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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (582642)	8/25/2010 5:00:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572758

My rejection of the CBO's previous (and apparently but not yet certainly, your link didn't work for me, and even if it did it might not answer the question) current methodology is that it is spurious and faulty. If its changed, I'm rejecting only the idea that the figure should be relied on as a matter of authority because its what the CBO says. The first point is based directly on the fact that circular arguments do not really prove their conclusion or tell us anything else useful. The 2nd is based on the reasonable idea that organizations that have been very inaccurate with their past estimates* should not have their new estimates blindly accepted. Nothing spurious about either of those observations. * I suppose the past estimated could have been accurate, that without the stimulus unemployment would have only reached 9%. But if you figure that is true you still have the faulty estimate of unemployment with the stimulus. And more to the point if you assume that's true your assuming the current estimate for "saved or created" jobs is false.