycare and Obamacare had to say: How much would the price of insurance (I assume you mean insurance, not healthcare) go up by? 2%, 5%, 10%? The majority of Americans have health insurance and the majority that don't do not have expensive pre-existing conditions. I'd be interested to know what a good estimate on costs would be, rather than rhetorical "costs would skyrocket". I don't think you can ignore the whole Federal government chipping in for Romneycare factor. If the cost goes down then the cost / benefit looks better - a trick the Federal government can't repeat with Obamacare. Gruber again (see Table 1): $1944 per year, which is 45%. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1013067 Thanks, but that's not what I was asking. This is just showing how much healthy people will be on net subsidizing the sick. What I'm interested in is, absent the mandate, how much insurance rates would increase.
That's exactly what you're looking for.
You said: How much would the price of insurance (I assume you mean insurance, not healthcare) go up by? 2%, 5%, 10%?
The numbersn give are for:
The table
shows the average age, rate of
chronic illness, and average
monthly spending per member
for new enrollees in each of the
three periods. In each period,
the numbers of enrollees with
chronic illness were higher at
the beginning of the period than
at the end of the period. The enrollees
who signed up for Commonwealth
Care before the mandate
went into effect were nearly
4 years older, were almost 50%
more likely to be chronically ill,
and had about 45% higher health
care costs than those who
signed up once the program was
fully effective.
So the numbers are for spending on Commonwealth Care, which is health insurance: https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector
The article concludes that without the mandate, the cost of insurance increases by 45%.
|
Just as a followup to the conversation about polling bias and why I wouldn't trust the polls right now (wait til the two weeks before the election), look at this WashPo/ABC poll. It shows a 49-48 split in favor of Obama. However, go look at the very last question that shows the composition of the sample: 37% independent, 33% democrats, 23% republican, 4% other, 3% don't know.
|
So today, Moody's is threatening to downgrade the US's credit rating: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-aaa-rating-depends-fall-debt-ratio-moodys-133349936--business.html
I lol'ed.
Let's recall that the only thing that happened when S&P downgraded the US's credit rating is that they lost all creditability, if they even had any left after rating junk CDOs as AAA. After all, S&P made a $2 trillion error in their calculations, yet went ahead with their downgrade anyway.
And how did the market react? By completely ignoring S&P.
![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=avH)
Go ahead Moody's, downgrade the US's credit rating. I double--no, triple--dare you. Nothing will happen. The markets will not react to the downgrade, other than noting that the only thing that's been downgraded is Moody's creditability and we'll all be reminded of the utter serial incompetence of the rating agencies.
|
On September 12 2012 00:16 xDaunt wrote:Just as a followup to the conversation about polling bias and why I wouldn't trust the polls right now (wait til the two weeks before the election), look at this WashPo/ABC poll. It shows a 49-48 split in favor of Obama. However, go look at the very last question that shows the composition of the sample: 37% independent, 33% democrats, 23% republican, 4% other, 3% don't know.
So there's a vast liberal media conspiracy to make Obama's poll numbers look better than they really are?
It's a random sample. And when several polls independently come to the same conclusion, it's highly probable that, yes, Obama did get a few points bump in the polls.
|
On September 12 2012 00:16 xDaunt wrote:Just as a followup to the conversation about polling bias and why I wouldn't trust the polls right now (wait til the two weeks before the election), look at this WashPo/ABC poll. It shows a 49-48 split in favor of Obama. However, go look at the very last question that shows the composition of the sample: 37% independent, 33% democrats, 23% republican, 4% other, 3% don't know.
I don't see anything inconsistent with that tbh.
|
United States41936 Posts
On September 12 2012 00:16 xDaunt wrote:Just as a followup to the conversation about polling bias and why I wouldn't trust the polls right now (wait til the two weeks before the election), look at this WashPo/ABC poll. It shows a 49-48 split in favor of Obama. However, go look at the very last question that shows the composition of the sample: 37% independent, 33% democrats, 23% republican, 4% other, 3% don't know.
I've always assumed that the purpose of polls was to try and propagate the idea that pollsters have a useful profession and should continue getting employment. Pay them and they'll give you a poll that shows anything. Doesn't in any way surprise me.
