Bryan, your presence her(e) is overwhelming. Since you tend to ask others what they know about xxxx, might it be fair to ask about your formal education?
Sure it’s fair to ask. It’s also fair for me to decline to answer.
I’m sure you will answer yes it would be fair, but I hope you also provide substantive statements like degrees, publications, patents.
It’s about 79 degrees Fahrenheit (thanks to the air conditioning). I’ve published everything you read on my blog, though obviously I don’t claim personal credit for quoted material. I am the original inventor of roll-on pesticide, though I haven’t bothered to secure the patent.
I looked at your website but found nothing about any formal education. I just want to know what qualifies you to be such an expert on all things. Thank you very much.
No problem. I don’t claim to be an expert on anything. However, I have a reasonably broad knowledge base along with an unspecified formal education (somewhat narrower than the subjects about which I write--which I don’t think is particularly unusual). So, your question as you composed it contains a questionable premise. I’m not “such an expert” according to my own claims to expertise. If I have any expertise, it is incidental to the accuracy of the statements I make along with the supporting evidence I provide. My knowledge base stems from my curiosity, thinking, and reading.
If you wish, you can consider me a mildly precocious pre-schooler with no educational degree at all. I hope that would not stop you from considering my arguments based on their content.
Is that an increase in productivity or an example of greater efficiency? Do you intend to charge more for the efficient car than for the less efficient car? If you charge less then you either sell more cars or the bottom line at the car company shrinks. That means less money for investors and possibly less money for workers as well. If the same number of workers produces fewer cars then how can it be called an increase in productivity?
Greater efficiency usually leads to greater productivity. Do you consider having greater productivity better than greater efficiency?
Is it?
What do you know about trade (earnest question)?
About efficient cars, buy them or build them, the important thing is that we start using them. About trade, trade relies heavily on low transportation costs, and as we know the good old days of cheap oil are long gone.
OK, I’ll just tell you one thing about trade. Wisconsin produces cheese much more efficiently than do most states. The foundation for the benefits of trade is the difference in efficiency found in producing products in one spot vs. producing them somewhere else. The classic example is guns and butter. Search for those terms and I’m sure you can find a primer. So, if the plan is to produce things locally, we will be sacrificing the economic efficiency provided by trade for the sake of energy efficiency.
Trade is no silver bullet. Imagine that for the sake of efficiency, the U.S. decide to import all: cars from Europe or Japan, computer hardware from Taiwan, software from India, clothes from China, OIL from Middle East, electronic appliances from Korea, cellular phones from Finland. Everything coming from abroad, nothing produced locally. Question is: what are the U.S. going to sell in exchange of these goods?
That isn’t to say that there are not some instances where producing certain things locally is a good idea (the more efficiently the better), but overall that strategy is likely to severely shrink the economy.
The cost of transportation sets the break-even point between efficient production in remote places and not-so-efficient-but-local production. As oil prices go up, the maximum distance between producers and consumers is shrinking. Like the economy.
“The strength of our economy as well as our capacity for scientific advancement¨ hardly explain a national debt climbing to 10 trillion dollars. Maybe our economy is not so strong as we believe?
Greater efficiency usually leads to greater productivity.
True--but I don’t see how your example accomplishes that. And I explained the implications.
Do you consider having greater productivity better than greater efficiency?
In terms of the U.S. economy, greater worker productivity is better than better fuel efficiency, particularly where the latter is based on smaller cars rather than on technological breakthrough. Smaller cars do not assist with economic productivity unless one is competing successfully in a small car market.
About efficient cars, buy them or build them, the important thing is that we start using them. About trade, trade relies heavily on low transportation costs, and as we know the good old days of cheap oil are long gone.
Oil is actually still relatively cheap--certainly cheap enough to justify engaging in trade profitably. Moving intentionally to more expensive energy sources (like subsidized ethanol) will exacerbate the problem of energy costs rather than helping.
OK, I’ll just tell you one thing about trade. Wisconsin produces cheese much more efficiently than do most states. The foundation for the benefits of trade is the difference in efficiency found in producing products in one spot vs. producing them somewhere else. The classic example is guns and butter. Search for those terms and I’m sure you can find a primer. So, if the plan is to produce things locally, we will be sacrificing the economic efficiency provided by trade for the sake of energy efficiency.
Trade is no silver bullet.
Trade is da bomb. It is the key to economic prosperity.
Imagine that for the sake of efficiency, the U.S. decide to import all: cars from Europe or Japan, computer hardware from Taiwan, software from India, clothes from China, OIL from Middle East, electronic appliances from Korea, cellular phones from Finland. Everything coming from abroad, nothing produced locally. Question is: what are the U.S. going to sell in exchange of these goods?
