board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Wed 12 Dec , 2018 3:39 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed 23 Sep , 2009 11:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
Yup... if we could only go back to the unregulated days of the Gilded Age then everything would be hunky-dory.

Just who commissioned this "study"?

Who are the people who did this "study"?

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 Sep , 2009 11:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
It looks like the study is from a Department in the Government of the State of California. Yep, the website is .ca.gov.

But you know how unreliable you consider the government to be, so go ahead and disregard that study.

"unregulated days of the Gilded Age" ... where did you get all that straw?

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 Sep , 2009 11:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
any basic US History book can tell you about the Gilded Age..... if you can read it and comprehend without letting your ideology get in the way.

Again, who commissioned and paid for this study and who are the people who conducted it? You never answered either question instead simple naming a website that picked it up.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Last edited by sauronsfinger on Wed 23 Sep , 2009 11:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 Sep , 2009 11:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
I don't see anything in the article I posted about the Gilded Age. Where did you get all that straw?

Or perhaps because it's a government website they're using code words to deceive us. We all know how much you trust the government.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 Sep , 2009 11:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
Who commissioned that study and who are the people who conducted it? The absence of those facts, plus things like their basic methodology make this highly suspicious or at least extremely lazy reporting.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 Sep , 2009 11:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
The authors are named on the first page of the study itself. Obviously since it disagrees with your basic ideology you refused to read that far.

The methodology was described on pages 4 and 5.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 Sep , 2009 11:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
Oh I read who the authors are - they gave their names. Beyond that - nothing.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 Sep , 2009 11:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
Really? I saw titles there as well.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 23 Sep , 2009 11:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
titles - schmitles. They mean nothing to tell me WHO these people are.

http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2009 ... sumptions/

Quote:
SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
Biz Study: Big Burdens, But Unclear Assumptions
A long awaited study of the costs to small businesses from state regulations is finally out, and on first blush seems to reinforce the argument that state lawmakers should scale back their meddling ways.

But the study appears thin on an actual roadmap forward for policymakers, and may not help untangle the complicated issue of which regulations are superfluous, and which ones... even if costly... serve a worthy purpose.

The document, wonkishly titled Cost of State Regulations on California Small Business Study, was quietly made public late yesterday. You can read it here.

Its unceremonious release, while a tangent to this story, is nonetheless intriguing. The study was commissioned by a 2006 bill, AB 2330 by Assemblymember Juan Arambula (I-Fresno). The bill set aside $85,000 for completion of the study, and set a deadline for its submission to Governor Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders of no later than October 1, 2007. But that deadline has long since passed. In fact, the California chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business became so tired of waiting that it filed a formal public records act request with the Schwarzenegger administration almost two weeks ago for the report. The cover page of the report says it was completed "September 2009."

So why the delay? The governor's press secretary, Aaron McLear, said this afternoon that the administration spent a lot of time "verifying the information" contained in the report before releasing it.

Now, back to the actual report. The summary says it all, at least in the eyes of the business community:

The study finds that the total cost of [business]regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion which is almost five times the State's general fund budget, and almost a third of the State's gross product. The cost of regulation results in an employment loss of 3.8 million jobs which is a tenth of the State's population. Since small business constitute 99.2% of all employer businesses in California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost is borne almost completely by small business. The total cost of regulation was $134,122.48 per small business in California in 2007, labor income not created or lost was $4,359.55 per small business, indirect business taxes not generated or lost were $57,260.15 per small business, and finally roughly one job lost per small business.

In other words: California politicians, you're killing business. You're going to hear that version of the message a lot in the coming days and weeks, especially once the long-awaited tax reform proposals of a blue ribbon commission are released by week's end.

The study lists the authors as Sanjay Varshney and Dennis Tootelian, both faculty members at California State University, Sacramento. The two men also wrote a study analyzing the possible economic impacts of California's landmark global warming bill, AB 32, that sparked considerable debate. Varshney promised to return my call today, but hasn't done so yet. Look for his insight, hopefully tomorrow, as an update to this posting.

