From Ascertainment of Estimated Excess Mortality from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, commissioned by the government of Puerto Rico, released today:
Total excess mortality post-hurricane using the migration displacement scenario is estimated to be 2,975 (95% CI: 2,658-3,290) for the total study period of September 2017 through February 2018.
The key graph regarding mortality rates is here, adjusting for emigration:
Source: Ascertainment of Estimated Excess Mortality from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, commissioned by the government of Puerto Rico.
The cumulative excess mortality calculations are here:
Source: Ascertainment of Estimated Excess Mortality from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, commissioned by the government of Puerto Rico.
I thought my estimates, reported in this post, were possibly too high. Below, I place in context this report’s estimates and mine.
Figure 1: Cumulative excess deaths from September 2017, for simple time dummies OLS model (blue), OLS model adjusting for population (green), and Quantile Regression model adjusting for population (red), Milken Institute point estimate (black) and 95% confidence interval (gray +), Santos-Lozada, Howard letter (purple). Source: author’s calculations, Milken Institute (2018), Santos-Lozada and Howard (2018).
It seems a more careful analysis indicates yet higher estimates.
Wow – what they have finally admitted to has now past the deaths in NYC during 9/11. It far surpasses the Katrina disaster.
And I bet Trump is still patting himself on the back for such a heckuva job!
“This project and the creation of this report would not have been possible without the support of various institutions, agencies and individuals. We would like to acknowledge the support from the GW Office of the Vice Provost for Research and the ITS staff who helped us create a secure platform to store our data. We also thank them for their assistance in establishing the needed institutional agreements. A special thanks goes to our external panel of experts and internal technical specialists who reviewed the methods design and provided input on this report (see Annex 2 for a complete list of panelists). We thank the Milken Institute School of Public Health for providing administrative
and financial support at the beginning and throughout the study. We are also grateful for the support of Dean Dharma Vázquez of the University of Puerto Rico Graduate School of Public Health and all of those who provided their help. This project was supported by the dedication of the personnel of key institutions in Puerto Rico who provided team members with mortality information, and most
importantly, for helping us to understand their work processes. We acknowledge the support of the Demographic Registry and particularly Dr. María Juiz Gallego and José López Rodriguez. At the Bureau of Forensic Sciences, we thank Monica Menendez and her staff for continued support. The project team is grateful to Dr. Mario Marrazzi at the Puerto Rico Institute of Statistics who provided us with information and data for establishing counterfactuals. From the Puerto Rico Planning Board (Junta de Planificación), Alejandro Díaz Marrero and his colleague Maggie Perez Guzmán provided information on the travel surveys. We thank Dr. Istoni Da Luz Sant’Ana and Dr. Israel Almodóvar for their advice on R programming.”
OK – this is the team that did the work. Can we plead with [Steven Kopits] to actually READ this report before he puts his two cents or criticism? I say two cents but maybe that is inflation.
Guess what Kudlow’s new mission is? Trump and PJ Media have decided that Google is rigged against him:
https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/28/technology/donald-trump-google-rigged/index.html
OK Trump is One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest for sure but catch this:
‘White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters at the White House on Tuesday that the administration is “taking a look” at Google search results. “We’re just gonna do some investigations, some analysis, that’s what we do,” he said. Pressed on the fact that the theory of censorship had been discredited, Kudlow demurred: “This is above my pay grade.”’
Economic adviser? Why does anyone call Kudlow an economist? Please!
We shouldn’t discount the power of nature, including regarding global warming.
And we should also not discount the power of having a cowardly racist as our President. Oh wait – you like this incompetent clown! Go figure!
As Tiger Wood observed: “you respect the office”.
I respect the office. Trump does not. He is a disgrace.
Comment Policy?????
Anonymous [aka CoRev]: pgl made a comment regarding Mr. Trump. He did not direct any remark at you regarding your ethnicity, nor did he directly insult you.
Menzie, I was not the target of pgl’s glowing comment of support for hatred, intolerance, and anger. I just noted his comment in accordance with the current comment policy. Would you describe the intellectual, logical and overall value of his comment?
From your response to me I assume there will be at least two levels of policy enforcement.
CoRev [aka Anonymous]: If this
is your beef, then I think you are wrong, as the assessment that our president has some character flaws is not covered writing. I hardly think from your comments that it is an insult to you to say you are in support of many of Mr. Trump’s policies. pgl‘s assertion that Mr. Trump is an incompetent clown is an insult, but is not devoid of intellectual content given pgl‘s tabulation of Mr. Trump’s internally inconsistent and counterproductive policies (i.e., his assertion regarding Mr. Trump’s performative abilities as president does not come out a vacuum).
You will see that the editing has already begun. If I were to start editing for quality of intellectual commentary, believe you me published commentary would indeed decline substantially.
Despite your veiled comment regarding the equity of enforcement on my part of the new comment policy, if you would like me to referee between you and commenters regarding intellectual quality of commentary, in particular adherence to academic standards of citable material, I would be happy to do so (well, except for the time commitment). Tell me if are so inclined.
“From your response to me I assume there will be at least two levels of policy enforcement. (me) and (you) You will see that the editing has already begun. ” is true ONLY IF MY COMMENTS are the targets of editting.
If i thought the editing for citations would be consistent, then it wouldn’t matter. You’ve already shown it probably would not happen. Admittedly, pgl cooled his comment rancor for a little over a day. For instance, here is one citation: “Meet The Intolerant Vulgarians Of The Dirtbag Left” http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/22/meet-intolerant-vulgarians-dirtbag-left/ With just one of many possible pull quotes:
“Every passing day since the presidential election bears this out. The spasms of outrage and protest that have rocked the country since Donald Trump’s election have revealed what should have been plain to see for a long time: progressives are through debating; they are interested only in enforcing their views.
We are too far off topic to continue this discussion, but you have confirmed what I only previously considered a probability.
anonymous [aka CoRev]: If I had to tabulate, I’d say it’s 50-50 lib/cons. I don’t know how you can assess any of the editing characteristics w/o any data, and the fact you feel alone in being a target — what is sometimes called “feeling persecuted” — speaks volumes.
“(me) and (you)”
corev, this should not be inside quotations. it is not what menzie is quoted as saying. you are inserting words into his mouth. this is disingenuous, and menzie would be well within his rights to restrict such commentary. as an added footnote, corev, you have no first amendment rights on this blog. it is perfectly allowable for menzie to censure you all he wants on his blog. i would consider it a step towards improving the quality of the blog, myself. that menzie gives you any voice at all on this blog, you should be grateful to him, corev.
Baffled, claims: “corev, this should not be inside quotations. it is not what menzie is quoted as saying. you are inserting words into his mouth. this is disingenuous, and menzie would be well within his rights to restrict such commentary.”
This is my comment: ” (you) You will see that the editing has already begun. ” and Menzie’s original comment: “You will see that the editing has already begun. ” I fail to see any difference with the exception of defining who said it. Please in the future note the quote marks.
You also claim: “that menzie gives you any voice at all on this blog, you should be grateful to him, corev.”
BTW, I have commended Menzie & Jim for their forbearance.
I do not intend to continue this off topic discussion.
Anonymous [aka CoRev]: I believe the quote you actually made that pgl is referring to is here:
I kinda think that’s putting words in my mouth, but I don’t have time for this kind of banter.
If you wish me to edit for intellectual/academic quality of comments between Anonymous/CoRev and all other rejoinders to Anonymous/CoRev, please indicate (preferably without casting aspersions on my integrity, but I’ll take what I can get), and I will do so with the full force of my abilities. I await your response.
“I fail to see any difference with the exception of defining who said it. Please in the future note the quote marks.”
corev, i did note the quote marks. or in particular, the lack of quote marks. that was my point. you inserted terms inside of the quote marks, and it conveys a different meaning (as in a quote by somebody) rather than an explanation. sloppy.
Hey CoRev – you are certainly capable of starting your own blog. Now if you want to hold Trump up to be some virtuous person who never hurls an insult on your new blog – fine. I’ll make sure to ignore your blog!
Even worse. Trump is arguing with the Prime Minister of Japan over trade policy and turns and brings up Pearl Harbor?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-abe-remember-pearl-harbor
I wonder if the Clown in Chief wants to invade Japan now?
Well, it confirms the Harvard numbers were garbage. The were more than 2x the Milken 95% CI numbers.
Second, there is no dispute about the actual number of deaths. The Milken observed numbers are actually a bit lower than the PR official numbers from May.