I don’t understand the point of your scenario. Extolling the virtue of trade has absolutely nothing to do with the recommendation that we import everything and export nothing (nor anything of the kind). Trade is the key to achieving economic efficiency. Right now, we are seeing increased emphasis on the U.S. as a technological leader. Our stock in trade is our innovation.
That isn’t to say that there are not some instances where producing certain things locally is a good idea (the more efficiently the better), but overall that strategy is likely to severely shrink the economy.
The cost of transportation sets the break-even point between efficient production in remote places and not-so-efficient-but-local production. As oil prices go up, the maximum distance between producers and consumers is shrinking. Like the economy.
Meh. The economy isn’t shrinking now. But it will start shrinking sooner if the government mandates more expensive energy solutions as the solution to fossil fuel consumption.
“The strength of our economy as well as our capacity for scientific advancement¨ hardly explain a national debt climbing to 10 trillion dollars. Maybe our economy is not so strong as we believe?
The national debt is not an indicator of economic strength (though it’s arguably related in some way). It is an indicator of deficit spending by the government. You can have the largest economy in the world (the U.S. has that) and the government can run up a huge debt. It’s worth nothing that a weakening dollar makes the national debt a pretty good loan instrument (though there is a downside). Suppose you borrowed $100 today from Fred. The next year the dollar has lost half its value. It’s like paying Fred back $50 for the $100 you borrowed.
Trade is the key to achieving economic efficiency. Right now, we are seeing increased emphasis on the U.S. as a technological leader. Our stock in trade is our innovation.
Meh. The economy isn’t shrinking now. But it will start shrinking sooner if the government mandates more expensive energy solutions as the solution to fossil fuel consumption.
Trade is the key to achieving economic efficiency. Right now, we are seeing increased emphasis on the U.S. as a technological leader. Our stock in trade is our innovation.
... in which traveler equivocates and gets misled by a headline.
1) The U.S. is a technological leader even if five countries other than China pass the U.S. up in that department
2) The headline doesn’t quite match the accompanying story, which reports that China may soon surpass the U.S. as “the” technological leader. And part of that ascent they owe to their ability to steal our intellectual property.
Meh. The economy isn’t shrinking now. But it will start shrinking sooner if the government mandates more expensive energy solutions as the solution to fossil fuel consumption.
... in which traveler adopts the style of the publication he references by taking the predictions of experts who turned out to be wrong as plenty good enough. The U.S. economy has continued to grow, though at a slow pace. As the data for the last two quarters has been adjusted the picture has been brighter than was previously thought.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
The national debt is not an indicator of economic strength
... in which we find traveler engaged in quote-mining. It isn’t enough for national debt to be included in a comprehensive list of economic indicators. It simply is not significant enough to serve as a measure of economic strength in support of a statement like “...hardly explain a national debt climbing to 10 trillion dollars. Maybe our economy is not so strong as we believe?” My full statement (with the missing stuff restored) makes that sufficiently clear.
... in which traveler equivocates and gets misled by a headline.
1) The U.S. is a technological leader even if five countries other than China pass the U.S. up in that department
2) The headline doesn’t quite match the accompanying story, which reports that China may soon surpass the U.S. as “the” technological leader. And part of that ascent they owe to their ability to steal our intellectual property.
You are simply wrong bryan, I read the entire article. I realize that it gives us the edge now on the some factors, but the chart shows what is stated in the text:
(From Georgia Tech) The 2007 statistics show China with a technological standing of 82.8, compared to 76.1 for the United States, 66.8 for Germany and 66.0 for Japan. Just 11 years ago, China’s score was only 22.5. The United States peaked in 1999 with a score of 95.4.
Technological standing is not a snapshot, it is a trend.
... in which traveler adopts the style of the publication he references by taking the predictions of experts who turned out to be wrong as plenty good enough. The U.S. economy has continued to grow, though at a slow pace. As the data for the last two quarters has been adjusted the picture has been brighter than was previously thought.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Since you admit you are not an expert on anything, how can you claim that Reuters’ style is flawed? Since you are NOT an expert, I am simply providing information from a more reliable source.
... in which we find traveler engaged in quote-mining. It isn’t enough for national debt to be included in a comprehensive list of economic indicators. It simply is not significant enough to serve as a measure of economic strength in support of a statement like “...hardly explain a national debt climbing to 10 trillion dollars. Maybe our economy is not so strong as we believe?” My full statement (with the missing stuff restored) makes that sufficiently clear.
Well, according to the Georgetown site I referenced:
(From Georgetown) Economic indicators are statistical measures which reflect the overall state of the economy.
