Comments for Gop3.com: The Triumvirate http://gop3.com Fighting Like Warriors and Thinking Right. Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:53:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 Comment on Public Option at Work: Canadian Premier Comes to US for healthcare by Dan http://gop3.com/2010/02/02/public-option-at-work-canadian-premier-comes-to-us-for-healthcare/comment-page-1/#comment-365986 Dan Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:53:39 +0000 http://gop3.com/?p=3652#comment-365986 Sorry, the link didn't work, the poll can be found here: http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=34353&GoTopage=6&Category=1777&BzID=1963&t=11 Sorry, the link didn’t work, the poll can be found here: http://www.b2i.us/profiles/inv.....3&t=11

]]> Comment on Public Option at Work: Canadian Premier Comes to US for healthcare by Dan http://gop3.com/2010/02/02/public-option-at-work-canadian-premier-comes-to-us-for-healthcare/comment-page-1/#comment-365985 Dan Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:51:35 +0000 http://gop3.com/?p=3652#comment-365985 Most Canadians, 82%, think the Canadian health care system is superior to the American health care system. In fact, most Canadians, 55%, favor an <i>expanded</i> public role in the Canadian health care system and only 12% of Canadians favor an expanded private role in Canada's system. Harris Polls August 2009 and June 2008 Link to <a>Harris Poll</a>. Most Canadians, 82%, think the Canadian health care system is superior to the American health care system. In fact, most Canadians, 55%, favor an expanded public role in the Canadian health care system and only 12% of Canadians favor an expanded private role in Canada’s system.

Harris Polls August 2009 and June 2008

Link to Harris Poll.

]]> Comment on Use Same Civility You Advocate by Do unto others . . . « Gop3.com: The Triumvirate http://gop3.com/2008/02/23/zweifel-should-use-same-civility-he-advocates/comment-page-1/#comment-365959 Do unto others . . . « Gop3.com: The Triumvirate Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:15:43 +0000 http://gop3.com/2008/02/23/zweifel-should-use-same-civility-he-advocates/#comment-365959 [...] saying, “It’s time the Senate Democrats call these people out.” Incidentally, this is the second time I’ve had to call Zweifel out for failing to practice the same civility he advocates. Last 5 [...] [...] saying, “It’s time the Senate Democrats call these people out.” Incidentally, this is the second time I’ve had to call Zweifel out for failing to practice the same civility he advocates. Last 5 [...]

]]> Comment on Meaningless Government Metrics: Jobs Created and GDP by Brandon http://gop3.com/2010/01/11/meaningless-government-metrics-jobs-created-and-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-365946 Brandon Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:05:41 +0000 http://gop3.com/?p=3633#comment-365946 Hello Warrior Economist, Thank you for your thoughts. First, I am not arguing against the entire idea of measuring jobs being saved or created, if you had actually read my post I am arguing for splitting the metric into government jobs created and private jobs created. I think the huge number of none value-add bureaucratic jobs the government is creating skews the metric as it currently stands and misleads the public. Second, I apologize for the broken link on the second section of my post, it did link to captain capitalism's post on the subject which I did quote in order to lay out the base idea of the argument. Here again, I ask that we separate the metric to accurately communicate with the public. I appreciate your comments but I hope you will reconsider my post a little more slowly this time, I think we probably agree on most things but, you seemed to have missed some of my message in your haste. Thank you for your readership, Brandon Hello Warrior Economist,

Thank you for your thoughts.

First, I am not arguing against the entire idea of measuring jobs being saved or created, if you had actually read my post I am arguing for splitting the metric into government jobs created and private jobs created. I think the huge number of none value-add bureaucratic jobs the government is creating skews the metric as it currently stands and misleads the public.

Second, I apologize for the broken link on the second section of my post, it did link to captain capitalism’s post on the subject which I did quote in order to lay out the base idea of the argument. Here again, I ask that we separate the metric to accurately communicate with the public.

I appreciate your comments but I hope you will reconsider my post a little more slowly this time, I think we probably agree on most things but, you seemed to have missed some of my message in your haste.

Thank you for your readership,
Brandon

]]> Comment on Meaningless Government Metrics: Jobs Created and GDP by warrior economist http://gop3.com/2010/01/11/meaningless-government-metrics-jobs-created-and-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-365944 warrior economist Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:28:06 +0000 http://gop3.com/?p=3633#comment-365944 This post is absurd. You're basically attacking an 'other things equal' assertion, which is what jobs saved is all about. Here is Milton Friedman, by way of Brad DeLong, in "The Great Contraction," arguing that supporting the banking system with extra open-market operations in 1931 after the shock of the British abandoning the gold standard would have saved a lot of jobs: Suppose the [Federal Reserve] System... had accompanied the measure by purchase of government securities [for cash]... as called for by the "classic" remedy for an internal drain.... [L]et $1 billion be the amount.... What would have been the consequence?... Reserve purchases of $1 billion... would have meant an increase of $1,330 million in high-powered money... would have permitted a multiple expansion of deposits.... Even if... the deposit ratios would have fallen as much as they did--and for the deposit-currency ratio, the fall in so short a time was the largest on record--the result would have been to cut in half the decline in the stock of money.... Only a moderate improvement in the deposit-currency ratio--a decline from 8.95 to 7.10 instead of 6.47--would... have enabled the stock of money to be stable... If the concept of jobs saved doesn't exist or is a stupid metric, why would Milton Friedman have made this argument? It makes perfect sense to question how many more people are working than would have been the case without a given policy. During and after the 2001 recession, did not the Bush Administration claim that without their tax cuts, the recession would have been much worse? While I don't think their assertion at the time or even today was or is true, I certainly would not reject an other things equal argument on its face value, as you and other non-sensical ideologues have done of late. Furthermore, your GDP portion from Captain Capitalist is regurgitated straight from Mankiw's blog on 22 DEC 09(http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-not-to-stimulate-economy.html). Next time, stay in the shallow end of the pool or let Dan Suhr post on something original. This post is absurd. You’re basically attacking an ‘other things equal’ assertion, which is what jobs saved is all about.