Third, the Milken study does not materially challenge the direct death number of 64, I believe. (Maybe they have it hidden somewhere.)
Finally, the source of variance arises from the counter-factual number of deaths. That will take some more time to analyze.
I’d add that “American apocalypse” is more than over-stated given that 77% of the deaths were of people older than 65 due to secondary factors. And also, that I do not believe the Milken number is comparable to Katrina. In Katrina, 971 deaths in Louisiana and 15 deaths among Katrina evacuees happened due to drowning (40%), injury and trauma (25%), and heart conditions (11%). That number is essentially comparable to the 64 deaths in Puerto Rico. I don’t know that any subsequent death studies were ever prepared for Katrina
I guarantee that you have not read this report yet. Could you for once do something decent – as in spare us your uninformed opinions and actually READ what people who do actual research have to say? DAMN!
Steven Kopits: If I recall, you indicated a pretty hard and fast number of 1397 thru 12/31/2017, which was very much higher than your 200-400 definitive estimate for October 2018. While HSP’s point estimate of 4650 far exceeds 2098 (for end-December), 2098 is far within the 95% conterval interval. In contrast, even your “improved” 1400 estimate of 6/4 which superseded your earlier hard estimate of 5/31 is below the GWU 95% confidence interval.
In other words, I believe you should cease trying to resurrect any reputation you had regarding excess mortality estimation. It is hopeless.
Should I copy my comment for the seventh time?
I’ll comment on excess mortality when I have had a chance to run the numbers. The number of deaths were as I stated. The PR official numbers were good, at least per Milken.
You want to talk about Mexicans? Now there’s an apocalypse for you.
Remember 1,096,000 < 2098, and is certainly less than 22.
Steven Kopits: Even your updated 6/4 estimate is outside the 95% CI produced by the Milken Institute team. So what is exactly garbage?
My point is that even if you have rescinded your 5/31 200-400 range estiamte, you should never have made it — and simultaneously decrying the HSP study as “garbage”, a term you have used and continue to use — without first learning something about the data. We in the “actual” (i.e., legitimate) policy analysis business call that “shooting from the hip”.
Your 15 minutes of fame ended a long time ago. Please stop. I certainly stopped reading whatever you write.
Steven Kopits: “[Counterfactuals] will take some more time to analyze”. Seriously?
For Katrina, the National Hurricane Center reports 1833.
Hence, I do think the deaths associated with Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico constitute a sort of “American Apocalpyse”. I must confess on a personal note, I do not understand why you are so adamant about diminishing the enormity of the disaster in terms of human lives.
Apocalypse: “In all contexts, the revealed events usually entail some form of an end time scenario or the end of the world or revelations into divine, heavenly, or spiritual realms.”
I would say that Hurricane Maria itself was apocalyptic in Puerto Rico. But dying four months later for a lack of air conditioning? Tragic, of course. I don’t know that I’d use the term apocalyptic to describe it.
What’s happening to Mexican and Central America migrants, to domestic security in Mexico — that’s pretty close to apocalyptic. It is certainly a global scale humanitarian disaster entirely due to US immigration policy. And it’s on-going, It’s not over. It happens every single day. Why don’t you link that one, guy.
“Presumably, most of the deaths in Louisiana were directly caused by the widespread
storm surge-induced flooding and its miserable aftermath in the New Orleans area. However,
several indirect fatalities in Louisiana have been confirmed or are suspected, and some deaths
included in the total might not be related to Katrina at all. Louisiana also reports that persons of
more than 60 years of age constituted the majority of the Katrina-related fatalities among its
residents. The vast majority of the fatalities in Mississippi probably were directly caused by the
storm surge in the three coastal counties. In Florida, three of the direct fatalities were caused by
downed trees in Broward County, and the three others were due to drowning in Miami-Dade
County. Two deaths were also reported in Georgia, with one directly caused by a tornado and
the other occurring in a car accident indirectly related to the storm. Alabama reported two
indirect fatalities in a car accident during the storm. Despite the fact that inland fresh water
floods produced the majority of fatalities due to tropical cyclones during the past few decades,
Katrina provides a grim reminder that storm surge poses the greatest potential cause for large
loss of life in a single hurricane in this country.:
That is, they were mostly direct deaths.
steven, you are trying to use a distinction between direct deaths and excess deaths to defend your position. i would posit most folks are not interested in your distinction, and view it as a distraction from the fact you were off in your numbers for Maria. further, you are trying to use this distinction to defend your call of “garbage” of the harvard study. people are looking for numbers related to the maria storm to put into context the magnitude of the event. it was a major storm with major loss of life. and the federal response to such an event with major loss of life was not very good.
It was a major storm, apocalyptic even.
There was a limited direct loss of life and a substantial consequent loss of life.
I don’t know about the Federal response. I have not analyzed it in any detail. I can tell you that most of the consequent deaths were not due to the hurricane, but to the extended loss of power. The question how much of this was avoidable and who bears the responsibility.
“I can tell you that most of the consequent deaths were not due to the hurricane, but to the extended loss of power.”
i almost choked on my coffee when i read this. really?? are you serious steven? then you must agree with the statement that no failed parachute has ever caused the death of a skydiver. it was the sudden stop at the end which caused the death. we must divvy up the fault between the parachute and the ground i guess.
if the storm had not gone through the area, do you think they would have an extended loss of power anyways? and those folks would have still died at the same time? your analysis to PR produces a foolish response to these questions.
further, your blame on the poor condition of the infrastructure has little merit. it was a cat 4/5 hurricane. it really did not matter the condition of the infrastructure, it would not have survived in tact. even on the mainland, we do not design such infrastructure to withstand category 4/5 hurricanes. now if it had been a weak tropical storm to come along and cause this damage, you have a better argument. but that is not the reality. steven, you need to understand that major hurricanes will cause significant long term damage no matter where they strike. we simply do not have the ability to design and build to withstand such events over most of our infrastructure. you seem to have no clue about the significance of the event which took place.
Baffled, what is it you’re trying to prove? Which one of the studies, including Steven’s, do you wish to cite? Tell us how they counted deaths.
Florida was also hit by the same storm, Baffs. Six million people — twice the population of Puerto Rico — lost power. FLP had most of it back in a week.
But if you want to see the political and financial nightmare at PREPA, read this piece from Slate.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2017/09/hurricane_maria_could_lead_puerto_rico_s_electric_utility_prepa_to_privatize.html
“Florida was also hit by the same storm, Baffs. Six million people — twice the population of Puerto Rico — lost power. FLP had most of it back in a week.”
now you are being disingenuous steven, and it speaks of a lack of integrity or knowledge. maria did not strike florida. hurricane irma did strike florida, although on the mainland it was weaker. the keys took the brunt of the damage as a cat 4 storm. they were fortunate that the overseas highway was not destroyed, so recovery benefited greatly since they were not truly isolated islands like PR. the small land mass of the keys helped to limit the amount of damage, even though many areas near the eyeball were total losses. yes FLP had power back quickly, but they were not hampered by recovery on an isolated island like PR. if you ever look at the katrina recovery, you would understand that early on the only real way into and out of the area was I10 to baton rouge. it was almost (though not quite) like a recovery on an island as well. much easier to recover when all points of access are available.
Sorry, Baffs. You’re correct. Maria, although it affected Florida’s central coast, did not make landfall.
i’ll let that slide steven, since all those storms look the same to an outsider.
but i would like to know if you disagree with the assessment that even if the PR power grid was more modernized, that it would not have withstood the impact of a cat 4/5 hurricane? all this griping about PR mismanagement, which i don’t disagree with, becomes irrelevant once one honestly acknowledges that this storm would be devastating to even a well managed power grid. even the us virgin islands, which are a bit wealthier overall than PR, did not get their power “back in a week”. as i said before, you simply cannot design well for a cat 4/5 hurricane. it will destroy even solid infrastructure. its like being inside of a tornado for 6 hours rather than 5 minutes.
Baffs –
I am not sure that much would have changed, say, the first 60 days post-Maria. After that, however, the role of PREPA’s bankruptcy plays an increasingly larger role.
Kopits: “I’d add that “American apocalypse” is more than over-stated given that 77% of the deaths were of people older than 65 due to secondary factors.”
Merely the worthless dregs of society — a burden on the Social Security system.
I’m speechless.
By that standard, inner city murders of 300 in July in Chicago must rise to the standard of an apocalypse. Probably too strong an adjective for me in the case.