So how do the authors reach their conclusions? The 33 page report (85 pages if you include the charts) relies heavily on Forbes Magazine and its annual report of the best -- and worst -- states in which to do business. The 2008 report ranks California #40 in the nation, and that's the relative placement the authors used for their calculations.

"Forbes data is reliable," says the study, "in that it uses credible sources of secondary data that are well recognized and respected as credible independent research in the business world."

Perhaps, but Forbes' proprietary methodology isn't entirely transparent. Its website does note the sources for its rankings: data from both the federal government and nonprofits like the Tax Foundation and the conservative-leaning Pacific Research Institute.

The CSUS academics have taken the Forbes rankings and applied a very complicated mathematical formula that assumes numeric values for the following: Business Cost, Economic Climate, Growth Prospects, Labor, Quality of Life, and Regulatory Environment. How are the numeric values assigned? I have no idea... and I've read the report three times. The result of those calculations, it says, is that even Forbes' #1 state for business friendliness, Virginia, comes out with a regulatory climate that's a net loss to the state of $4.4 billion. Because California is #40 on the Forbes list... the study's authors multiply $4.4 billion by 40 and come up with a $176.97 billion downside for business regulation California.

And that's only the direct cost of regulations, says the study. It goes on to use other formulas to calculate the potential loss of jobs, the impact on the state budget, even the cost per household in California. But again, all calculations are based on the above process... and, at the core of it all, the Forbes rankings.

Those rankings include a purported measurement of "the cost of regulation to small business." But which regulations are being included? This may be the biggest unanswered question in the California study. There's no explanation of which regulations produce more costs, and which ones produce fewer costs. Without such information, the study offers little in the way of guidance for state lawmakers in making California more business friendly. Getting rid of all regulations is both impractical and a political non-starter. Highlighting specific regs, or even categories of regulations, though, might have made for a useful starting point in policy debates.

It's also worth noting that this California study doesn't detail the differing impacts on small businesses versus big businesses, unlike a national study from 2005.

Business groups already seem to be pronouncing the report to be the long awaited smoking gun. The NFIB has scheduled a Capitol news conference for Thursday morning to discuss the study. Others are already weighing in. "This report reveals one of the major impediments to protecting and growing the economy," writes Gino DiCaro on the blog of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association. DiCaro adds: "The research... concluded that on average, each small business spent $134 thousand on regulations in 2007."

Well, not exactly. The authors took their global calculation... almost $493 billion... and simply divided it by estimates of the number of businesses in the state, thus arriving at the $134,000 per business. That may not mean that an average small business would have earned that much more cash had all regulations been erased. It also may not mean the state's economy would have seen a comparable infusion of cash. And even so, the discussion ignores a key question: should all regulations be erased... or just some?

Inside the halls of politics, the report is emboldening legislative Republicans. Case in point: this morning, Assemblymember Dan Logue (R-Chico) issued a statement saying that he was still reviewing the report. This afternoon, he penned an op-ed on the study with the following title: "California Businesses Waterboarded by Governmental Overregulation."

The governor's office is only saying that report might help influence future policy. And that might be true. But for now, while its conclusions are shocking, its rationale for making those conclusions isn't quite clear.



Looks like this report has enough holes to drive a Mack truck though it.

It is no surprise to anyone that unbridled, unregulated, uncontrolled raw pure laissez faire capitalism produces revenue for businesses and some sort of menial jobs for people. As a nation, we have been there and done that and as a people we have decided on a simple phrase to that idea.... NO THANK YOU.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Sep , 2009 6:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
So a personal blog is more credible than a report released by the State of California?

The report was completed in 2007, and the governor sat on it for two years, allegedly "checking the facts" before he was forced to release it. It seems that Republicans don't like reports saying that there is too much government.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Sep , 2009 8:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
CG asks

Quote:
So a personal blog is more credible than a report released by the State of California?


