Assorted links


# 4. Surprise, surprise. Scott Winship re-adjusted so well the data that now there is no change in median wages. Sorry Scott, the Hamilton Project's massagers were unable to justify what they had done. Scholars should stay away from slaves of prejudice.

E. Barandiaran, I think you misread Tyler regarding data massagers. I don't believe he necessarily believes the data massagers, but he likes to point out alternative and contrarian points of views. Sometimes he takes a position on his links and says "I agree" or "I don't agree on X" but normally he just links the information without taking a position. Sometimes he even analyzes the implications of another commentator's points without addressing whether he agrees with the commentator in the first place. I take that to mean he applies the wisdom of uncertainty to most of what he reads. He probably makes his mind up slowly. In my book, that is to be commended -- and it is precisely why I am such a fan. It is a mistake to believe that Tyler endorses the points of views he links to or comments on. I like the fact he doesn't throw out consideration of something merely because he might think it unlikely. Sometimes the unlikely or unexpected or unintuitive turns out to be the case. Sometimes the data massagers turn out to be right.

Also, as long as I'm kissing ass, I'd like Tyler to say who he thinks would win in a fight between Batman and Aquaman. Imagine they are standing in 18 inches of water, but there are no fish in the water. Does Aquaman have a chance? If so, how?

Sorry Dirk. On early posts, Tyler endorsed the "analysis" of the Hamilton Project's economists that concluded that there had been a large decline in male median wages. Now in this post he links to Scott's re-adjustment of the Hamilton Project's estimates of these median wages but Tyler doesn't judge Scott's new estimates, in particular he doesn't say anything about the justification for the Hamilton Project economists to massage the data and for Scott to reject the estimates and to present his own estimates. BTW, Scott's estimates neither support nor reject Tyler's TGS but Tyler forgot to say it.
On your general point about endorsements I have always referred to economic and epistemological ideas that Tyler has somehow endorsed or appear to endorse, but never to ideas he limited himself to circulate (and you know he has circulated millions).
Finally, by definition data massagers are right or wrong depending on the justification for massaging the data and the methods they use to elaborate estimates of relevant variables. Indeed researchers always massage the data, but if you don't know why and how they have done it, you shouldn't use them --the massaged data can be harmful to wise people's search for knowledge.

I wish you would say when you are linking to the NYT.

Yeah it's not like your browser will show you where the link takes you. You are totally blind!

If this is about their new page-viewing restrictions, you are better off not reading that rag.

What great stagnation?


It includes a standard "hard drive" and a music player, and streams to your computer wherever you are. So it's like "ITunes in the sky" for your books, music, etc. This is yet another brick in the yellow-brick road of 'you no longer care where you are, relative to your data'. Which doesn't affect GDP very much, but dramatically (IMO) increases quality-of-life. Many of the changes that have occurred in the last decade are GDP-neutral, but quality-of-life beneficial. Perhaps we're measuring the wrong thing? I know that's practically a cliche, but your central thesis of TGS is based on that assumption.

Scott Winship concludes his post: "how are we as a nation supposed to clearly understand the state of the economy and our living standards when even moderate think tanks and researchers are so eager to hype negativity?" Note that he classifies Tyler as *a moderate researcher who is hyping negativity*; I think the shoe fits.

But the real savings come from keeping down social transfers and especially from not indulging the middle class.

I think that all the democrats reasons against means testing benefits do not hold up well examination. E.g. Programs for the poor are poor programs but the truth is programs for everyone do not work any better for the poor either. If we could just settle on a wage subsidy, retirement subsidy, schooling subsidy and maybe a health care subsidy for the poor we could then just battle over the amounts of the subsidy. Everything could gradual and so protect against a huge marginal tax.

Not a surprise to see a glowing endorsement of benevolent dictatorships from the economist.

I check my mail using Yahoo and Internet Explorer. I click on New to send a note and nothing happens.
Alpha Male Enhancement

"A fifth of everybody’s salary goes into their account at the CPF, with the employer contributing another 15.5%"

Yes, a 20% social security tax with an additional employer paid 15.5%. Sounds like a great plan to 'save' social security. Since the state owns the CPF and not the 'market' it sure sounds like 'socialism'.

Comments for this post are closed