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: TimF who wrote (582645)	8/25/2010 5:14:52 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573095

that it is spurious and faulty. On what basis? What studies have you conducted to make such an assertion? 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. I suppose the same can be said about the findings of any study conducted by presumed authorities with expertise in a particular field. So what? That's just FUD. 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.* It's an estimate based on a model. Of course it's not blindly to be accepted. But it's not blindly to be dismissed as you did in your first reply. (CBO's estimate in this area are meaningless.) I suppose the past estimated could have been accurate, that without the stimulus unemployment would have only reached 9%. I couldn't find anything suggesting that they said this...and even if they did, so what? They underestimated the magnitude of the problem? Doesn't mean necessarily that they are wrong now. Al