Still, assuming that you understand their methodology and, in this case, their selection of respondents you can try and glean something from it.
|
On September 12 2012 00:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 00:16 xDaunt wrote:Just as a followup to the conversation about polling bias and why I wouldn't trust the polls right now (wait til the two weeks before the election), look at this WashPo/ABC poll. It shows a 49-48 split in favor of Obama. However, go look at the very last question that shows the composition of the sample: 37% independent, 33% democrats, 23% republican, 4% other, 3% don't know. I've always assumed that the purpose of polls was to try and propagate the idea that pollsters have a useful profession and should continue getting employment. Pay them and they'll give you a poll that shows anything. Doesn't in any way surprise me. Still, assuming that you understand their methodology and, in this case, their selection of respondents you can try and glean something from it.
I don't know whether there's a concerted effort to kick out biased polls, I just know that there has been a systemic undersampling of republicans in polls. I highlighted the Washpo poll as a particularly egregious example. What a good is a poll that gives a 10% sampling bias to democrats? I'm trying to find it, but I'm pretty sure that I just saw an article in the past couple weeks that the number of registered republican voters has outgrown registered democrats. Plus, it has always been the case that registered republicans are more likely to vote, which is why polls of "likely voters" are more accurate than those of "registered voters."
|
United States41936 Posts
On September 12 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 00:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2012 00:16 xDaunt wrote:Just as a followup to the conversation about polling bias and why I wouldn't trust the polls right now (wait til the two weeks before the election), look at this WashPo/ABC poll. It shows a 49-48 split in favor of Obama. However, go look at the very last question that shows the composition of the sample: 37% independent, 33% democrats, 23% republican, 4% other, 3% don't know. I've always assumed that the purpose of polls was to try and propagate the idea that pollsters have a useful profession and should continue getting employment. Pay them and they'll give you a poll that shows anything. Doesn't in any way surprise me. Still, assuming that you understand their methodology and, in this case, their selection of respondents you can try and glean something from it. I don't know whether there's a concerted effort to kick out biased polls, I just know that there has been a systemic undersampling of republicans in polls. I highlighted the Washpo poll as a particularly egregious example. What a good is a poll that gives a 10% sampling bias to democrats? I'm trying to find it, but I'm pretty sure that I just saw an article in the past couple weeks that the number of registered republican voters has outgrown registered democrats. Plus, it has always been the case that registered republicans are more likely to vote, which is why polls of "likely voters" are more accurate than those of "registered voters."
Maybe they're all too busy working to reply to polls while the democrat supporters have time on their hands? :p
|
On September 12 2012 00:22 paralleluniverse wrote:So today, Moody's is threatening to downgrade the US's credit rating: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-aaa-rating-depends-fall-debt-ratio-moodys-133349936--business.htmlI lol'ed. Let's recall that the only thing that happened when S&P downgraded the US's credit rating is that they lost all creditability, if they even had any left after rating junk CDOs as AAA. After all, S&P made a $2 trillion error in their calculations, yet went ahead with their downgrade anyway. And how did the market react? By completely ignoring S&P. Go ahead Moody's, downgrade the US's credit rating. I double--no, triple--dare you. Nothing will happen. The markets will not react to the downgrade, other than noting that the only thing that's been downgraded is Moody's creditability and we'll all be reminded of the utter serial incompetence of the rating agencies.
The markets reaction was actually hilarious to the downgrade. The downgrade of the US made everyone nervous so they went and bought up the safest investment in world which is US treasury bonds.
|
On September 12 2012 00:57 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 00:22 paralleluniverse wrote:So today, Moody's is threatening to downgrade the US's credit rating: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-aaa-rating-depends-fall-debt-ratio-moodys-133349936--business.htmlI lol'ed. Let's recall that the only thing that happened when S&P downgraded the US's credit rating is that they lost all creditability, if they even had any left after rating junk CDOs as AAA. After all, S&P made a $2 trillion error in their calculations, yet went ahead with their downgrade anyway. And how did the market react? By completely ignoring S&P. Go ahead Moody's, downgrade the US's credit rating. I double--no, triple--dare you. Nothing will happen. The markets will not react to the downgrade, other than noting that the only thing that's been downgraded is Moody's creditability and we'll all be reminded of the utter serial incompetence of the rating agencies. The markets reaction was actually hilarious to the downgrade. The downgrade of the US made everyone nervous so they went and bought up the safest investment in world which is US treasury bonds.
