Peter_Puget

Check this out: Lindert! Lindert's main sample is 1978-1995. Europe has underperformed the United States out of that sample range. Lindert's paper is focused on possible explanations for the affordability of the welfare state taking this as a demonstrated fact.

The second gives you a much better peace of mind... plus you get to avoid supporting the petro chemical industry

good link for future research: link

Using and incredibly complicated method I have sumamrized the poll results @12:38pm. I threw out all votes for >10b<5.7. (Yea I know I meant to type 5.8) See attachment. Ordering is from least consistent with guidebook rating to most consistant. The obvious conclusion is that those areas with the most rainfall have the worst guidebooks! PP PS _ Just ignore the typos!

Ab Fab

Moon wall

Cast your vote -

Common wisdom found wrong. LA Times 1. Intelligence intercepts foretold of the September 11 attacks with warnings such as "tomorrow is zero hour." U.S. intelligence intercepted communications on Sept. 10 in which suspected Al Qaeda operatives said "tomorrow is zero hour" and referred to the beginning of "the match," but these probably were not references to the September 11 attacks, but to a military offensive in Afghanistan. 2. Zacarias Moussaoui was detained a month before the attacks in Minnesota after he tried to enroll in an area flight school with the peculiar request to learn how to take off - but not land - a Boeing 747. Instead, Moussaoui stood out because, with little knowledge of flying, he wanted to learn how to take off and land a Boeing 747 - which is not an aircraft generally flown by a beginner. 3. The September 11 hijackers used box cutters as weapons. Instead, the Commission said it was more likely the hijackers used "Leatherman" utility knives that have several tools and a long, sharp blade that locks into position - which at least two of the hijackers probably purchased and FAA guidelines permitted on board. Box cutters were banned. 4. Saudi nationals including relatives of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden were allowed to leave the country unchecked on chartered jets in the immediate aftermath of the attack, while all other flights were still grounded. In fact, six chartered flights carrying 142 Saudis did leave the country in the days after the attacks, the report said, and one plane had 26 passengers, "most of them relatives" of Bin Laden. The Commission cleared the government of any wrongdoing, saying that all of the passengers were screened by the FBI and other agencies, and that none of the planes left before commercial airspace was reopened.

J-B - You are correct it was not picked out of thin air. But specifically chosen to mislead. I would note how quickly Saez brought up the new CPI series. I suggest you go learn the reasons why. Plus note that he specifically states that transfer payments are not included. He goes out of his way to keep his distance from Krugman and his 7% decline. In short he claims at the very least that since transfer payments are excluded Krugman is wrong! [/color] If the more appropriate deflator is used he is doubly wrong. This paper simply does not support Krugman's assertion. YOU want to believe so bad you will not look at this objectively. Check this out from the Nation article: During the 1930s and '40s, however, America experienced what the economic historians Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have dubbed the Great Compression: a drastic narrowing of income gaps, probably as a result of New Deal policies." Notice he hedges his bet but don't you think something called the Great Depression or even WW2 is worthy of mention? Again polemics not honesty. Krugman mentions several other surveys that are for some reason secret! In the Business week article there is survey not mentioned by Krugman. Note that it does not support Krugman's shocking assertion of decreased mobility. This study does end in 1998. Had it continued during the remaining boom years I bet it would have shown no change in mobility for the past three decades. Saez's email for reference: Keep in mind that we are looking only at market income (which does not include transfers from the government and those transfers have increased substantially since 1973) and that real incomes are quite sensitive to the price deflator (and there's a lot of controversy about how to estimate those). Using the New CPI research series instead of the official CPI series would give you an increase of 8% instead of a fall by 7 percent. What is clear however is that incomes at the top have increased much faster than the average (this is really what our work is all about).

