Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (109649)	4/16/2005 12:25:40 PM
From: Bridge Player	Respond to of 793670

You place great emphasis on data. I'd like to advance the thesis that a very large majority of published data incorporates the bias of those responsible for its collection, analysis, and synthesis. It would be nothing short of astonishing to find someone who had published collected data, along with a statement which said, in effect, "hey, I never would have believed this, since my prior opinion was thus-and-so, but here is what the data shows". Far more common is the implied "here is a bunch of data which, since I totally agree with the conclusion, clearly shows thus-and-so". Thus the old saw about "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

To: JohnM who wrote (109649)	4/16/2005 12:56:53 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

Krugman's entire argument on quality in the op-ed was based on this one paragraph Most Americans probably don't know that we have substantially lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced countries. It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return. Nice to see you have faith that he is having his facts and figures vetted by researchers. That would mark a welcome change. Still, he has stated two figures as the total basis for his argument on quality. But I would be surprised to learn them, as neither is especially true. Life expectancy in the US, according to WHO, is 77.4 years. There are a few advanced countries, such as Germany or France, that can beat this by a year or two, but it's debatable whether most people would see this as "substantially lower". Infant mortality statistics are not lower at all once one corrects for the different treatment of low-weight babies, as has just been pointed out to you. Indeed, the US is getting worse figures there because its medical care is much higher quality than the rest of the world - we are saving babies that most of the rest of the world does not even try to save. Even for those two figures, neither especially true, Krugman felt it necessary caveat them with "the poverty rate", which brings up questions of access. So basically, the whole quality argument is based on hot air. Because that was it. So, I would wish to see, not only the argument, with data, that Krugman should have included your factors, but, if possible, the larger literature that discusses this issue. All of that before I would be willing to conclude he was wrong on this point Why don't YOU go and find some data, professor, instead of rejecting whatever is laid before you, however reasoned or well-sourced, demanding always more and better to meet your "criteria", while providing no data yourself?

To: JohnM who wrote (109649)	4/16/2005 3:32:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

but it is enough to keep you from drawing solid conclusions from the data. I disagree, Tim If someone can show that a study didn't control for factors other than the one being tested for than, they have showed that you can't rely on that study, they haven't shown that its wrong but they have shown that it doesn't go far enough to make its case. Technically this might not be considered a study, it isn't original data but rather looking up and commenting on publicly available statistics but the same principle applies. And since I begin with the assumption that Krugman is smart and has available to him at Princeton what used to be several very good demographers who could answer these questions with one phone call and/or also has available New York Times fact checkers, I'm assuming he's aware of that literature, has taken it into account but doesn't have room for a great detail in a short op ed column. He is smart and he does have resources available to him, that doesn't mean that he has taken to account other factors. He is highly partisan and his public writings often serve to advance an agenda. That led me to dig up the research literature, one rather critical piece of which argued (a) using Lott's data and methodology, the crime rates went up, or (b) the data was simply not strong enough to support either thesis. And then there have been other studies showing it made no difference (as well as other smaller and older studies that seem to support Lott). But if the only study you had was Lott's and you realized that there was several important factors he didn't cover, than you would have a good argument that Lott's study wasn't conclusive. Tim