Now, 118,000 Central American and Mexican women raped while en route to the US in 2018. Yeah, that’s a kind of apocalypse. But remember, they are not worth mentioning.
Steven Kopits: Yes, 300/July is an American apocalypse. Maybe gun control, and embarking upon a reasonable fiscal policy would help.
I am concerned about what our policies have done in Central America, in Syria, in Yemen, Myanmar. And what is happening to the Uighurs. And the rise of fascism in Europe. Yet, I do not spend my time analyzing those issues. As it happens that I, not you, are contributor to this blog, I am not required to analyze the issues of interest to you.
Yes, I get that the plight of migrants does not interest you.
Steven Kopits: Do you not understand what I wrote? There are multiple topics I find of critical interest, but I choose not to write on them. As I — not you — are a contributor to this blog, I have the perogative to do so. I do not go on your blog and insist you write on environmental racism in New Jersey.
Well, I find it fascinating that the deaths of 2,098 Puerto Ricans is of interest to you, but the 1,096,000 cases of migrant victimization is not.
Why is that, Menzie? How do you decide?
Steven Kopits: It’s 2975 (95%CI, 2,658-3,290) Americans (thru Feb) I am concerned with. I hope you will excuse me for being ascribing a higher weighting to my fellow citizens, who have a lower per capita income than the average, and who I feel have been abandoned by the government that purports (intermittently) to be color blind with respect to looking to people’s welfare.
Mexicans are not worthy of your consideration, eh. Not people after all.
Steven Kopits: As I understand it, it’s mostly South and Central Americans who mostly constitute the current flow; but be that as it may, I am concerned. Current foreign policy, drug policy, trade policy are, under this administration, unhelpful. The current administration’s love of despotic, repressive, regimes, is also unhelpful. Aiming to reduce overall immigration levels will also be unhelpful. These are all self-evident, but no matter what I say on this topic, it is unlikely to be helpful.
However, I can perhaps effectuate some policy change by highlighting the ramifications of current US policy with respect to Puerto Rico.
A commercial interpretation of national interest, by the way, motivated the Exclusion Acts.
You know, Menzie, I have to admit to finding your statement crushingly sad. I don’t think it’s unique. But it doesn’t make me feel good about being an American. It’s wantonly cruel.
Why do you think the current immigration system — a system that every single major stakeholder abhors — has endured for fifty years, at just incredible human cost? Because that cost is out-sourced, because the victimization occurs mostly south of our border. And we can afford to wash our hands of other people’s suffering.
Cover what you like. But that’s not me. I can’t sign up to that indifference.
Steven Kopits: You know what I find sad? An intelligent person trying to defend Mr. Trump’s demand for execution of the Central Park Five after being cleared by DNA evidence, as you did on 8/8/2018, in this comment. Do not try to squirm out of it. Apparently, concern for the downtrodden only applies to people who do not exceed a certain melanin level.
steven, i think you forget that citizens of puerto rico are american citizens. how our government responds to its own citizens is of interest to those on this blog. menzie is certainly within his rights to focus his work there.
i would mention, the plight of the central americans can be traced back to our funding of civil wars in that region a few decades ago. you think the violence from a select few countries is simply indigenous, while the peace in more stable neighboring countries is an accident? who do you think funded the militias in those countries that merged into warlords and gangs today? at any rate, not really appropriate to tell somebody else how to run their blog.
That’s it. Such a pathetic false accusation should have you banned from all reasonable blogs. God – you really are pathetic.
“As I understand it, it’s mostly South and Central Americans who mostly constitute the current flow”
The 2017 breakdown of migrants apprehended crossing the US border was 42% Mexican, 54% Northern Triangle (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, some Nicaragua), and 4% other. The plight of the Central Americans is even worse than that of the Mexicans, because they have to run the gauntlet through the entirety of Mexico, as well as the US border zone. But you know this, because you knew that I would provide the accompanying spreadsheet so you could check literally every number I am asserting, and that would no doubt include national and gender breakdowns. And indeed it does, on the tab not coincidentally entitled “Demographics” on the spreadsheet at the post linked below.
https://www.princetonpolicy.com/ppa-blog/2018/8/20/11-million-cases-of-migrant-victimization-in-2018
Steven Kopits: Thanks. Waiting for response on Central Park 5 and your belief that they are indeed guilty.
By the way, they ran a “gantlet”.
“Gantlet was the original spelling of the word referring to a form of punishment in which people armed with sticks or other weapons arrange themselves in two lines and beat a person forced to run between them. It came from the earlier English word gantlope, which in turn comes from the Swedish gatlopp. Gauntlet is an alternative spelling of gantlet, but it also has several definitions of its own, mostly related to gloves.
“Gantlet was the preferred spelling in early use of the phrase run the gauntlet—meaning to suffer punishment by gantlet or to endure an onslaught or ordeal—but gauntlet prevailed by the 18th century. Today, most writers use gauntlet, though gantlet, which is especially common in American English, is not incorrect.”
http://grammarist.com/usage/gantlet-gauntlet/
First, I didn’t defend Trump and the CP5. I referenced an article, which states:
Trump did later admit that he was wrong to call for the death penalty at the time given the ages of the Central Park Five.
[A]re the Central Park Five truly exonerated from the attack, or are they actually guilty, as Trump insists? Jack Kerwick pointed out in a 2014 column at Townhall that they had given statements that basically admitted they attacked Meili:
Antron McCray: “We charged her. We got her on the ground. Everybody started hitting her and stuff. She was on the ground. Everybody stompin’ and everything. Then we got, each—I grabbed one arm, some other kid grabbed one arm, and we grabbed her legs and stuff. Then we all took turns getting on her, getting on top of her.”
Kevin Richardson: “Raymond [Santana] had her arms, and Steve [Lopez] had her legs. He spread it out. And Antron [McCray] got on top, took her panties off.”
Raymond Santana: “He was smackin’ her, he was sayin’, ‘Shut up, bitch!’ Just smackin’ her…I was grabbin’ the lady’s tits.”
Kharey Wise: “This was my first rape.”
The Central Park Five later claimed that these confessions were coerced, but Michael Armstrong, who served on a panel re-investigating the Central Park jogger case, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that there is no evidence that any of the confessions were coerced.
Furthermore, Kerwick pointed out that there was other evidence implicating the Central Park Five:
Multiple videotaped confessions of “the Five”; the presence of semen, blood, and hair on all of the suspects; a scratch on Kevin Richardson’s neck that, in the company of his father, he admitted he received by Meili; and several witness accounts confirmed for the police that the vermin who Ken Burns would years later make into martyrs were as guilty as sin itself of initiating and facilitating an attack against Trisha Meili that nearly cost the poor woman her life.
Armstrong also notes that the Central Park Five were never actually exonerated, there were just no re-trials given that the Central Park Five “had served their sentences.” The Central Park Five had also been convicted of assaulting other people in Central Park prior to the Central Park jogger, one of which was “a man beaten into unconsciousness with a pipe,” so it’s not as if the Central Park Five had pristine records before the jogger case occurred.
I was always troubled that there was no DNA evidence linking the CP5 to the jogger, but are you sure these guys are innocent?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/9788/7-things-you-need-know-about-central-park-jogger-aaron-bandler
Steven Kopits: First, you are outright lying. In your comment you wrote:
You cite the DailyWire? Note there is no link in that article to Mr. Trump’s admission that he was wrong, and I cannot find independent verification.
As I said before, please stop trying to squirm out of your assertions by re-writing history. Leave that to Goebbels.
I stand exactly by what I said:
Not entirely clear that the Central Park Five were actually innocent in the case, according to this analysis.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/9788/7-things-you-need-know-about-central-park-jogger-aaron-bandler
CoRevSteven Kopits: OK. We know where you stand precisely as a consequence.If you have another analysis refuting the one in the Daily Wire, I would be happy to take a look.
Did the CP5 not confess?
Were the confessions coerced?
Were there not multiple videos of the confessions?
Had they not been arrested for attacking a man with a pipe?
I don’t have a horse in this race. I am prepared to believe they were innocent, but I think the assertions in the Daily Wire would have to be effectively refuted to increase my confidence in that judgment.
Steven Kopits: And that’s because of what your null hypothesis is. In your mind default option – black teenagers => worthy of execution.
I did not call for anyone’s execution. Indeed, I am against the death penalty, if for no other reason that I am not convinced of the infallibility of either the police or the courts, particularly in high profile cases like the CP jogger.
