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 (582652)	8/25/2010 5:28:45 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572507

I don't believe I did that...i simply posted the article, and predictably you responded with an absolute "it's worthless" dismissal. Its hardly drivel considering the way the CBO makes such projections. Its a GIGO calculation. Through in garbage at the beginning and you can't rely on the conclusion. Its also contradicted by the CBO's earlier statements, which tends to shoot the CBO down as an authority (which isn't something that reflects poorly on them, any estimation of this sort is prone to be faulty, not matter who does it, particularly when you are trying to project out to the future rather than analyze the past). What was and is worthless is that we should accept the idea that a lot of jobs (and esp. some specific number) where created and saved, because the CBO says so. What's also worthless is the argument the CBO made last time they made an estimate like this (earlier this year), since it essentially assumes its conclusion. If this estimate makes similar assumptions than its just as worthless. Now if you actually want to present a real argument from the CBO (I couldn't follow your link, but I doubt you would post it if you couldn't read it, extract some of the logic, present the background assumptions that they list, then I have something to respond to), I'd certainly pay attention to it. I would not dismiss something because the CBO said it. But isn't much reason to give the estimate much weight, just because the CBO said it either. Whoever said it is less important than the argument and methodology behind the statement.