“So, again, Uncle Sam, thanks to you and your aides. Often you are wasteful, and sometimes you are bullying. On occasion, you are downright maddening. But in this extraordinary emergency, you came through — and the world would look far different now if you had not.”
The Oracle of Omaha thanks the federal government for saving our bacon in 2008. The great political irony is the bailouts in these crisis moments are what started the Tea Party. I wonder if they knew how close they came to total economic annihilation? Ignorance is indeed expensive!
However, whether the results on Ben and on me are due to malevolence or the same unreliable reporting of result counts that appear to be prevalent in the other cases, the unreliability of the counts is striking. Until recently I had used counts of results reported as a rough measure of the significance of an individual or a piece of work, or at least of their popular visibility, which is not quite the same thing as significance. Obviously I cannot use the number of results returned as a measure of anything until I understand them further. Can I use Google Scholar, or any other Google site, and assume that results have been returned with an even hand, without fear or favor, and with care for their accuracy? I suspect not.
This is such a biting damnation of Google’s search result count it garnered a response in less than 3 hours. Unfortunately the response is more public relations than substantive explanation or even rebuttal. Restricting a search should always do just that, restrict the search. If the “estimate” goes up, these numbers are not even remotely accurate regardless of how many significant digits you care about. Trying to hide behind the word “estimate” is simply disingenuous when a more accurate term would be “guesstimate.” And Google has no plans to fix this bug since they don’t want to “spend the cycles on that aspect of [their] system.” It’s only their core business. Not very important stuff at all.
“The start-ups that make a outsized contribution to job generation are the ones that survive beyond five years, and begin to take off, heading toward and beyond the government-defined boundary of a small business (fewer than 500 employees).
You can read that and assume that big, older companies don’t play an important role in the job-creation game. That would be a mistake, economists say. The old-line companies may not create a lot of net new jobs in America, they say, but the big global corporations shape the environment that gives rise to entrepreneurial upstarts.”
AFT’s Burton agreed that those earning more than $200,000 would see their share of the overall tax burden decrease, admitting that “probably those earning between $40[thousand] and $100,000” would see their percentage of the tax burden rise.
“I am not, in general, in favor of tax increases,” [Kevin D. Williamson] wrote on Tuesday, “but I think that … conservatives would do better to support a budget plan that combines real spending cuts with tax increases than to support a budget that does nothing to reduce spending but leaves taxes where they are or reduces them.”
UPDATE: I accidentally overwrote this post with an earlier draft so this version will necessarily be different from a previous posted one. I regret the error.
Recently, as you’ve no doubt heard by now, Goldman Sachs has found itself in a bit of hot water over it’s role in the financial crisis that sparked off The Great Recession. I firmly believe that this is due to, in no small part, the story Michael Lewis tells in his book, The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine. People upon hearing it are generally shocked and dismayed, including some hardcore free market Republicans.
I had the good fortune to hear a really great interview of him by NPR’s Terry Gross on her program Fresh Air. In it, Lewis lays out the basic chain of event of on how the subprime crisis started, led to financial collapse and how a few non-Wall Street professionals saw things coming months, even years in advance, by using basic investing common sense. Lewis claimed, “If everybody had thought the way they thought and behaved the way they behaved, the crisis never would’ve happened.”
By any honest assessment, it has indeed worked. I think it was oversold by Obama and criticized all too often disingenuously by opponents, but on the whole, it did what Keynesian economics says this kind of spending is supposed to do.
“By turning to the N.S.A., which has no statutory authority to investigate domestic criminal acts, instead of the Department of Homeland Security, which does have such authority, Google is clearly seeking to avoid having its search engine, e-mail and other Web services regulated as part of the nation’s ‘critical infrastructure.’”
“The problem is that until the Census Bureau does something about these widespread problems, we can’t even begin this process of cleaning up problematic research findings. Right now, the authors warn that: ‘The resulting errors in the public use data are severe, and… should not be used to study people aged 65 and over.’ Given the long list of afflicted datasets, up-to-date credible research on seniors is virtually impossible.”