Seems like if something matters to the state of the economy, then it directly affects strength.
... in which traveler equivocates and gets misled by a headline.
1) The U.S. is a technological leader even if five countries other than China pass the U.S. up in that department
2) The headline doesn’t quite match the accompanying story, which reports that China may soon surpass the U.S. as “the” technological leader. And part of that ascent they owe to their ability to steal our intellectual property.
You are simply wrong bryan, I read the entire article. I realize that it gives us the edge now on the some factors, but the chart shows what is stated in the text:
(From Georgia Tech) The 2007 statistics show China with a technological standing of 82.8, compared to 76.1 for the United States, 66.8 for Germany and 66.0 for Japan. Just 11 years ago, China’s score was only 22.5. The United States peaked in 1999 with a score of 95.4.
Technological standing is not a snapshot, it is a trend.
The deck mentions “technological standing” but the headline refers simply to “technology leader” and that is how you quoted it in your post ("US NOT TECH LEADER"). In short, if you think your citation contradicts what I wrote then you are committing a fallacy of equivocation.
... in which traveler adopts the style of the publication he references by taking the predictions of experts who turned out to be wrong as plenty good enough. The U.S. economy has continued to grow, though at a slow pace. As the data for the last two quarters has been adjusted the picture has been brighter than was previously thought.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Since you admit you are not an expert on anything, how can you claim that Reuters’ style is flawed? Since you are NOT an expert, I am simply providing information from a more reliable source.
I don’t admit that I am not an expert on anything. I simply don’t claim to be an expert on anything. There’s a difference.
I don’t know why you’d think that Reuters is more reliable than the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reuters would be likely to use the BEA as a source for their stories. The BEA would be unlikely to use Reuters a source of information.
... in which we find traveler engaged in quote-mining. It isn’t enough for national debt to be included in a comprehensive list of economic indicators. It simply is not significant enough to serve as a measure of economic strength in support of a statement like “...hardly explain a national debt climbing to 10 trillion dollars. Maybe our economy is not so strong as we believe?” My full statement (with the missing stuff restored) makes that sufficiently clear.
Well, according to the Georgetown site I referenced:
(From Georgetown) Economic indicators are statistical measures which reflect the overall state of the economy.
Seems like if something matters to the state of the economy, then it directly affects strength.
About efficient cars, buy them or build them, the important thing is that we start using them. About trade, trade relies heavily on low transportation costs, and as we know the good old days of cheap oil are long gone.
Oil is actually still relatively cheap--certainly cheap enough to justify engaging in trade profitably. Moving intentionally to more expensive energy sources (like subsidized ethanol) will exacerbate the problem of energy costs rather than helping.
Surely cheap. I can’t wait to see the barrel at $500 and a pump price of $20 per gallon.
Meh. The economy isn’t shrinking now. But it will start shrinking sooner if the government mandates more expensive energy solutions as the solution to fossil fuel consumption.
Not everybody agree on this, and there is no evidence that the economy is blooming either. Personally, I prefer that my own government mandates more expensive energy solutions rather that some foreign country (in this case, the OPEC countries).
The national debt is not an indicator of economic strength (though it’s arguably related in some way). It is an indicator of deficit spending by the government. You can have the largest economy in the world (the U.S. has that) and the government can run up a huge debt.
Indicator or not, it shows how things really are. Uncle John looks pretty cool driving his Ferrari Testarossa, but when you notice that he owes $10.000 to everyone in his bunch of friends and relatives, well, you feel happy you are not his brother. And no, I do not feel comfortable knowing that every American -babies included- has over $30.000 debt.
It’s worth nothing that a weakening dollar makes the national debt a pretty good loan instrument (though there is a downside). Suppose you borrowed $100 today from Fred. The next year the dollar has lost half its value. It’s like paying Fred back $50 for the $100 you borrowed.
I don’t admit that I am not an expert on anything. I simply don’t claim to be an expert on anything. There’s a difference.
Yep, there is a difference and this is the sort of hair-splitting for which you are infamous.
Why hide behind a cloak of irritating snobery rather than respecting this forum enough to state any qualifications you might have? Your “I don’t admit that I am not an expert on anything,” says nothing and quite frankly it makes you seem less than reputable.
I don’t know why you’d think that Reuters is more reliable than the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reuters would be likely to use the BEA as a source for their stories. The BEA would be unlikely to use Reuters a source of information.
You misunderstood - I was saying Reuters is more reliable than you.
You’re still missing the point.
You said (and I have to assume it is your point) that debt is not significant enough to serve as a measure. Georgetown says different - guess which I trust. Did you not state your point correctly?
