Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billionai

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Fyyr » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:15 am

Tudamorf wrote: What statistics? All I saw was editorializing. Statistics involve numbers and equations, not feelings or ideas.
You didn't read her available PDF of the study, did you?

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Tudamorf » Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:42 am

Fyyr wrote:You didn't read her available PDF of the study, did you?
No. Are you saying she miscalculated or used the wrong formula?

Or are you saying the underlying data is wrong, and therefore anything calculated from that data is wrong, in which case it isn't statistics that is the lie, but rather the underlying data? Garbage in, garbage out, but it's not the fault of statistics.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Fyyr » Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:08 pm

No, I am not saying that she made a mistake with her math.

Her whole methodology is wrong. Her sample population size was 100 men. Purporting to conclude the results from those 100 men to the general population is absurd.

N=100 studies are not valid to the 150 million rest of us, in the first place. They are not statistically significant, and the error is too large to extrapolate conclusions to the larger group.

The only time such small samples are valid are when the general population size is also comparatively small. For example, an experiment or study of a rare disease, may have a small sample size(n=10 or 25) and be accurate enough to the general population(p=100 or 1000) of those who also have that rare disease.

Her additional 100 men in the control group do not add to the N Population size and make N=200 either. The control group was not randomly chosen, but cross matched to the sample group. They are not even relevant to the study, or statistics. For they were chosen explicitly for chosen traits, and not random.

No, I am not saying her equations, calculations, or math were wrong. Or that her collected data was wrong. The application of the data she collected, and how she collected, to the general population was wrong. Her scientific method was backwards, she had the conclusion formed prior to the experiment, then did the experiment, set up in such a way, such that the results confirmed her conclusion. And it was, and is treated as real science by the media. Sounds similar to the greenhouse thing you and I argue about, if you ask me.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Tudamorf » Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:32 pm

Fyyr wrote:N=100 studies are not valid to the 150 million rest of us, in the first place. They are not statistically significant, and the error is too large to extrapolate conclusions to the larger group.
So you're saying statistics prove that statistics are lies?
Fyyr wrote:Sounds similar to the greenhouse thing you and I argue about, if you ask me.
Yes, it does. You start out with a bad assumption (that greenhouse gases can't/don't/won't/shouldn't warm the planet) and conclude that global warming is a conspiracy. I need not even bother attacking your logic, because your underlying assumption taints the whole thing.

Just like, don't say statistics are lies, just because the underlying data is tainted. The statistics are still accurate.

Oops, I made an analogy.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Fyyr » Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:36 pm

That CO2 doesn't warm the Earth is not the assumption.

It is the default position. It requires no proof. It is a negative, and requires no proof.

The hypothesis is that it does warm the Earth. Which is based on the model of Venus, a planet very close to the sun, no liquid water, and no life on it. Or that the Earth is like a glass box on the ground.

I don't have to prove that CO2 warms the Earth, you have to prove that it does.


There is no god, if you say there is a god. You have to prove that it exists. Or Santa, or the Tooth Fairy.
It is illogical to try and prove a negative. You have to prove the positive, if that is your position.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by AbyssalMage » Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:26 pm