The issue at hand, though, is the guilt of the CP5. I do not know whether they were guilty or innocent. If you have information refuting the points made in the article, I am happy to take a look. But if the article is correct about the confessions, particularly multiple video taped interviews, and that these guys had already been busted for beating a guy with a pipe in the park…well, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in their innocence, does it?
Steven Kopits: (1) you would have much more plausibility of your claims if you used a documented source rather than “DailyWire”. (2) I wonder if you are aware of the history of made-up charges in the American legal system, directed at people of color.
I am, of course, well aware of police and the minority community.
Now, do you have any evidence refuting the assertions in the Daily Wire piece? Do you believe the confessions were coerced or false? If so, on what basis? Do you dispute the notion that these boys had been earlier arrested for assaulting a man in the park with a pipe?
Do you think the CP5 were innocent?
Menzie, ”
Menzie Chinn Post author
August 30, 2018 at 11:32 am
CoRev: OK. We know where you stand precisely as a consequence.”
Are you getting your antagonists confused?
CoRev: Yes, I am. I have no idea where you stand re: Central Park 5. Will edit.
“I was always troubled that there was no DNA evidence linking the CP5 to the jogger, but are you sure these guys are innocent?”
their cases were vacated. you are innocent until proven guilty in this country. so unless you can prove them guilty, they are innocent. the evidence, including the lack of dna at the sight, is pretty strong.
“Now, do you have any evidence refuting the assertions in the Daily Wire piece?”
i guess i missed the memo where the daily wire became judge and jury in the states. guess we should just throw out the judicial branch of government.
If we concede that government should have done a better job protecting lives in Puerto Rico, what should we say about injuries and deaths from ongoing irresponsible drivers?
The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year. Nearly 390,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by texting while driving.
In 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1,233 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2016, 214 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver. https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
AS I don’t understand your point. No one is blaming the Trump Administration for the occurrence of the hurricane; Team Trump is being blamed for the lame and almost indifferent response to the tragedy. It’s true that there are lots of deaths and injuries due to texting while driving and drunk driving, but that’s not really a meaningful comparison. A better comparison would be if state and local governments failed to provide EMTs and ambulances after a traffic accident. I think most of us would think it fair to criticize a state or local government if it failed to react to traffic accidents even if that state or local government is not to blame for the accident itself.
The issue, Slugs, is the power grid, PREPA, which was in bankruptcy at the time, as was Puerto Rico itself. The reason the grid did not come back up sooner was PREPA’s lack of funds. That was all about below full cost electricity rates, which the Puerto Ricans had voted for consistently over a thirty year period. So the analogue would be if Florida Light and Power had been in bankruptcy and unable to pay for repairs for six months for, say, Key West.
Steven Kopits: And if only the Poles had invested in tanks rather than cavalry. But they didn’t, and they got what they deserved.
I’m not sure what you’re saying. Tanks would certainly have helped the Poles. But if the French lasted all of six weeks, I doubt tanks would have changed the outcome in Poland.
Proper electricity pricing in Puerto Rico would have changed the outcome, not perhaps for the first 60 days, but surely thereafter. I believe any state or local government which predicates its strategy on the Federal government gifting them a new power grid is courting disaster.
and if PR had been permitted to file a bankruptcy in the past, perhaps they could have taken newly available funds and applied them to an updated electricity grid. but that had been stonewalled for several years, as it was important that the people of PR learn their lesson rather than the investors of a bankrupt territory. historically PR has been considered a us territory but viewed as another country. their predicament did not occur inside of a vacuum.
. I believe any state or local government which predicates its strategy on the Federal government gifting them a new power grid is courting disaster.
Of course, Puerto Rico is not a state, it’s a territory. If it was a state…especially a red state, then it might get more attention from the federal government. But that aside, the “gifting” strategy seems to have worked pretty well for quite a few red states. I’m thinking of the TVA or the various dam projects in the west. And Mississippi is hardly an example of a well managed state, but it seems to get more than its fair share of “gifting” from the federal government.
Slugs,
According to The Economist, Puerto Rico is the largest net recipient of federal aid as a pct of GDP.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2011/08/01/the-red-and-the-black
Other states, noted in The Economist piece, are also large net recipients. This issue is whether the Federal government is obligated to gift these states a new electricity grid if there is a hurricane. In my view, policy should be consistent: either the Feds pay for everyone’s grid, or no one’s.
I am in agreement with you, Baffs, that we need to take a closer look at state and territory bankruptcy. If there had been such a procedure, there is a good chance PR (not to mention Greece) would not have gotten as deep in the hole as it did. Of itself, however, this would not have addressed the issue of PREPA, which was bankrupt due to electricity rates set too low. (Really incredible, if you think about it: How is it possible to bankrupt a monopoly utility? Seems incredible. We saw it all the time in post-communist Hungary, though.)
But bankruptcy is a double-edged sword, potentially. Would NJ, CT, Illinois and a few other states use bankruptcy to ultimately avoid their public pension obligations? I think it will come down to that in the end, but probably not the outcome you had in mind.
“But bankruptcy is a double-edged sword, potentially. Would NJ, CT, Illinois and a few other states use bankruptcy to ultimately avoid their public pension obligations? I think it will come down to that in the end, but probably not the outcome you had in mind.”
steven, that is a distinct possibility. but pensions should hold a higher “bond” status than the typical bond issued by the state, in my opinion. they should hold senior standing. so if you want to declare bankruptcy and wipe out the debt, financial investors should pay a price first. people holding jobs with a pension were not sophisticated buyers of bonds, so to speak, and should not be penalized first. and if we go down that road, public pensions should be limited in the government bonds they purchase so as not to double the risk. nevertheless, i would posit if PR had been able to declare bankruptcy and remove their debt, long term infrastructure needs would probably have been met better than the current existence. it really could not have produce a worse outcome if bankruptcy had been permitted.
Baffled, you keep saying PR was not permitted to go bankrupt. Do you have a reference? In what time frame? How does that impact infrastructure build out? the only things I’ve so far seen it was just at most a couple of years and maybe just months before the hurricanes hit.
So you think munis are a bad bet, Baffs? Probably right, certainly for the high tax coastal states.
Here’s a piece on domestic migration, out today from Business Insider. As you would expect. The risk is that you reach a tipping point, like PR, and then your tax base just moves away.
https://www.businessinsider.com/state-domestic-migration-map-2016-to-2017-2018-1
PR cannot file for bankruptcy, because it is not permitted in our bankruptcy code-Chapter 9, Title 11, United States Code. only a municipality can do so. they are not a municipality, and do not have the same rights as a state either. in 2014 they tried to push bankruptcy, and were denied. but it had been an impediment for many years, forcing them to spend funds since the early 2000’s on debt they could not afford. this money went to bondholders, and with bankruptcy option could have gone to upgrade infrastructure. bond holders were “protected” from what should have been a poor financial investment. seems to be a market failure.
Lord your stupidity burns. PR’s fiscal plight has nothing to do with US policies towards this effective colony of ours? If you really want to make this argument – then you really are one dumb person.
My point is that government of both parties seems to do a lousy job of controlling irresponsible drivers who cause many more deaths than poor response to natural disasters by government. I am not defending the Trump administration. If I concede that the Trump administration did a lousy job, we can’t do much about that now except cast blame. Why can’t we (government) be proactive and control bad drivers who will cause many more deaths in the future, both young and old? Prevention is better than blaming government for failing to react to a traffic accident that has already happened.
AS Prevention is better than blaming government for failing to react to a traffic accident that has already happened.
True, but that doesn’t mean we still shouldn’t blame government for failing to react in a humane and responsible way.
we can’t do much about that now except cast blame.
Well, casting blame and shame is still helpful and might go a long way towards ameliorating the next inevitable crisis. One lesson we should take away from Maria is that we should be skeptical of early claims of minimal deaths when the visual evidence tells us that an official estimate of 64 deaths doesn’t pass the smell test. We now know that the tendency is to underestimate the true number of deaths by at least one order of magnitude. We can also use these academic studies to refine estimates of the number of excess deaths due to extreme events like Katrina and Maria; i.e., we now have a research template that gives us an answer that is approximately right.
These are attributed deaths, Slugs, not excess deaths. Different metric.
As a senior utility engineer with 20 years experience, including disaster response, whose immediate workgroup provided some direct, on the ground, support to PR in restoring the grid, and who closely followed events in the several months following the storm, the federal response to Maria in PR was criminally negligent.
