Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Lead, Mar 1, 2017.
great fucking post man..
I'm going to ignore the events of the preceding week and pretend that WandyWiolent decided to make this a freeroll and e-suicided because of GSP-Bisping.
Housing for the immigrants? Standard high-density living conditions. Are you familiar with housing for illegal immigrant construction workers in the USA? Very similar. An individual can expect to pay maybe $50/month for rent, just like in the USA.
Of course they are able to survive as hairdressers. That's why they come to your island. They live frugally. They can make more than back home and can save enough to send money back to their families.
Periods of mass deportation in the USA, you say? And the effect on low-skilled wages was rigorously studied? Please share.
Again, the evidence and the logic both work against your belief (and I think you can understand the logic). It's just something that you hold out of tribalism.
Any interest in betting against my belief that Moore won't actually sue the Washington Post?
God I hope so.
One of the best things I've read on here in a while.
Haven't had time to look into these papers yet. In promoting these two studies, I do hope you are applying a very high degree of skepticism, just as you should to any econometric study. In econometrics, spurious correlations abound and study authors can often get the answer they like by manipulating parameter values. I would say the same if you had posted equivalent studies purporting to show a link between deportations and native wage increases. In general I do not trust econometrics and nor should you. However, I do applaud you for digging up research that purports to bolster your claims.
I will look into the Moore thing.
I have a question. In the following tweet, your hero Paul Krugman attacks the Republicans for including in the new tax legislation some tax breaks on companies that manage private jets.
However, if Krugman had bothered to read the article he tweeted, he would have found that the tax breaks were sponsored by Sherrod Brown, the Democratic Senator from Ohio that you (Jack V Savage) have thrown your support behing for a 2020 presidential run. The incredible thing is that Krugman tweeted in praise of Brown's attack on the Senate bill six minutes prior to the above tweet:
Question: do you agree with me that Krugman made an error here? Do you think he was being too tribalistic in immediately jumping to the conclusion that the tax breaks constituted a Republican proposal?
The hacking, I mean. We already know that happened.
I was aware of the studies before I commented. And I'm aware that people will look for reasons to reject data that they do not want to believe. The problem is that your position (that mass deportations will raise wages) has no sound basis (the unsound basis is a fallacy, as I've already pointed out). It's not simply that there exist studies that don't show the effects you predict, it's that studies that do show the effect you predict don't exist (one flawed one on the Mariel boatlift is what tribalists looking to make liberal-sounding arguments had pinned their hopes on).
The description of Krugman as "my hero" already makes me disinclined to want to bother with this. I've pointed out that he has by far the best prognostication record of any notable pundit, and generally has kicked ass in big debates post-crisis. But noticing that track record doesn't obligate me to agree with or defend everything he's ever said. I suspect that part of the issue is a natural tendency of right-wingers to personalize arguments (I've seen the same thing with Clinton, where noting her manifest superiority to the incompetent boob the GOP nominated and rejecting dishonest smears of her character is interpreted as personal affection).
Is your view that had he known that Brown sponsored the change, he would have a different view of it? I think you're again projecting your extreme tribalism onto others.
Again, that's only incredible if you have an extremely flawed understanding of other people's thought processes. For people with a more liberal mindset, it's perfectly normal to agree with a person on one issue and not on another.
I would say that he made an error in responding to the headline and not looking more deeply into the change. It's an understandable one in that the bill is in general hugely regressive and thus specific small details being regressive isn't surprising. The tax breaks were a Republican proposal. Read the Hill piece more carefully. It describes Brown as having "sponsored Senate legislation on the matter." BI's piece on it is more direct (http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-...lan-gives-break-to-private-jet-planes-2017-11): "The change appears to be similar to a bill offered by Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and cosponsored by GOP Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. A separate bipartisan bill amending the same part of the tax code was also offered in the House."
@Jack V Savage I actually trust and respect your knowledge on economics.
1. What do you of think S and P index funds/ETF. I read they basically mirror the real S and P but it is affordable. Basically I can't afford to buy real S and P at almost 3 grand or whatever.
2. What is your opinion on the economy in general? I have heard a variety of billionaires says this year reminds them of 1987. Will there be a recession? Seems like we are due.
3. The next IPO I am getting in on: Blaze Pizza. They said maybe 2018. I really think this is gonna take off. We talked how many IPOs seem obvious in hindsight but this one does in foresight.
Fair enough, and I didn't intend the "digging" comment as a swipe. I am giving you credit for attempting to justify your claims even though I believe they are clearly wrong.