Fyyr wrote:
Analogies work because they take something complicated and makes it so you can understand or comprehend something and makes it personal.
They are usually lies, disguised as argument. (Like statistics).
Statistics aren't lies, they are usually presented in a way that's favorable to one side or another. Its the difference between "the truth" and "the whole truth." And maybe that's why you don't understand much of anything :D
I am smart enough to understand points without having them dumbed down for me, in any event. They only work because the average IQ of an American is 100, and half of them are dumber than that.
That's REALLY debatable. Because as the statistics statement proves, you don't really understand them.
I could of simply stated that your spending of a tax return did absolutely nothing long term but I'm sure you would of debated that also.
You could have. It was like the small parachute that opens the big parachute behind a rocket car on Bonneville. See how stupid analogies are?
Well considering that we were talking about the economy, no, I don't agree with you because you basically stated that the stimulus STOPPED the economy from growing. (Although by "Bonneville" I am assuming your talking about the car model {and not the Damn} but that's irrelevant).
Because you couldn't understand my analogy, we'll assume I used a bad one like you stated.
My analogy was in response to your following example/statement:
Oh, I understand it Mage, I just dismissed it, twice. Analogies in general are bad, yours was a bad analogy on top of that.
I can admit that my analogy could of possibly been better, after all, not everyone may know what a Texas watering hole is. :roll:
Anyway, I think you are calling me dumb with that line. I don't think the rest of your post deserves me reading further, or an answer. I hope that Tudamorf reads your long ass post now, or Pan, cuz i aint.
Well, I could, but I feel you proving it is worth so much more. Tudamorf and Pan could reply but I'm sure Tudamorf has came to the same conclusion by your past statements. Not sure if Pan has or not, not going to speak on her behalf. Doesn't mean that as people we can't attempt to enlighten you or at the very least, prevent people from thinking everyone on these forums is so narrow minded. Then again, with only the few of us visiting (and posting) on these forums regularly... guess we are protecting future readers 8-)

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Tudamorf » Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:07 pm

Fyyr wrote:That CO2 doesn't warm the Earth is not the assumption.
Of course it's an assumption. Your assumption, and an incorrect one because you blind yourself to the evidence.

And when your initial assumption is wrong, even the finest logic will lead you to the wrong conclusion.
Fyyr wrote:Which is based on the model of Venus, a planet very close to the sun, no liquid water, and no life on it.
It is not based on a model of Venus. Venus is just an example of global warming when left unchecked.

Why do you think the Earth's moon isn't the same temperature as the Earth? (Parts of it are actually the coldest places in the Solar system.)

Why do you think parts of Mercury far colder than any place on Earth?
Fyyr wrote:It is illogical to try and prove a negative. You have to prove the positive, if that is your position.
You mean, the laws of physics are different in place A than they are in place B?

And I have to reprove the laws of physics every time I want to apply them to place C?

Just how many times, and in how many different situations, do the laws of physics have to be proven in order for them to be accepted as the default, something to be disproven?

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Fyyr » Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:08 pm

Bonneville salt flats.

They are in Utah, not California.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by AbyssalMage » Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:17 pm

Fyyr wrote:
Tudamorf wrote:
AbyssalMage wrote:And considering that enlisted are the best "per-dollar" investment the Federal Government invests in,
I can't think of a poorer return on investment than our military is.

Not even welfare, or bridges to nowhere.
I agree, we should be annexing the real estate and natural resources of countries we take over. That would definitely push the military into the black.
Well considering they are government workers who are on a salary, often keep CEO hours or more, have restricted rights, provide security, provide some(small?) stability to the world markets, and at any given time must sacrifice their lives for the American (Global) political system, yes, I would consider them a very good return on investment. You would have to triple or quadruple their pay if they were being paid on the private side (and that would be a starting point, not the final price). So considering what they earn vs. what they should earn and the money they generate for private sector jobs, still going to argue they are the best investment.

Now if we could just get all our NATO allies to "pay in" because most of their security and prosperity comes off our "backs."

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Tudamorf » Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:48 pm

AbyssalMage wrote:So considering what they earn vs. what they should earn and the money they generate for private sector jobs, still going to argue they are the best investment.
You seem to be assuming that their salary is the total cost of investment. It's actually a trivial part of the true cost.

Example: Afghanistan, $1 million per soldier per year, if they don't get hurt, and not counting all the benefits you have to pay them when (if) they get back.

And I get no benefit from it.

Compare it to welfare, one of the most wasteful government programs. For $1 million, I can pacify dozens of poor people around me. Not a great investment, but it brings me a real benefit.

I'll take welfare any day.

Post Reply