In what respect?
but they were old, so… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ottnot: So “they had better do [die], and decrease the surplus population” if I understand the logic correctly.
Attributing causation is a difficult endeavor rife with the possibility of implausible conclusions.
Increased CO2 leads to global warming which leads to more volcanic activity.
Increased volcanic activity is likely to occur as the planet continues to warm from human-induced climate change, a recent study revealed.
According to the study published last month in the journal Geology, pressure exerted on the Earth’s surface from glaciers, known by geologists as “surface loading,” will decrease as global warming melts the massive ice sheets. This, in turn, will likely impact magma flow beneath the surface, the scientists said.
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2017-12-22-global-warming-climate-change-volcanic-activity-increases
Volcanoes cause earthquakes
Most quakes caused by magma pressure are too small to be registered on anything but sensitive instruments, but the tremor on Saturday could be felt as far away as Hilo, a 45-minute drive from Kilauea. The earthquakes caused by the volcano have been ongoing since its eruption on May 3, with the largest recorded on May 4 at magnitude 6.9 — nearly “severe” on the Richter Scale.
https://www.inverse.com/article/45896-hawaii-kilauea-volcano-earthquakes
Earthquakes remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
“According to our findings, large earthquakes along New Zealand’s Alpine Fault both mobilise and bury large amounts of carbon and in doing so may remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,” says Dr. Jamie Howarth from Victoria University of Wellington’s School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-carbon-dioxide-earthquakes.html#jCp
∴ earthquakes cause fewer volcanoes.
Not an apocalypse, merely old people dying a tad prematurely. And we are blessed by the fact that in coming years, exactly 2,975 people won’t be dying.
As I’ve said before, there is more than just a whiff of eugenics to Kopits’ arguments.
I’m pretty sure ottnot was being sarcastic and mocking Trump.
2slugbaits: Yes, I was agreeing with him/her by quoting the appropriate source of this worldview. But to be explicitly clear, ottnot has Mr. Kopits Weltanschauung down to a tee, in my opinion.
I’m pretty sure I was responding to Kopits, not ottnot.
Kopits thinks he is being clever, but he is simply engaging in the tired old fallacy of tu quoque, more popularly known as “whataboutism.” And not for the first time.
Unable to directly engage the argument in any effective manner, he simply tries to distract or change the subject by saying “Yeah, but what about …”
Oh, I see that AS is jumping in there, likewise.
At least try to come up with something original that we haven’t seen before. The lack of effort is rather insulting.
I wonder when Steven Kopits will tell us none of us care about the 6 million deaths from the Holocaust. I do not know about the rest of you but [Steven Kopits] is the most insulting troll here.
Pgl, comment policy!!!!!!
Anonymous [aka CoRev]: pgl made a comment regarding Mr. Trump. He did not direct any remark at you regarding your ethnicity, nor did he directly insult you.
You are defending this garbage from [Steve Kopits]? Just wow!
BTW – Krugman called Donald Luskin his internet troll.
I guess I should be honored that CoRev is my internet troll!
[Steven Kopits] is defending Trump’s inaction in response to Maria and the 3000 deaths it needlessly caused by suggesting the rest of us do not care about the plight of other Latin Americans who have tried to come here from Central America and the dangers there. Of course we do care – at least I do. Very much. Of course the same Trump this pathetic know it all wants to defend with his junk statistics is blocking access to our nation that Princeton Stephen pretends to care about.
Sorry [Steven] – but you are pathetic both as a person who would so falsely accuse but also as someone who actually knows what real research is about. We know you are trying to promote your blog. But I would venture to say NO ONE here will ever read it. I know I will not. So please stop.
I did not defend Trump’s inaction. I have not reviewed Federal policy in detail. My comments have been directed towards the death toll. I have further indicated that I felt that PREPA’s bankruptcy played a material role in the delayed repair of the PR grid.
With PREPA in bankruptcy, that means every decision has to go through a judge, and any value the Feds add may be captured by the company’s debtors, who are mostly likely off-island vulture hedge funds…I mean, it is a real nightmare, potentially.
Oh look, another “jerkwad” who likes to “identify people by their race/ ‘racial characteristics’ ” when making comments. Well, it’s ok at a young girl’s funeral, but not in “polite company” or “civilized society”. […]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/08/28/mollie-tibbettss-father-rebukes-anti-hispanic-sentiment-saying-theyre-iowans-with-better-food/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0f487f99f5d4
[…]
The absurdities from [Steven Kopits] on this one is almost as bad as the absurd claim from [PeakTrader] regarding his alleged 1982-2007 economic boom being the longest in our history. Like the 1991 recession does not count. Peaky has decided the good folks at NBER do not know how to date business cycles I guess.
Well let’s go with this stupid “logic” of [PeakTrader]. We would have to ignore the 1969 recession and those recessions during the 1950’s if 1991 does not count. So we have a 1949 to 1974 boom as well. Just as long if not longer. And a higher average rate of output group.
Look – [PeakTrader] comes up with some bizzaro claims. But he is still wrong based on his bizarro measuring of business cycle. So let me pull back my claim that Princeton Stephen is the worst troll ever. No – [PeakTrader] takes the Grand Prize!
Last week I went to my MD, I had a slight injury from a recreational ‘trip”.
Last night we observed: “if I did not have retired military health care I would not have gone to the MD”. To that I added “how many people die because they decline treatment because the US health system is founded on “for profit” financial institutions”?
CoRev’s new hero:
http://thefederalist.com/author/jddavidson/
“John Daniel Davidson is a senior correspondent at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Texas Monthly, The Guardian, First Things, the Claremont Review of Books, The LA Review of Books, n+1, and elsewhere. He lives in Austin, Texas. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson”
What did Mr. Davidson write that made him Corev’e hero?
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/22/meet-intolerant-vulgarians-dirtbag-left/
“Meet The Intolerant Vulgarians Of The Dirtbag Left – In the wake of Donald Trump’s victory, some on the political Left are lashing out.”
If calling out Mr. Trump’s vulgarities makes me a “dirtbag” – I wear this term with honor. Of course read the hyperbole from Mr. Davidson and you hear Trump all over again in his usual insanity that everyone is being so very unfair to him. But so self reflection on how Trump is being unfair to almost everyone in this nation that is not a White Supremist like him.
The federalist.com website is a swamp. It gets a lot of its revenue from soft porn sites that seem to titillate a certain demographic. And this spills over into its support for pedophile politicians; e.g., it defended Roy Moore’s pedophilia as “not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/362538-conservative-site-gets-major-blowback-after-defending-moore-dating-teens-to
And ironically, they don’t even seem to understand that many of the positions they advocate were those advocated by the anti-federalists during the constitutional convention ratification debates in Virginia and New York. It’s a mess.
“Donald Trump warns of violence if Republicans lose midterm elections
President warns free speech and religious freedoms under threat”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-midterms-2018-violence-republicans-lose-evangelical-christians-antifa-a8512406.html
This kind of fear mongering is what leads to dictatorships. And guess what – we got a preview of this dangerous garbage from CoRev.
Speaking of fear mongering, your reference does not support it’s headline: “Donald Trump warns of violence if Republicans lose midterm elections”. Look’s like you again did not even listen to the presentation, and only read the headline.
In my opinion, the left is more likely to foster even more violence than we’ve seen in the past years if they lose the midterms.. How many more antifa groups would you have Soros fund?
CoRev: Besides it being in the title of the article, we have a quote:
Are you saying they have made up the quote? Otherwise it seems the article completely verifies the point that Mr. Trump said violence will occur.
If you have an opinion regarding the frequency of violence, it would be helpful to have some data. I am trying to remember the name of a young woman died nearly ago in Charlottesville, and at whose hands. And I also am trying to find the comment where you bemoan the loss of life. I suspect I will look in vain.
Menzie, mentally challenged people are on both sides. Perhaps you can answer the question: “How many more antifa groups would you have Soros fund?”
CoRev: You made the assertion that there was more violence on the left than the right. In the spirit of documentation and elevated discourse, let us tabulate the bodies. I think victims of white nationalists and white supremacists, including the victims of lynchings, should be included. Start the tabulation.
“In my opinion, the left is more likely to foster even more violence than we’ve seen in the past years if they lose the midterms.”
Oh joy! You just confirmed my point! Trump was indeed fear mongering and you salute Herr Leader and repeat the fear mongering.