Meh. The economy isn’t shrinking now. But it will start shrinking sooner if the government mandates more expensive energy solutions as the solution to fossil fuel consumption.
Not everybody agree on this, and there is no evidence that the economy is blooming either.
The evidence doesn’t need to indicate a bloom in order to undermine the claim that it is shrinking.
Personally, I prefer that my own government mandates more expensive energy solutions rather that some foreign country (in this case, the OPEC countries).
You want your own leaders to hamstring the economy instead of having some foreign nation doing it?
The national debt is not an indicator of economic strength (though it’s arguably related in some way). It is an indicator of deficit spending by the government. You can have the largest economy in the world (the U.S. has that) and the government can run up a huge debt.
Indicator or not, it shows how things really are. Uncle John looks pretty cool driving his Ferrari Testarossa, but when you notice that he owes $10.000 to everyone in his bunch of friends and relatives, well, you feel happy you are not his brother. And no, I do not feel comfortable knowing that every American -babies included- has over $30.000 debt.
Taking the gross domestic product of both economies in 2007, the combined GDP of the 15 countries which use the euro overtook that of the United States when the European currency surged to a record high of more than $1.56 per euro.
Fifteen countries. You suppose if we add in Canada and Mexico that we retake the lead again?
I don’t admit that I am not an expert on anything. I simply don’t claim to be an expert on anything. There’s a difference.
Yep, there is a difference and this is the sort of hair-splitting for which you are infamous.
I suppose by accusing me of hair-splitting you can get away with a free interpretation of pretty much anything. How convenient.
Why hide behind a cloak of irritating snobery rather than respecting this forum enough to state any qualifications you might have? Your “I don’t admit that I am not an expert on anything,” says nothing and quite frankly it makes you seem less than reputable.
Sure it says something. It contradicts the false premise you presented in your earlier question. But you don’t learn from it. You put another false premise in another question just now. If I don’t claim to be an expert, you still call it snobbery. Wouldn’t I be more of a snob to parade my qualifications? Wouldn’t I be more of a snob to proclaim my expertise? Apparently the only way (?) I could avoid being a snob in your eyes is to flatly deny any expertise. Does that really make any sense?
I don’t know why you’d think that Reuters is more reliable than the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reuters would be likely to use the BEA as a source for their stories. The BEA would be unlikely to use Reuters a source of information.
You misunderstood - I was saying Reuters is more reliable than you.
How do you figure that, when the BEA agrees with me?
You’re still missing the point.
You said (and I have to assume it is your point) that debt is not significant enough to serve as a measure. Georgetown says different - guess which I trust. Did you not state your point correctly?
You’re still missing the point, which was stated correctly before you doctored it in your reply.
Why hide behind a cloak of irritating snobery rather than respecting this forum enough to state any qualifications you might have? Your “I don’t admit that I am not an expert on anything,” says nothing and quite frankly it makes you seem less than reputable.
Sure it says something. It contradicts the false premise you presented in your earlier question. But you don’t learn from it. You put another false premise in another question just now. If I don’t claim to be an expert, you still call it snobbery. Wouldn’t I be more of a snob to parade my qualifications? Wouldn’t I be more of a snob to proclaim my expertise? Apparently the only way (?) I could avoid being a snob in your eyes is to flatly deny any expertise. Does that really make any sense?
If someone tells me that chocolate is healthy, then I want to know what formal education that person has in nutrition. Without that information, I am stupid to listen to such a person. Right now, you are that person. When the person hides any particular expertise while continuing to proffer opinions that require such expertise, that person appears to be a snob. You constantly tell people what sort of fallacy they commit while your responses are shallow, deceptive and dishonest.
You ask: “Apparently the only way (?) I could avoid being a snob in your eyes is to flatly deny any expertise.” That is a silly thing to say when all I’m asking for is honesty - you know, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I don’t know why you’d think that Reuters is more reliable than the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reuters would be likely to use the BEA as a source for their stories. The BEA would be unlikely to use Reuters a source of information.
You misunderstood - I was saying Reuters is more reliable than you.
How do you figure that, when the BEA agrees with me?
You did not bring the BEA into the picture until AFTER I mentioned Reuters. At this point, Rolling Stone magazine holds much more credibility than you to speak of economics.
You’re still missing the point.
You said (and I have to assume it is your point) that debt is not significant enough to serve as a measure. Georgetown says different - guess which I trust. Did you not state your point correctly?
You’re still missing the point, which was stated correctly before you doctored it in your reply.
I doctored nothing. I did extract your topic sentence. Then I offered a credible source that countered it.