The dollar course went down. The reason the markets don't respond is because the downgrade je based on stuff that's already known and expected really. They already had.a negative outlook anyway so it's no real surprise if they decide to downgrade anyway.
|
On September 12 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 00:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2012 00:16 xDaunt wrote:Just as a followup to the conversation about polling bias and why I wouldn't trust the polls right now (wait til the two weeks before the election), look at this WashPo/ABC poll. It shows a 49-48 split in favor of Obama. However, go look at the very last question that shows the composition of the sample: 37% independent, 33% democrats, 23% republican, 4% other, 3% don't know. I've always assumed that the purpose of polls was to try and propagate the idea that pollsters have a useful profession and should continue getting employment. Pay them and they'll give you a poll that shows anything. Doesn't in any way surprise me. Still, assuming that you understand their methodology and, in this case, their selection of respondents you can try and glean something from it. I don't know whether there's a concerted effort to kick out biased polls, I just know that there has been a systemic undersampling of republicans in polls. I highlighted the Washpo poll as a particularly egregious example. What a good is a poll that gives a 10% sampling bias to democrats? I'm trying to find it, but I'm pretty sure that I just saw an article in the past couple weeks that the number of registered republican voters has outgrown registered democrats. Plus, it has always been the case that registered republicans are more likely to vote, which is why polls of "likely voters" are more accurate than those of "registered voters."
There is something to be said about removing biases introduced by the people you choose to poll.
However, ~1000 people are too small a sample to carry any significance in itself for a country with 315 million inhabitants or even only counting swing states of about 76 millions.
I take it, that they use a lot of assumptions to spice up the statistical values of the test, but exactly these assumptions are what is killing the credibility like KwarK suggests
In other words: The poll is invalid from the get go due to too few participants. Had it been for a single state, like North Carolina, 1000 would be a decent poll, but that is not the case here.
|
On September 12 2012 00:07 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 11 2012 02:21 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 11 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 10 2012 21:04 paralleluniverse wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-keep-parts-obama-healthcare-law-155146420.htmlSo Romney flip-flops on Obamacare again, saying that he would keep some provisions that he likes, for example, coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. No doubt he's cynical enough to flip-flop on this given that virtually all the provisions of Obamacare have overwhelming popular support apart from the mandate. I had this covered all the way back on page 128: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=128#2553And as I said then, it's not possible to cover pre-existing conditions without a mandate because of adverse selection, i.e. people waiting until they are sick to get coverage, because they can't be denied, driving up the price of healthcare for everyone.Of course, Romney knows this, that's why Romneycare has a mandate, because that's what Jonathan Gruber, the man who designed Romneycare told him. Yes, Romney is a flip-flopping and lying hypocrite. Don't take it from me: here's what Gruber, the architect of Romneycare and Obamacare had to say: How much would the price of insurance (I assume you mean insurance, not healthcare) go up by? 2%, 5%, 10%? The majority of Americans have health insurance and the majority that don't do not have expensive pre-existing conditions. I'd be interested to know what a good estimate on costs would be, rather than rhetorical "costs would skyrocket". I don't think you can ignore the whole Federal government chipping in for Romneycare factor. If the cost goes down then the cost / benefit looks better - a trick the Federal government can't repeat with Obamacare. Gruber again (see Table 1): $1944 per year, which is 45%. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1013067 Thanks, but that's not what I was asking. This is just showing how much healthy people will be on net subsidizing the sick. What I'm interested in is, absent the mandate, how much insurance rates would increase. That's exactly what you're looking for. You said: Show nested quote +How much would the price of insurance (I assume you mean insurance, not healthcare) go up by? 2%, 5%, 10%? The numbersn give are for: Show nested quote +The table
shows the average age, rate of
chronic illness, and average
monthly spending per member
for new enrollees in each of the
three periods. In each period,
the numbers of enrollees with
chronic illness were higher at
the beginning of the period than
at the end of the period. The enrollees
who signed up for Commonwealth
Care before the mandate
went into effect were nearly
4 years older, were almost 50%
more likely to be chronically ill,
and had about 45% higher health
care costs than those who
signed up once the program was
fully effective. So the numbers are for spending on Commonwealth Care, which is health insurance: https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connectorThe article concludes that without the mandate, the cost of insurance increases by 45%.