Menzie: “I think victims of white nationalists and white supremacists, including the victims of lynchings, should be included. Start the tabulation.” Why the racist limitation, when the comment was politically centered? Please tally the body count from: Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, recent Venezuelan leaders or in the US almost any liberal run major city, Detroit, Chicago, NYC etc. or we can add Democratic dominated groups, The early KKK, antifa, and occupy…, BLM supporters, etc.
Which mountain of bodies is higher? Please remember the comment was about violence and not deaths, although I think when we look at the actual numbers within those US leaning political groups we will find the numbers of deaths, sex assaults, suicides and accidental (drug and other non-violent causes) higher than you remember within those groups.
CoRev: Wow…we’re going to tabulate the deaths associated (one kind of violence I’d assert) of the Sierra Foundation. Well, I can add in the null sets if you’d like. We’re talking America here. But if you’d like we can do American supported Pinochet, fellas in El Salvador, etc. etc. And those fellas Hitler and Il Duce, to add to… Rahm Emmanuel?
Menzie: “And those fellas Hitler and Il Duce, to add to… Rahm Emmanuel?” If you want to add them to Rahm’s count be my guest. I deliberately ignored them in support of your white nationalists call out.
In the US, what violence and deaths we find in the left leaning US groups’ camps is actually eye opening. I am not considering the violence they reign down on the communities they are protesting.
CoRev: Still waiting for those stats. Are they next to the un-fudged version of Mr. Trump’s Lester Holt interview? Or the crown jewels of the Illuminati? Just because we have a new comment policy doesn’t mean you can make unverified, unvalidated, undocumented assertions without being ridiculed.
You might also want to check on your expressions, i.e., “reign down” (?) if you want to gain some credibility.
CoRev Please defend this:
https://www.kcci.com/article/alarming-neo-nazi-robocall-hits-central-iowa/22868621
2slug provided the link. Here is the central message of the neo-Nazi robo calls:
“The 1 1/2-minute robocall begins by talking about Tibbetts’ death, saying she was “stabbed to death by an invader from Mexico.” It goes on to call for the deaths of all 58 million Latinos in the United States. “Refound America as whites only and get rid of them now. Every last one,” the call states.”
Has Trump condemned this outrage? Has any of our Usual Suspects? Didn’t think so.
Menzie, I stand corrected. Rain down. What stats are you waiting for? Which unverified, unvalidated, undocumented assertions do you want cites for?
2slugs, why do you think I need to defend your link?
CoRev: More instances of violence on the left than the right, which is the proposition you forwarded. I was thinking of restricting it to the United States context. I look forward to your tabulations, with appropriate sourcing.
Menzie, let’s start with Chicago, 39,000 homicides in past 60 years. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-history-of-chicago-homicides-htmlstory.html
In 2018 by August 14 there have been 2006 shooting victims. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/data/ct-shooting-victims-map-charts-htmlstory.html
I don’t know how far you want to take this, but if we add other major liberal run cities, NYC, Detroit, Baltimore, SF, etc we can easily push these homicide numbers pretty darn high. If we added the other crimes of violence then the numbers for violence will be multiplied sitgnificantly
If you were thinking of something else, then define it.
CoRev: And these homicides were all perpetrated by leftwing groups like antifa, or at the direction of the mayor’s office of, say SF. Seriously?
Menzie, ” More instances of violence on the left than the right,…” Backing down already? You seem surprised by the numbers from that singular, gun controlling liberal run city. If you want antifa violence that will take longer, since one of their goals is to hide their identities. The occupy group actions are somewhat simpler. But I’ll leave it up to you.
BTW, it might help oif you identified the groups you consider right wing to reduce overlap with your null set efforts.
CoRev: Gun control groups “caused” deaths – is that by assertion? I don’t think anything you have imputes causality. But let me get togehter the stats on how many people were lynched by the KKK (let alone run over in a march, or shot in a church), where causality and association of the perpetrator can be clearly ascertained. I can say now you will not win on this tabulation.
“Conservative site gets major blowback after defending Moore dating teens ‘to raise a large family”
How did “be fruitful and multiply” turn into advocating raping teenage girls? The author of this is truly sick.
The Federalist: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/
Factual Reporting: HIGH
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
“Analysis / Bias
The Federalist is a news and opinion website that reports with a right wing bias that typically favors the right and denigrates the left. There is frequent use of loaded emotional language such as this: The New York Times’ Hit Piece On Mike Pence Is Anti-Christian Bigotry, Plain And Simple. In general, The Federalist sources all of their information to credible mainstream outlets, however they sometimes use sources that we have rated mixed for factual reporting such as the Daily Caller….”
” favors the right and denigrates the left.” Is just the opposite of Econbrowser and so many other liberal sites.
Ah CoRev – some of the Federalist links noted here have been severely criticized by even conservative writers. You do have a knack for citing the most bizarro stuff!
You were unaware that Hamilton wanted to reduce the new national debt (which was then about 15X more than yearly revenues) by cutting taxes and reducing regulations? I believe he was the first conservative to proclaim “Read my lips. No more taxes! (with the exception of you whisky distillers who can afford it”)
See “Federalist Papers” # 86.
Hamilton also wanted to abolish the states. So did Madison, but in a letter Madison told Hamilton to keep his mouth shut because it wouldn’t fly, but to use the commerce clause as a way to effectively neuter the states.
Unapologetically, pgl points out the validity of some portions of the article: “What a shock, then, when half the country rejected the reigning consensus. Many of those who voted for Trump didn’t agree with any of his policies and disliked him personally. But they were tired of being told what they could say and think by progressive elites, who after eight years of the Obama administration have become comfortable treating with disdain anyone who disagrees with them.
Although in pgl’s case it has been much longer that he has done his anti-conservative song and dance.
CoRev: I am confused. Are you trying to assert that Mr. Trump has not: made comments about p****snatching, mocked the disabled, relegated millions to status of s***hole country residents, intimitated the Shisr Khan’s wife was prohibited from speaking because of her religion, and so forth. Might some of us be disgusted with such rude, dare I sa it vulger, behavior, as opposed to looking down on Mr. Trump because we disagree with him? I will say my parents did not teach me talk the way Mr. Trump speaks.
Menzie, what in heaven’s name are you talking about? How did you get there? Certainly nothing I provided took you there. It had to be your own path.
Remember this *is* Econbrowser, and not we hate Trump.
“Menzie, what in heaven’s name are you talking about?”
The entire last 20 months. Pay attention.
Pgl: “The entire last 20 months. Pay attention.” Actually it’s about the past nearly 2 decades and fighting back the liberal attacks. The name calling has gotten to the point that the “deplorables/ignorant/…” are looking for some one who will fight against the liberal elites and their shock troops, antifa, occupy (where ever), black live matter, the liberal press, etc which have been attacking us and the country.
Get over it! The liberal views are being challenged and shown to be wrong.
CoRev looking for some one who will fight against the liberal elites
Why is it necessary to “fight” against the liberal elites? Why not put your efforts into mastering a subject and then asking yourself if maybe, just maybe, those liberal elites might not be right after all? Do you like Trump because you think he has a firm grasp on the issues, or do you like Trump because it makes you feel good when he trash talks his (and your) political “enemies”? Is Trump’s appeal intellectual or cathartic? Or do you support him because you see yourself as an intelligent voter and you don’t want to admit that you were wrong about Trump…just as you don’t want to admit that you were wrong about Nixon? And with respect to the PR issue, in view of the latest evidence do you still believe Trump did a great job of handling the disaster after Maria? Still believe the 64 deaths number?
CoRev I don’t think it’s just “progressive” elites who disdain President Trump, it’s a lot of conservative elites as well; e.g., David Frum, Steve Schmidt, George Will, Elise Jordan, Bill Kristol and quite a few of the old Bush folks. It’s not an anti-conservative song and dance that bothers “elites” on both sides of the political aisle, it’s the fiercely anti-intellectual and proud-to-be-stupid attitude of Trump’s base voters. Even some of the reporters at Fox News have had enough of the deliberately dumbed down stuff they’ve been told to recite. There’s a reason why Trump cozied up to the guy who runs the National Enquirer; it’s the kind of stupid tabloid junk that feeds Trump’s base. We see the same thing over in Britain, with the tabloid press feeding the uneducated with all kinds of nonsense that supports the Tories and the UKIP. I know a lot of intelligent conservatives who simply cannot swallow Trump’s anti-intellectual vomit. The man brazenly lies seven times a day and it doesn’t seem to bother his supporters as long as he delivers a good speech that whips up the crowd. I suspect that they didn’t come to listen to a reasoned political speech, they came for dinner and a show. And look at what Trump conservatives contribute to this blog…almost nothing of substance. They feel that their views on macroeconomics should be respected, but they can’t be bothered to read a macro textbook. Same thing with posts on econometrics or trade or climate change or whatever. If you want progressive elites to respect your opinions, then try putting in as much effort into understanding the issues as those elites put into them instead of just bloviating about how mean elites are being to know-nothing conservatives.