Let me see if I have this right. The State of California merely "releases a report" and that suddenly, in your eyes and estimation, makes it beyond criticism and everything in it is right? When did you turn into such a worshipper of authority CG? Over the years I would have thought it was your position that it does not matter what the source of information - that all information - from the state or anyone else is subject to examination, criticism and refutation. Perhaps I pegged you incorrectly.

Direct answer to your question: it is possible that the assertions made in a personal blog are more credible than a report issued by the state of California. Yes, it is possible.

Do you disagree that such a thing is not possible?

What the article did was point out a few possible flaws in the study. What will now happen is that the study will be read and put under scrutiny by true experts in the field. They will issue their opinions on it. Only then will we have a fuller picture.

Really CG. I never thought you would be so quick to jump on the bandwagon of bowing to authority or the state. You might be changing. Or is it that the findings merely agree with your own ideological beliefs anyways so you accept them without so much as a cursory examination? Maybe you are not changing and are still the same CG that we all know too well.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Sep , 2009 6:52 am 
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 8258
Location: Gibraltar
I've read the report, and I'm embarrased for the people who put it together.

- Although they have correctly identified and highlighted the significant variables (as far as I can tell), and done analysis to prove they are significant, they have done no analysis to show if the model they came up with is in itself significant. I find this strange. In fact the model the report came up with is only a 36% fit. One should never extrapolate or make assumptions based on so weak a correlation.

- They have only assumed a linear model, without looking at other types of possible models (eg polynomial, exponential etc) to see if there is a better fit.

Bad maths!!!

So, even forgetting the criticism that the multipliers the IMPACT model uses can often be inflated and lead to silly results, forgetting even the questions raised as to how the base data was obtained and derived, the basic fact is that the model they came up with based on this data is too unreliable to make any assertions and label them as a concrete conclusion as they have done in the report. The weakness of the model should have been part of the headline conclusions - ie the part that internet enthusiasts and politicians will jump on without reading the small print in Appendix 6.

_________________
Image
Screenshot from the upcoming ROTK: EEE. PJ, I love ya and all you've done to put us Tolkien geeks into the mainstream, but this crosses a line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Sep , 2009 7:04 pm 
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Posts: 5205
Location: at a safe distance
Maybe a crappy linear fit was the best they could do. Or maybe they were just lazy. Or maybe they had a predetermined result and they rolled with the fit that gave them what they wanted to see.

Liddy, are standard errors in economics typically as shitty as the ones they've presented? I was trained to take errors that big as a sign that the data itself is unreliable (to be polite) but I'm just a lab rat. Perhaps their model is a victim of the garbage in/garbage out principle?

_________________
"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 28 Sep , 2009 7:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
from Riverthalos

Quote:
Or maybe they had a predetermined result and they rolled with the fit that gave them what they wanted to see.


I suspect that River has just hit the nail firmly upon its head. Which is why I asked questions right away about just who these authors are - and I do not just mean the letters after their name or where they teach.

Thanks to Lidless for the analysis. :toast:

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 29 Sep , 2009 6:37 am 
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 8258
Location: Gibraltar
In social sciences, since it deals with people, any correlation tends to be relatively weak compared to natural sciences. I'm sure I could get the same, if not better, correlation between the price of wheat and the daily yield on Iranian government bonds if I tried.

_________________
Image
Screenshot from the upcoming ROTK: EEE. PJ, I love ya and all you've done to put us Tolkien geeks into the mainstream, but this crosses a line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 04 Oct , 2009 3:16 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
sauronsfinger wrote:
Really CG. I never thought you would be so quick to jump on the bandwagon of bowing to authority or the state. You might be changing. Or is it that the findings merely agree with your own ideological beliefs anyways so you accept them without so much as a cursory examination? Maybe you are not changing and are still the same CG that we all know too well.