No that difference in health care spending is because after the mandate more healthy people than sick people picked up health insurance. For one thing, it was a temporary boost - initially there was a large spike as the mandate came into effect, then tapered off towards normalcy. Secondly this is only looking at health care costs (not insurance premiums) for new enrollees who earn between 150% and 300% of the poverty line. These new enrollees would then get mixed into the pot from where premiums get calculated.
No where does this article mention insurance premiums.
No where does this article mention health care costs prior to the period where individuals with pre-existing conditions were allowed to enroll.
|
I just wanted to say that I am sorry if anyone was offended by my comments about Europe. It was never my intention to insult our European members, I just felt that a few members whose names shall not be mentioned were "harassing" me, and as what typically happens in heated debates like this, I did what most people tend to do, retaliate. Hopefully we can put our disagreements yesterday aside and we can all work on being more civil in our debates and discussions in the future.
Anyway, let's get back on topic, shall we?
On September 11 2012 08:25 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 08:24 ziggurat wrote:On September 11 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:
Your right to a tool that allows you to more easily kill people is far more important than your right for social acceptance of your love? How can you possibly have a "right to social acceptance"? Wouldn't that basically mean that you have a right to have others agree with your views? Conservatives generally don't agree with these "rights" that require others to do something for you. So a "right" to get health care, or a "right" to an education are not consistent with typical conservative values. Calling those things "rights" really cheapens the concept of a right until it finally just means "something good that I want". I would prefer that we keep the 2 separate.
Indeed, I'd say that is the number one problem with many people today; they think they are entitled to everything, when they haven't done anything to earn these things.
|
On September 12 2012 01:53 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 00:35 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2012 00:16 xDaunt wrote:Just as a followup to the conversation about polling bias and why I wouldn't trust the polls right now (wait til the two weeks before the election), look at this WashPo/ABC poll. It shows a 49-48 split in favor of Obama. However, go look at the very last question that shows the composition of the sample: 37% independent, 33% democrats, 23% republican, 4% other, 3% don't know. I've always assumed that the purpose of polls was to try and propagate the idea that pollsters have a useful profession and should continue getting employment. Pay them and they'll give you a poll that shows anything. Doesn't in any way surprise me. Still, assuming that you understand their methodology and, in this case, their selection of respondents you can try and glean something from it. I don't know whether there's a concerted effort to kick out biased polls, I just know that there has been a systemic undersampling of republicans in polls. I highlighted the Washpo poll as a particularly egregious example. What a good is a poll that gives a 10% sampling bias to democrats? I'm trying to find it, but I'm pretty sure that I just saw an article in the past couple weeks that the number of registered republican voters has outgrown registered democrats. Plus, it has always been the case that registered republicans are more likely to vote, which is why polls of "likely voters" are more accurate than those of "registered voters." There is something to be said about removing biases introduced by the people you choose to poll. However, ~1000 people are too small a sample to carry any significance in itself for a country with 315 million inhabitants or even only counting swing states of about 76 millions. I take it, that they use a lot of assumptions to spice up the statistical values of the test, but exactly these assumptions are what is killing the credibility like KwarK suggests In other words: The poll is invalid from the get go due to too few participants. Had it been for a single state, like North Carolina, 1000 would be a decent poll, but that is not the case here.
The size of the population makes virtually no difference: A sample size of 1000 is just as good for a population of 9 million as it is for a population of 300 million.
I use the notation that Wikipedia uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_distribution
The exact standard error is found by considering the variance of a X/n, where X is Hypergeometric with p = m/n. This variance is then (p(1-p)/n)*((N-n)/(N-1)), the latter factor is call the finite population correction and is often dropped for simplicity because it makes little difference (although I will continue to include it here).
The standard error of a poll is then sqrt(p(1-p)*(f-1)/(N-1)), where f = n/N is the sampling fraction. From this, it's obvious that if N is large (like 311.6 million), the factor (f-1)/(N-1) is small (virtually 0), so that the size of the sample compared to the population makes virtually no difference to the standard error of the poll.
If you don't believe my algebra here's a numerical example.
In a poll about who you're voting for, the proportion of people supporting a candidate is close to 50%, so take p = 0.5, we sample n = 1000 people from a population of N = 9.7 million (the population of North Carolina), the standard error is then 1.58106%. For the US, the population is N = 311.6 million, and the standard error is 1.58113%, virtually unchanged.
Also, this is a classical and well known fact about survey statistics. It should not be surprising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