2slugbaits: “then try putting in as much effort into understanding the issues as those elites put into them” Your comment is deeply condescending. You may put in more effort in understanding the issues, but you have an foundational bias that the elite, through government, knows what is best. And that human caused climate change is a certainty. So you ignore any evidence to your contrary foundational bias, and resort to insulting those opposed to your ideology, when, in fact, the evidence to support your position that 1) government is relatively omnipotent and 2) man is causing climate change is woefully deficient. We are onto you now: we know real motivation is as old as mankind: Power. We ain’t going to accept it quietly.
“then try putting in as much effort into understanding the issues as those elites put into them”
Oh yeah, and Corev has probably spent 100X more effort in understanding Climate Change than you have.
“Corev has probably spent 100X more effort in understanding Climate Change”
By understanding – you mean find as many ways to smear the reputations of those who do study climate change.
Pgl, “By understanding – you mean find as many ways to smear the reputations of those who do study climate change.” No, actually, for several there are many ways to questions their science. You smear those who do that, even though it is the backbone of science.
In the latest case I noted that Dr. Mann had still nor provided the full set of data he used so that his own science could be replicated not just recreated.
What would you say if an economist studying a theory supporting the world average inflation as a driver of economies for the past 1,000 years used a set of incomplete proxies overwhelmingly from the N. Hemisphere with just a few from the S. Hemisphere, both of which only covered a very small percentage of the world economies, then appending the past few years of Venezuelan inflation to create a hockey stick like graph. After doing that making claims that inflation was the only thing that drove all economies.
Perhaps that is sound science for modernist economists, but in the logical world, when some of the basic errors and data problems are identified, many fail to support that science.
CoRev: “Modernist economist”. You mean, after the marginalist revolution of the 1880’s?
Menzie, I tried to illustrate how Mann’s hockey stick was created using an economics analogy, and that was your best come back?
“Oh yeah, and Corev has probably spent 100X more effort in understanding Climate Change than you have.”
i applaud him on the effort. but it appears all that effort went for naught, as his commentary typically makes it appear as those he worked on it, he never actually learned and understood the material. common practice of poor students.
2slugs: then try putting in as much effort into understanding the issues as those elites put into them
And, oh yeah, Corev has put 100X more effort than you have in understanding climate change/
sammy: It is entirely possible to put in vast amounts of inputs with little yield. If one does not understand basic statistics, for instance, one could put in thousands of hours of work, and still not understand. Similarly, one could put in thousands of hours of reading, but if one did not understand marginal conditions and opportunity cost, one would still not make much progress in understanding economics as we know it.
Menzie, ” Similarly, one could put in thousands of hours of reading, but if one did not understand marginal conditions and opportunity cost, one would still not make much progress in understanding economics as we know it.”, and yet when we move away from the world of economics into the world of business management and accounting, we find “marginal conditions and opportunity cost” lose their importance. In those worlds the bottom line is shown in the bank account and is spendable.
2slugs used two examples for marginal costs & conditions. And, you were the one to emphasize opportunity costs for enterprise budgeting. No one, IIRC, argued against their use in the examples provided, just that they were inappropriate at this phase of the harvest cycle as they didnot add to the bank account/harvest bottom line.
Menzie: It is entirely possible to put in vast amounts of study, economic model development, and similar indirect inputs with little yield to the farmer’s bank account/harvest bottom line.
You might be surprised that farmer’s are probably less interested in understanding economics as we/economists know it than their bank account/harvest bottom line.
Donald Trump today regarding the news of 2,975 excess deaths in Puerto Rico: “I think most of the people in Puerto Rico really appreciate what we’ve done.”
Perhaps we could get Kopits to pontificate on the probable margin of error in this statement.
or as mr kopits points out, these are not direct deaths but follow-on deaths, unfortunate as that may be. so we have nearly 3000 people not killed directly by the storm, but as a result of the environment which existed in the 6 months following the storm. you know, during the federal recovery period. while mr trump was tossing around paper towels. i know folks like mr kopits and others wanted a lower direct death count, as that allows mr trump to argue he assisted PR well. but a high excess death count minus a low direct death count results in a large number of death which resulted from a lack of access and support for the communities in PR. this was to be provided by the federal government during the months after the storm. apparently is was not effective. in the long run, it was not direct drowning or wind driven impact that killed those people. it was lack of help to PR after the storm. perhaps less tweeting about the mayor of san juan, and more direct leadership from the president, would have helped the folks who perished.
Speaking of margin of error, today the BEA released its latest revisions of GDP and GNI for the second quarter — 4.2% and 1.8% respectively. That is a pretty large discrepancy.
I think it indicates that quarterly and maybe even annual GDP numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, indicating direction perhaps but the magnitude with a large margin of error. In the U.S. the custom of citing “annualized” quarterly growth rates simply multiplies the noisy margin of error by four.
Kudlow is working late trying to figure out how to make this 1.8% look like 8.1%!
sammy: “It is entirely possible to put in vast amounts of inputs with little yield”
Menzie: This is my point. If you have a biased/false foundation for your beliefs, everything you build on it is weak/false.
The people 2slugs disdains can overhaul an engine and cultivate a field way better than 2slugs, and have way more “common sense” than many university professors. The supposed nincompoop Trump voters in his 2 years have lead a national economic performance that Obama in his 8 years, lead by “elites” such as 2slugbaits, never did, and in fact said was impossible. Who is the expert here?
sammy: If you think we have unparalleled growth now, it might be useful for you to consider data: https://econbrowser.com/archives/2018/07/a-great-second-quarter-report-but-beware-the-context
sammy: I am sick and tired of people who don’t know other people pretending they can read people’s minds and understand their experiences. I cannot write for 2slugbaits, but I would suspect you think I’m one of those “elites” as a university professor. I also suspect I hardly fit your view of a no-work-no-experience elite. I know how to handle a ratchet wrench, what it’s like to work a swing shift at a factory, what it’s like to wear a hard hat, what it’s like when your parents never got the opportunity to finish high school, to not be able to join the Boy Scouts because your parents were too poor, what it’s like to be sufficiently poor that one never knew if their’d a roof over one’s head, what it’s like to take a leave from college because you don’t have enough money, despite having scholarships and grants.
But if you say you still think “elites” look down you you, I’ll say this “elite” looks down on you because your elevate so called “common sense” over studying and learning from the world. Both are necessary. (NB: If you want to do policy debates, it helps to learn some facts and data…)
Oh, last point: I was born in rural America. Knew what tumbleweeds looked like before I knew what a real swimming pool looked like.
So stop doing your faux “commoner man than thou” shtick, and provide some FACTS, some DATA, some DATA ANALYTICS if you want to engage. I’ll do so then.
menzie: ” I am sick and tired of people who don’t know other people pretending they can read people’s minds and understand their experiences. I cannot write for 2slugbaits, but I would suspect you think I’m one of those “elites” as a university professor. I also suspect I hardly fit your view of a no-work-no-experience elite.”
If you hate inferring motives, then why are doing it? I was in no way referring to you in any way
sammy: You’ve been explicit about what yout think constitutes elitism. However, 2slugbaits has not shared whether he grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Sammy You’re quite right in saying that plenty of people can cultivate a field better than I can. If this blog was called “Tillbrowser” then I’m quite sure I wouldn’t comment except to ask the occasional question…although in truth it’s more likely I’d never even pay it any attention. I’m not so arrogant as to believe I would have anything meaningful to say about cultivating crops. A couple of tomato plants in the garden is about all I can manage. I also wouldn’t pretend to understand dentistry or cosmetology or chemistry or civil engineering or brain surgery or seamstress skills or a thousand other subjects requiring specialized training. So why do some here pretend to understand economics without any apparent training?