If someone tells me that chocolate is healthy, then I want to know what formal education that person has in nutrition. Without that information, I am stupid to listen to such a person. Right now, you are that person.
Am I? What if somebody tells you that chocolate is bad for you and you ask why that would be and the other person gives you a good source backing up what he says about chocolate? What if that sort of thing happens repeatedly and the statements of “somebody” are repeatedly borne out by trustworthy sources? What then?
When the person hides any particular expertise while continuing to proffer opinions that require such expertise, that person appears to be a snob.
Even if he offers quality citations in support?
You constantly tell people what sort of fallacy they commit while your responses are shallow, deceptive and dishonest.
Is that your opinion? Or do you expect us to take that seriously based on your expertise?
You ask: “Apparently the only way (?) I could avoid being a snob in your eyes is to flatly deny any expertise.” That is a silly thing to say when all I’m asking for is honesty - you know, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.[/color]
So you don’t think I would have been a snob to state my qualifications. I’m only a snob if I decline to answer you if you ask me to list my qualifications. And you’re not a snob if you will only listen to an argument backed by certain qualifications which shall not include the listing of appropriate citations.
Is that how it works?
I don’t know why you’d think that Reuters is more reliable than the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reuters would be likely to use the BEA as a source for their stories. The BEA would be unlikely to use Reuters a source of information.
You misunderstood - I was saying Reuters is more reliable than you.
How do you figure that, when the BEA agrees with me?
You did not bring the BEA into the picture until AFTER I mentioned Reuters. At this point, Rolling Stone magazine holds much more credibility than you to speak of economics.
So you don’t trust the BEA since I used them as a source? Would I be better off using the Rolling Stone as my source, then? You would trust the Rolling Stone more than the BEA?
You’re still missing the point, which was stated correctly before you doctored it in your reply.
I doctored nothing. I did extract your topic sentence. Then I offered a credible source that countered it.
If someone tells me that chocolate is healthy, then I want to know what formal education that person has in nutrition. Without that information, I am stupid to listen to such a person. Right now, you are that person.
Am I? What if somebody tells you that chocolate is bad for you and you ask why that would be and the other person gives you a good source backing up what he says about chocolate? What if that sort of thing happens repeatedly and the statements of “somebody” are repeatedly borne out by trustworthy sources? What then?
Yes, you are. Your whatifs are meaningless.
When the person hides any particular expertise while continuing to proffer opinions that require such expertise, that person appears to be a snob.
Even if he offers quality citations in support?
That has nothing to do with qualifications. I can use google to find information - in a forum like this, people who offer opinion need credentials before I believe them.
You constantly tell people what sort of fallacy they commit while your responses are shallow, deceptive and dishonest.
Is that your opinion? Or do you expect us to take that seriously based on your expertise?
It is indeed my opinion. And I don’t suspect that “you” are much a part of “us”.
You ask: “Apparently the only way (?) I could avoid being a snob in your eyes is to flatly deny any expertise.” That is a silly thing to say when all I’m asking for is honesty - you know, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.[/color]
So you don’t think I would have been a snob to state my qualifications. I’m only a snob if I decline to answer you if you ask me to list my qualifications. And you’re not a snob if you will only listen to an argument backed by certain qualifications which shall not include the listing of appropriate citations.
Is that how it works?
Of course I don’t feel that someone honestly stating their credentials is a snob. I appreciate their letting me know that they have achieved a certain level of knowledge. No I’m not a snob if I only listen to qualified opinions and ignore the riffraff. You think riffraff cannot come up with citations? That’s easy.
I don’t know why you’d think that Reuters is more reliable than the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reuters would be likely to use the BEA as a source for their stories. The BEA would be unlikely to use Reuters a source of information.
You misunderstood - I was saying Reuters is more reliable than you.
How do you figure that, when the BEA agrees with me?
You did not bring the BEA into the picture until AFTER I mentioned Reuters. At this point, Rolling Stone magazine holds much more credibility than you to speak of economics.
So you don’t trust the BEA since I used them as a source? Would I be better off using the Rolling Stone as my source, then? You would trust the Rolling Stone more than the BEA?
Again, your BEA link came after I provided the Reuters link - you just seem incapable of understanding that.
You’re still missing the point, which was stated correctly before you doctored it in your reply.
I doctored nothing. I did extract your topic sentence. Then I offered a credible source that countered it.
To say anything in this thread is taken out of context is stupid. The context is here. Anyone can scroll to see your entire wording. Your topic sentence provided a fair summary of the paragraph in which it appeared. Go look at it. And then come back and see how much farther you can drag this thread from its initial topic.