This quick brown fox (except I'm not allowed to call myself brown since sf says anyone who disagrees with Obama) has asked you a question before that you positively hated. I would post an article, you would write "the author is biased" or "the website is biased" and I would respond with




you know what's coming




you don't want me to write it but you know it's coming




I would respond with "yes, but are they right?"



Boy did you ever hate that question. Of course you never answered it, because it was a question, but that question irked you quite a bit more than other questions you never answered.

Since my standard has always been "are they right" just as your stated standards (for what little that is worth) has always been "do they have all the proper credentials" the location of the source matters much more to you than to me. I mention it because I enjoy the spectacle of you trying to avoid disagreeing with your stated principles while trying to avoid agreeing with the article.

The authors are university professors (therefore qualified to give authoritative subjective opinions) at state schools conducting a state sponsored study and posting the results on a state website. Every standard you have ever expressed (for what that's worth) means you have to agree with them. I enjoy watching you squirm as you are caught between your stated principles (for what that's worth) and someone you would call authoritative giving an opinion you disagree with. That's why you were so desperate to say the title page (with their titles) told you nothing. It was your only escape hatch from this dilemna. But the title page didn't tell you how they were registered to vote.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 04 Oct , 2009 4:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
CG - when you write stuff like this

Quote:
This quick brown fox (except I'm not allowed to call myself brown since sf says anyone who disagrees with Obama) has asked you a question before that you positively hated. I would post an article, you would write "the author is biased" or "the website is biased" and I would respond with




you know what's coming




you don't want me to write it but you know it's coming




I would respond with "yes, but are they right?"



Boy did you ever hate that question. Of course you never answered it, because it was a question, but that question irked you quite a bit more than other questions you never answered.




do you even have a point that is clear to you even though it is never made clear in your actual post? Perhaps your opinion of yourself and your past writings is higher than mine is of both because I have no idea what you are talking about.

This 'study' will be read and evaluated. It will be debated and discussed. It will be taken apart piece by piece and measured against facts, data and evidence. And all that will be done by people who know this issue inside and out. All that will take time and deliberation. And once all that is done, a decision will be made as to its worth. And that is the right and proper way to do things.

You on the other hand, have embraced and welcomed the study and its conclusion because they agree with your religion and ideology, your axioms and beliefs, your precepts and principles. For you, there is no need to examine the study in depth or take it apart and look at all its data and the conclusions it makes. Because you agree with it you are willing to embrace it.

You have revealed yourself to be a lover of authority as long as the authority in question agrees with you.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07 Oct , 2009 6:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
sauronsfinger wrote:
This 'study' will be read and evaluated. It will be debated and discussed. It will be taken apart piece by piece and measured against facts, data and evidence. And all that will be done by people who know this issue inside and out. All that will take time and deliberation. And once all that is done, a decision will be made as to its worth. And that is the right and proper way to do things.


Unless, of course, you like the study, at which point you accuse anyone who tries to dissect it of "thinking they are better than the experts." Once again your double standard is proudly on display.

sauronsfinger wrote:
You have revealed yourself to be a lover of authority as long as the authority in question agrees with you.


Image

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Since my standard has always been "are they right" just as your stated standards (for what little that is worth) has always been "do they have all the proper credentials" the location of the source matters much more to you than to me. I mention it because I enjoy the spectacle of you trying to avoid disagreeing with your stated principles (such as they are) while trying to avoid agreeing with the article.

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07 Oct , 2009 6:31 pm 
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 8258
Location: Gibraltar
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

_________________
Image
Screenshot from the upcoming ROTK: EEE. PJ, I love ya and all you've done to put us Tolkien geeks into the mainstream, but this crosses a line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 07 Oct , 2009 10:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
CG
when you make allegations it is always a good idea to document the allegations. Your point goes much farther and people do not fall asleep after reading it.

bet you never heard that advice before. ;)

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group