371–380 of 418 posts
The article says: US Government surveys are suffering from poor response rates and decreasing budgets so business leaders will have to explore other options to improve reliability. This thread says: American Empire is dying and the world is a fraud. Are all of you bots? Is apocalyptic cynicism this widespread? Fact is that most of the world already gets by with a fraction of the economic data we produce. We have enjo…
the comment section for this post is a shit show, most of the main comments have been downvoted to gray-land.
No, the bad, lazy, and outright incorrect takes are downvoted to oblivion. They just have a lot of child comments because HNers like nothing more than rebutting the dumbest opinions.
I wish HN would just stop with any political motivated threads, it brings out the worst in people here and there is 0 debate. The site is obviously mostly urban progressives and they will not allow any replies so you get the same hive mind nonsense as reddit/twitter etc..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do wonder how far certain acts could go in rebuilding the trust. Ie real actual legal liability. Line up anyone who did insider trading, the doge guys, the big mouths in the big house, and put them through a zero tolerance military tribunal. No bullshit kangaroo court where they're let off with a slap on the wrist because they're rich. I mean strip every last one of these motherfuckers of everything they're worth.…
These would be table stakes. They would only indicate that America is moving in another direction than currently. The rest of the world would then take a wait and watch approach. Besides, even getting to that point would need to mean that this situation would not arise again.
Agreed, as I have said before (1) even if the next administration is very different, that has happened before in 2020-2024. The lesson that the USA just is a country that does this from time to time. Expecting it to happen a third time is reasonable. Wait and watch would be an appropriate response.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a statist, I personally always found it as a fascinating way to look at the future. They are actively preparing for a collapse they themselves are ushering.
It's increasingly a pet theory of mine that the uncontrolled concentration of wealth into the hands of the richest, their subsequent existential ennui, and their disconnect from reality owing to media consolidation and algorithmic content feeds have basically created a world where the superrich are in a "post-game" mentality. There are no further material comforts to obtain. They just want to feel anything at all and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do wonder how far certain acts could go in rebuilding the trust. Ie real actual legal liability. Line up anyone who did insider trading, the doge guys, the big mouths in the big house, and put them through a zero tolerance military tribunal. No bullshit kangaroo court where they're let off with a slap on the wrist because they're rich. I mean strip every last one of these motherfuckers of everything they're worth.…
So your answer to restoring trust is to create a kangaroo court in the opposite direction?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's increasingly a pet theory of mine that the uncontrolled concentration of wealth into the hands of the richest, their subsequent existential ennui, and their disconnect from reality owing to media consolidation and algorithmic content feeds have basically created a world where the superrich are in a "post-game" mentality. There are no further material comforts to obtain. They just want to feel anything at all and…
Once basic needs are well met then wealth is meaningless in absolute terms. It only matters in relative terms where you compare yourself to others. For the super billionaires, adding more zeros to their net worth has diminishing returns because their lives just can't get any materially better. So the relative subjective gap doesn't widen. In fact, if other groups make gains then the relative subjective gap can even s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Gini coefficient and sometimes its' velocity would be a better alternative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
(1 - Gini) * GDP/Pop ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "peripheral" countries mentioned in the GP were nations or at the very least distinct semi-national entities before the USSR. States in the USA have no effective history before being a part of the USA.
Wrong, Hawaii and New Mexico ( which included parts of Arizona, Colorado and Texas) do
But I would still say that the status of lower-48 states is quite different than, say, Belarus and the USSR.
Yes, Nuevo Mexico existed prior to becoming part of the US, but most of the distinctive identity-forming elements of Nuevo Mexico have been lost or significantly diminished (for a variety of reasons).
I know nothing of Hawaii, the situation there may be similar or very different.
The USSR existed for only about 70 years. There were likely people alive at its creation who were still alive as the eastern European states left it. That's a very different scenario than NM (which effectively entered the US in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is tough, though, for me to fully buy labor statistics when it has become the norm recently for them to be revised down. There have been revisions since the forever, and this is because they depend in part of surveys, and if companies (and the people with-in them) don't bother responding in a timely or accurate manner then that's going to throw the sampling off. > CES estimates are considered preliminary when fi…
My argument wasn't that there shouldn't be revisions though, only that recent years have shown consistent negative revisions rather then a roughly even distribution. If response rates are down or something else is making surveys more difficult, its reasonable that confidence windows would weaken and size of revisions would increase. Its unreasonable that difficulty in surveying would lead to a consistent bias in resu…
It's been to too many moons since I took a prob/stats course to comment accurately on population sampling, but how valid is the assumption that errors 'should' skew both positive and negative?