BTW, you might be on shakier ground when it comes to overhauling an engine. Back in the old days I used to be something of a gearhead. But for the most part my shade tree mechanic days are in the rearview mirror. They’re also stale…not much use for repairing carbs or replacing points & setting the dwell, using vacuum gauges to balance across multiple carbs, or replacing pushrods (I haven’t had a car without an overhead cam in years, although I do replace my own camshaft belts). OTOH, unlike my mechanic friends, I can show you the math proving that the maximum angle a piston rod travels around a crankshaft should not exceed 5 degrees without counterbalancing (it’s a calculus problem).
2slugs, “I’m not so arrogant as to believe I would have anything meaningful to say about cultivating crops.” and yet that is exactly what you did in advancing marginal costs/planting in your prior comments. So, yes, you are that arrogant.
CoRev Cultivating crops comes under the science of agronomy. Marginal costs in farming comes under the science of agricultural economics. They’re really two different things. Just because a farmer understands agronomy does not mean that farmer understands agricultural economics.
BTW, yesterday’s statewide average for Iowa interior markets for #1 Yellow Soybeans was $7.38/bushel.
2slugs, ” Just because a farmer understands agronomy does not mean that farmer understands agricultural economics.” Exactly my point. So why impose your even more generalized view of economics, marginal costs, on the farmer? For instance, how does it apply to “yesterday’s statewide average for Iowa interior markets for #1 Yellow Soybeans was $7.38/bushel.”? I would think the recent announcement of $1.65/bu of Govt support to be a possible price driver.
But that’s just my opinion.
“So why impose your even more generalized view of economics, marginal costs, on the farmer?”
just because the farmer does not understand it, does not mean the economics is false. he is not imposing his views, that is actually how the world works. whether you want to admit it or not. physics and calculus governs the physical world in which the farmer works. he may not understand that either. in fact he may deny or despise that the laws of physics and calculus rule his world, rather than the benevolence of his almighty god every sunday morning. but none of that changes the fact that his world is actually governed by the laws of physics and calculus. simply reality corev.
I’m having difficulty, Sammy, imagining Trump–or his cabinet inner circle: Ross, Mnuchin, DeVos, et.al.–spending much time in the garage rebuilding a ’57 Chevy.
Or, do you see Louise Linton Mnuchin uttering (more like ordering) “Stevie, hand me that socket wrench.”?
Or Betsy DeVos personally rebuilding an engine on her yacht?
Maybe Wilbur Ross at the grinder sharpening a lawnmower blade before he continues mowing?
Too many comments for me to read – so I’ll say something that might not be new. PR was is a new phase of it’s debt crisis entering 2017. According to one Wiki account the debt crisis put at risk the health care for 900k poor in PR. My reading of the above 2975 is against a counterfactual w/o a debt crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Puerto_Rico#Hurricanes
Thank youfor the link and info Bob Flood. And then came Irma and Maria to finish the devastation already wrought by PR’s own politicians.
We are back to “you were in debt so you deserved to die” again. The irony of someone called Flood for reigniting this incredible sick theme.
pgl: I think the point of Bob Flood‘s comment is that we should be explicit about the counterfactual we are comparing against, i.e., what did we condition on in making the counterfactual.
That is likely the case but note my reaction is how CoRev was trying to take this to the Trump level.
Yep. A good counterfactual is not usually a dummy variable. It’s a thoughtful simulation of all the stuff going on – then do an on/off of just the post-hurricane time path. (Flood jokes are well accepted in times of hurricane. My sister Mary Flood, was, for many years, a reporter in Houston whose editors sent her to Galveston to cover hurricane damage – just for these jokes.)
Pgl. Trump?? You are the only one who mentioned him. Obsessed ar you? How’s that evaluation of my econ analogy coming?CC
Bob Flood I’m not sure about this statement: In May 2017, after Puerto Rico’s water system was massively damaged by Hurricane Maria,
In May 2017 after Hurricane Maria??? I don’t think so.
Regarding the healthcare crisis, the wiki article makes the Trump response look even worse, since the impending healthcare crisis was known months before Maria hit. So I guess the econometric conclusion is that we need two variables; one to account for the excess deaths due to just the hurricane assuming no prior healthcare crisis, and a second variable to account for Trump’s inattention to the healthcare crisis.
CoRevAugust 30, 2018 at 8:45 am
“In the latest case I noted that Dr. Mann had still nor provided the full set of data he used so that his own science could be replicated not just recreated.”
I’m sorry but CoRev is blatantly lying here. Yea – he tried this smear a while back and I provided a lengthy discussion of how this smear was being pushed by the right wing even though it has been totally discredited. CoRev ducked and ran when I put this up but now he is repeating this dishonest smear. And so it goes!
Pgl, show me where Dr Mann provided his intermediate PCA results and to whom. While you’re doing your minimal research, explain how “Mike’s Trick” works. Or you could just comment on my above example. I’ll wait while you do another runner.
The word “trick” was used in the way scientists and mathematicians frequently use the word “trick”. It’s just a common way of referring to a technique. If you’ve ever taken differential equations you’ll quickly learn that much of the course is all about learning various “tricks” to solve the problem. Or in game theory math there are lots of “tricks” used to quickly find a mixed strategy Nash Equilibrium. In Dr. Mann’s case his “trick” was to add 20 years of instrumental temperature series data to the reconstructed data prior to smoothing. The “trick” was a way to correct a known problem with tree ring data. There was nothing mysterious about it and Mann has explained it many, many, many, many, many times.
As to the principal components analysis, are you trying to tell us that you would be able to understand how to interpret a PCA? Have you ever worked with PCAs?
2slugs, your comment is irrelevant. Answer my question.
I did answer it. You just didn’t like the answer. Mann added 20 years of instrumental data to the reconstructed data before smoothing. That was the “trick” to change the direction of the curve.
numerous independent studies have confirmed the result of prof mann. you seem to want to deny this reality corev.
Pop Quiz:
The Milken Report states:
“We estimate that in mid-September 2017 there
were 3,327,917 inhabitants and in mid-February
2018 there were 3,048,173 inhabitants of Puerto
Rico, representing a population reduction by
approximately 8%. We factored this into the
migration “displacement scenario” and compared
it with a “census scenario,” which assumed no
displacement from migration in the hurricane’s
aftermath.”
The key difference between our number and the Milken number is the Puerto Ricans who departed the island. How could we sense check Milken’s population reduction of 280,000 in the post-Maria period? And what else would we want to know about this number?
Steven Kopits: Read the report, see page 4, mentions Bureau of Transportation Statistics; probably not online, but you can try calling people.That’s how I advise my undergrads to proceed: (1) read the paper, (2) get the data, (3) re-run the estimates to try to replicate. Step (1) is usually critical.
I am trying to replicate the results. So far, I can’t.
Steven Kopits: If you use IMF World Economic Outlook data, interpolate cubicly, you can come close (particularly using QReg): 2705. IMF data indicates 5% decrease in population in 2018 y/y.
Right. But we can get a direct measure looking at airport data.
If you’re going to leave Puerto Rico, how do you do that? You could go by plane or by ship. By plane, it’s 2’34” to Miami at $132 one-way on Jet Blue. So if someone with a heart condition had to leave, how did he do that? He took a plane. (He certainly did not board a ship for a 4-5 day, 1000 mile trip to Florida.)
As a result, we can calculate — or should be able to calculate — population variance by the difference between in-coming and out-going airline passengers. And it happens we have quite up to date numbers.
That’s the point I was trying to make. Before resorting to statistical models, think through the narrative to see if there is a point where you can catch the statistic you’re looking for by some other means.
Menzie, but that’s not replicating. That’s re-creating. Admittedly it comes closer. Not a complaint just pointing out the difference.
I had promised a review of the Milken estimates for excess mortality in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria.
Please find it at the link below.
Bottom line, for those on the island as of Sept. 1, 2017:
For the Sept. 1 – Dec. 31, 2017 period, I estimate 1,439 excess deaths. as opposed to 2,098 for Milken
For the Sept. 1, 2017 – Feb. 28, 2018 period, I estimate 1,525 excess deaths as opposed to 2,975 for Milken.
Curiously, excess deaths from PROMESA austerity appear to come in around 2300 for the 2016/2017 period ex-Maria. Thus, by my count, austerity created 60% more excess deaths than the hurricane through year-end 2017.
As usual, the supporting spreadsheet is at the bottom of the post.
https://www.princetonpolicy.com/ppa-blog/2018/9/5/sl9dh24cg4ybqesnzx6ran1lskm8uv