StrangeSox

Anyway, I'm glad we can agree that Krugman never picked these cities/counties/neighborhoods as a comparison point. Can we also agree that maybe it's a little odd to compare an entire county, a neighborhood and a city in a discussion regarding state-level economics?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 10:36 AM) It makes the point of Krugman's mistakes/mislead. By comparing arbitrarily chosen cities? Why not Dallas or Ft. Worth? Austin? San Antonio? Why one specific borough in New York? Why not the entire city or Albany or Rochester? If Krugman is making claims about trends at the state level, how does showing that some cities chosen by the author don't exactly match state level trends (maybe, his argument as presented does nothing to refute the McJobs claim) lead to a claim that someone was misleading or made a mistake? It's a different, albeit related, argument.

Inglorious Basterds

Another thing, he calls it the "McJobs" myth that most of the growth is low-wage because hey lets compare average wage in three arbitrarily chosen cities (wouldn't it make more sense to look at changes in average wage to see if the average is being brought down, or average wages of new jobs?), but then comes back around later and says much of the growth is driven by Mexican immigration, which means lots of low-age, low-benefit jobs.

New York (the state) and Massachusetts are not cities.

huh? Krugman's article doesn't mention specific cities.

In an argument about states, why does he pick three cities/counties to compare? I'm not sure that this statement is true if those millions of unemployed people were engineers, lawyers, doctors etc. and are now fry cooks. Massive underemployment while we've billions (trillions?) in idle capital isn't exactly a recipe for a vibrant economy.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 15, 2011 -> 08:55 PM) TEX WINS. PAEARRRY FOR PREZ! The digging is hilarious to watch. digging? you kinda just need to glance around quickly.

No. Cameron Todd Willingham.

UK Riots: To understand is not to condone

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 15, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) Honestly as good as the show is, if you went too much longer it would fall apart. I'm glad they're taking this road. There's a natural story arc here and no reason to drag it out beyond that.

Perry's just closing the inequality gap between states, that's all. A noble, egalitarian cause.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 12, 2011 -> 03:33 PM) We don't have cable but we have Netflix and Hulu Plus. 95% of our tv needs are covered there for 1/5th the price. The problem is sports. Baseball and NBA you get the occasional WGN/WCIU/FOX games, otherwise you're stuck watching it online through some Eastern Bloc link or going to a bar. same situation. I need to get a better antenna to pick up CBS before football starts, though.

Rick Perry is quite the douchebag.

I already posted that in the financial thread. How dare you.

OBAMA!!

No I'm rejecting the victimization of Fox News

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2011 -> 02:06 PM) That's the problem. It doesn't get done enough across the spectrum. Attacks on media rivals for minor, inconsequential mistakes in a statement doesn't happen enough?

11th Circuit finds that the mandate is unconstitutional but is severable.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2011 -> 01:58 PM) Which is exactly what was done here. No. You said yourself that he could make the same point with 10%. What Fox routinely gets called out on is for making arguments that completely fall apart without their distorted or misleading numbers.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8044#more Worldwide production plateaued in 2004 despite high prices and several more years of strong economic growth around the world. A little bit of domestic drilling isn't really going to make a difference.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2011 -> 01:33 PM) Like I said originally, you can make that point without making s*** up. I really doubt if Fox had said Obama has perhaps kicked something like 50 puppies, it would have been let slide, because it had the little qualifiers in it. If Obama had instead kicked 15 puppies, this comparison would make sense. He exaggerated the numbers in a larger point. He made a mistake, no doubt. That's not comparable to making things up or distorted numbers/facts being crucial to your argument, which is what Fox routinely gets called out on.

Well he qualifies it with "some" and "perhaps" and it's really irrelevant to the point he's making which is also one you've agree with here lately.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 12, 2011 -> 01:21 PM) This is a myth. Going to alternatives does NOT have to mean any negative impact to the current economy, at all. "In translation" just means "if they do it the way I fear". Alternatively, refusing to invest in alternatives to a limited supply and instead only advocating for the short-term solutions of drilling more will destroy our economic abilities in the future.