Ah my dear boy. Let's review. I said I could find no support for Krugmans claim in the referenced study. The author of the study agrees that I was referencing the correct study and that Krugman's assertion was incorrect. You claimed that I was in error when I referenced the study because the data did not extend to 2000. I pointed out that on the site the data did extend to 2000. You came back with an incorrect assertion regarding what that data even was. THanks for the laughs!

aw come on, PP, stop the obfuscation, it's tiresome. a) the updated figure is for the average real income (i.e. it does not differentiate into quintiles) b) the text was not updated. I haven't read the paper you referenced yet but the later paper is based on an expanded data set and, moreover, nothing indicates that it does not include different analysis of the data. i, sometimes, wonder if you are just being a simpleton or you are being duplicitous but i invariably conclude the later. OK interested readers please press here. Is J_B correct? Was I being duplicitous? Please check all the tabs. PP

Ill beat J_B to the punch! PP you are a simpleton. Or you are a liar! Or maybe perhaps a Limbaugh fan! Wait I got it you are all three!

aw come on, PP, stop the obfuscation, it's tiresome. a) the updated figure is for the average real income (i.e. it does not differentiate into quintiles) b) the text was not updated. I haven't read the paper you referenced yet but the later paper is based on an expanded data set and, moreover, nothing indicates that it does not include different analysis of the data. i, sometimes, wonder if you are just being a simpleton or you are being duplicitous but i invariably conclude the later. You are such a goofball! Have you no shame?!?!?! For starters did I ever make any claims about quintiles? Look the quote in the Krugman piece was obvioulsy BS from inspection. Forawker appears to support this whith his recent post. Check out the reference. I simply thought someone should point out the crap you constantly link here. Cheers mate! PP

Thankyou.

I asked J_B for some specific help. I do not really care if the claim is true or not. I want to see if the reference supports the claim. J_B responded with non-related data and a misleading/incorrect bit of information from Seaz's site. J_B the info is there, so I ask again please help.

LB Please restrict your data search to one of the sources listed. ALso please make your data comparable. PP

Check this out: Seaz's site Now scroll down until you find my link. read. Dig this comment right of the site: (All Tables and Figures Updated to year 2000.) J_B - Please read your quote above and explain how you made such an error. Was is purposeful? You crack me up. BTW - Thanks for the gift. I do note how you are moving close to agreement with my claim of BS on the quote. (See blue highlight above) PP

My Quote from teh Nation article: "According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez --confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office--between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. " I would only add that you are correct when you write that this graph proves nothing. You are incorrect when you attribute a 7% real decline to the CBO. At this point this is merely an unproven claim by Krugman. But go find the data.

I believe I cut and pasted that quote directly from the Nation Article. Krugman and the B-week article seem to make very few absolute references. Words like"new survey" "classic 1978 study" are used. I call complete BS on the quote. If my link isn't the source then let's find it. Let's email the Profs and ask them where and if they have ever made such a claim. I bet if you poke around the report you will find a 7% number that I believe is contorted and misrepresented thus I believe this is indeed the source - but I could be wrong. Cheers, PP

I was looking through a pile of papers for something I read to reference CBS' recent post and I came across this which reminded me of this - A link you posted not too long ago. In the link is this: According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez--confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office--between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. " My quick review of the first link provides no supprt for the 7% claim made in second. You with your modestly claimed math skills can be of use here. Please show me where this claim is supported in the first link! Help us ignorami! Yours expectantly, PP

So what about Index BOB? By the way both Sentry Box and Daily Planet were originally rated .11.

I wont go back and look but I dont think Bob ever said he TR'd a .13 crack recently at Squamish. Anyway I just want to know his specific opinions about specific routes.

Tex - You ignore the fact that in sport climbing the bolts are in fixed locations giving a climber two choices: either clip or run it out. Consider a climb like Tales of Power. It is well protected and the pro is easily placed. Since a person leading ToP has an almost infinite number of choices as to protection location, the route can be approached with more flexibility and thus there is a greater chance of maximizing his/her strengths while climbing it. Now BOB - Just what routes did you TR? PP

I was going to cry BS until I remembered a time years ago (20+) when I was at a bit over 13k on a popular volcano when I decided that I had enough and wanted to take a nap. I told my partners to go on without and me and pick me up on their return. They walked about 200 feet further and then decided that ole PP was right so we all took a short break and then bailed on the route. PP BTW the correct term is not "Nap" but rather Siesta!