You're being disingenuous. I clearly stated that I am skeptical of all econometric studies, regardless of the conclusion drawn from them. This is a debate about epistemology, not immigration policy.
It has sound basis in supply/demand theory and common sense. If the price of a substitute falls, demand for the original good/service falls. Check Chapter 3 of Krugman's high school textbook or Wikipedia.
When there are no valid empirical methods available, we must rely on theory and common sense to make policy.
We could have the same meta-debate about minimum wage policy. You would likely cite Card/Krueger. Instead of responding with myriad econometric studies showing the opposite result (and yes, there are many), I would criticize the use of econometrics in general to try to make absolute policy arguments. In other words, I would never cite an econometric study to attempt to bolster my view that minimum wage laws reduce employment. Again, this is about epistemology.
Same response as above.
I never dove into the Borjas study after its publication because I believe it's foolish to draw definite qualitative conclusions from econometric studies in most cases. That's despite the fact that the Borjas study's conclusion aligns with my personal belief that large changes in the supply of low-skill immigrant labor directly affect the wages of native low-skill workers.
By the way, you do show a strong proclivity for throwing accusations of tribalism my way. Which tribe do you assert that I belong to? I've never tried to pin you down on that one, and you never seem to address the variety of evidence I've presented showing my lack of tribal affiliation.
Learn to take a joke.
We never came to agreement on this point. You have yet to come up with an impressive list of Krugman's predictions. I do give Krugman credit for his prediction of low inflation post-stimulus, but I've also presented you with multiple facepalm-worthy predictions of Krugman's about the internet, bitcoin, the markets under President Trump, and the "end of the Republic". Your incessant repetition of the "best prognostication" line leads me to think you've slipped into lazy thinking on the matter.
Among credentialed academics-turned-pundits, I think Krugman is in the 90th percentile of tribalism/lazy hackishness. The tweet I mentioned above about the private jet tax is a great example. Nobel Prize winner doesn't even bother to read a six-paragraph article before jumping to tribalistic conclusion. He should be embarrassed.
This is off-topic and irrelevant.
No, my view is that if Krugman had actually bothered to read the article he posted, he would have seen that he totally misrepresented the proposed tax change. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it wouldn't cost the Treasury anything, and it's more of a clarification than a "break". The fact that Sherrod Brown was a sponsor of nearly identical legislation would have been a big clue, but Krugman didn't even bother to read the article that he posted. If that's not an example of tribalist disease rotting someone's brain, what is? Krugman is supposed to be a great thinker, but he gets his news---in an area he is supposed to be an expert on---from headlines on thehill.com?
And I don't see why. It doesn't seem like my claim is controversial from a liberal perspective (that is, there is a controversy, but I don't think it's about differing interpretations of the evidence as much as about some people rejecting the evidence because they oppose non-white immigration for other reasons).
I'm not being disingenuous. I didn't miss your claim; I'm just skeptical of it. I could be wrong.
There are valid empirical methods available. There can be criticisms of them, but there are stronger criticisms of non-empirical methods. I've seen enough internet arguments to know how it works, though. People who have a losing argument often resort to denying the possibility of knowledge. Don't know how old you are, but increasing acceptance of this kind of thing has been an important advancement in the field. We've been learning a lot, and it's caused a serious re-evaluation of views on some issues.
Good piece on that here:
Take it as a compliment. Some posters here can fall for the lump of labor fallacy or media CTs and I think, "yeah, that guy's an idiot. No surprise." For you, I think, "he's letting his emotional attachments obstruct his judgment."
In this case, I think your racial attachment is leading you astray.
I thought we did.
It's based on a study, but even since then, we've seen him take controversial and ultimately correct stands on inflation, gold prices, interest rates, the effects of austerity, QE (and ending of it), and more. If hordes of right-wing nutjobs who attack him have been investing based on their beliefs, they've lost a lot.
It's an aside, yes. Based your strange thinking (to me, at least), and similar thinking from other righties here. I note that Krugman knows his shit and is usually right, so that means he's my hero and I am expected to defend everything he says. Krugman praises Brown's criticism so that means he can't disagree with him on other stuff. It's odd to expect down-the-line agreement. Not how people work, unless they're very tribalistic. Even where one is tribalistic, that's bad. Like, I love my wife and expect to be with her for life, but I still disagree with stuff she might say or even criticize her actions (like, "that old lady is honking her horn at you because you cut her off; you can't really blame her").
Meh. He posts stuff seriously (and labels it), and he blurts stuff out. I think it's crazy to expect every tweet to be based on serious analysis.