Here is Milton Friedman, by way of Brad DeLong, in “The Great Contraction,” arguing that supporting the banking system with extra open-market operations in 1931 after the shock of the British abandoning the gold standard would have saved a lot of jobs:

Suppose the [Federal Reserve] System… had accompanied the measure by purchase of government securities [for cash]… as called for by the “classic” remedy for an internal drain…. [L]et $1 billion be the amount…. What would have been the consequence?… Reserve purchases of $1 billion… would have meant an increase of $1,330 million in high-powered money… would have permitted a multiple expansion of deposits…. Even if… the deposit ratios would have fallen as much as they did–and for the deposit-currency ratio, the fall in so short a time was the largest on record–the result would have been to cut in half the decline in the stock of money…. Only a moderate improvement in the deposit-currency ratio–a decline from 8.95 to 7.10 instead of 6.47–would… have enabled the stock of money to be stable…

If the concept of jobs saved doesn’t exist or is a stupid metric, why would Milton Friedman have made this argument?

It makes perfect sense to question how many more people are working than would have been the case without a given policy. During and after the 2001 recession, did not the Bush Administration claim that without their tax cuts, the recession would have been much worse? While I don’t think their assertion at the time or even today was or is true, I certainly would not reject an other things equal argument on its face value, as you and other non-sensical ideologues have done of late.

Furthermore, your GDP portion from Captain Capitalist is regurgitated straight from Mankiw’s blog on 22 DEC 09(http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-not-to-stimulate-economy.html). Next time, stay in the shallow end of the pool or let Dan Suhr post on something original.

]]> Comment on Meaningless Government Metrics: Jobs Created and GDP by richard martin http://gop3.com/2010/01/11/meaningless-government-metrics-jobs-created-and-gdp/comment-page-1/#comment-365941 richard martin Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:33:37 +0000 http://gop3.com/?p=3633#comment-365941 In general an excellent article that explains increased happiness from an economist's perspective. I would note that people are better off today then they were in 1900, partly because of increased government involvement in the regulation of business (along with advances in medicine, education, and technology). Most of the regulations between 1850 and 1950 we consider standard practice and good for the economy (think, child labor, more fair wages, standard work week, better environments,...etc) . In fact, many economist would argue that due to increased regulation on market power, tax loop holes, and negative externalities GDP increased by more than it would have. That does not necessarily mean that more regulation will increase utility more. I say that more accurate language and specifics on what part of government you want removed would be more enlightening. Just as much as those that support increased government involvement, should explain where, why, and how they will pay for it. I support increasing government funding for education for anyone that wants to go. Why? Because only fools think our future rests anywhere but in higher education. We will not cure diseases, explore space, or achieve world peace through fear mongering and war. How do I propose to pay for it? How about we stop subsidizing agro business, and large banks and distribute those funds to prospective students. How about we actually make corporations pay taxes on all their assets, instead of allowing them to hoard money in off shore bank accounts. So I ask you, what in particular do you want to see cut in government? And bare n mind any negative externalities that may arise due to such cuts. In general an excellent article that explains increased happiness from an economist’s perspective. I would note that people are better off today then they were in 1900, partly because of increased government involvement in the regulation of business (along with advances in medicine, education, and technology). Most of the regulations between 1850 and 1950 we consider standard practice and good for the economy (think, child labor, more fair wages, standard work week, better environments,…etc) . In fact, many economist would argue that due to increased regulation on market power, tax loop holes, and negative externalities GDP increased by more than it would have. That does not necessarily mean that more regulation will increase utility more. I say that more accurate language and specifics on what part of government you want removed would be more enlightening. Just as much as those that support increased government involvement, should explain where, why, and how they will pay for it. I support increasing government funding for education for anyone that wants to go. Why? Because only fools think our future rests anywhere but in higher education. We will not cure diseases, explore space, or achieve world peace through fear mongering and war. How do I propose to pay for it? How about we stop subsidizing agro business, and large banks and distribute those funds to prospective students. How about we actually make corporations pay taxes on all their assets, instead of allowing them to hoard money in off shore bank accounts.

So I ask you, what in particular do you want to see cut in government? And bare n mind any negative externalities that may arise due to such cuts.

]]> Comment on Jumping to Conclusions by John http://gop3.com/2010/01/07/jumpingtoconclusions/comment-page-1/#comment-365928 John Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:36:49 +0000 http://gop3.com/?p=3620#comment-365928 Gabelman's attorney made the same response to a question during arguments in front of the panel. Gabelman’s attorney made the same response to a question during arguments in front of the panel.

]]>