Dave wrote:
I'm not aware of any such definition that's limited to economics.

You just flunked Econ 101.

"Technology" is defined in economics as the relationship between inputs
(labor, material, capital) and output. Higher technology is increased
output with the same or diminished inputs.

There is an awful lot of gobbledygook on the subject, but that's it in a
nutshell.


... In the
context of Donal's remark on productivity, however, it seems to me he's
talking about productivity's increasing because of the use of improved
equipment, and perhaps software, embodying newer technology. I.e. capital
expenditures.

Well, that's still increased productivity, isn't it?

BTW if productivity had increased due to greater technology, requiring
higher capital expenditures (on say, research and development, then on
deploying new equipment and/or software) then the demand for capital
would be higher and interest rates would rise.... which they are, but at
a rate which barely accounts for the increased gov't debt...

In other words... bzzzzt thanks for playing

DSK

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:39:59 -0500, DSK said:


Answer the question: In your opinion, is this hypothetical "increase in
productivity" due to the Bush tax cuts?


As you've already indicated you don't buy the argument that productivity
didn't increase, why are you calling it "hypothetical/"

I think productivity was affected by a number of factors, including earlier
increases in the number of temporary workers who could be let go more easily
than permanent employees when demand fell, caution on the part of most
businesses about increasing their numbers of employees as demand for their
products increased, and reduced costs of capital expenditures, including
both low interest rates and a reduction in the tax on dividends.


I went back to the NPR interview with Jared Bernstein where JG and I
heard that productivity fell following the tax cuts. Here's the quote,
as near as I could transcribe: Bernstein was discussing how we measure
the affects of the tax cut, and how to hold the administration
accountable for the promises. One of the claims was that productivity
would increase. He says, "interestingly, productivity growth was
growing quicker before the tax cuts then since."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4258182

Taking the sentence literally, it means that while there was growth, the
rate of growth slowed down. I don't know what the basis is for his
numbers, but it is problematical to get proper numbers when the period
includes an event like 9/11. In the short term, productivity goes up
when workers are laid off - that's why two of the best quarters in the
last 4 years, as measured by output per hour, were Q4 2001, and Q1 2002.
Unfortunately, the number of hours worked was falling dramatically
during this period.

Seems pretty clear to me, but Dave just can't get it I guess.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:39:59 -0500, DSK said:


Answer the question: In your opinion, is this hypothetical "increase in
productivity" due to the Bush tax cuts?


As you've already indicated you don't buy the argument that productivity
didn't increase, why are you calling it "hypothetical/"

I think productivity was affected by a number of factors, including
earlier
increases in the number of temporary workers who could be let go more
easily
than permanent employees when demand fell, caution on the part of most
businesses about increasing their numbers of employees as demand for
their
products increased, and reduced costs of capital expenditures, including
both low interest rates and a reduction in the tax on dividends.


I went back to the NPR interview with Jared Bernstein where JG and I heard
that productivity fell following the tax cuts. Here's the quote, as near
as I could transcribe: Bernstein was discussing how we measure the affects
of the tax cut, and how to hold the administration accountable for the
promises. One of the claims was that productivity would increase. He
says, "interestingly, productivity growth was growing quicker before the
tax cuts then since."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4258182

Taking the sentence literally, it means that while there was growth, the
rate of growth slowed down. I don't know what the basis is for his
numbers, but it is problematical to get proper numbers when the period
includes an event like 9/11. In the short term, productivity goes up when
workers are laid off - that's why two of the best quarters in the last 4
years, as measured by output per hour, were Q4 2001, and Q1 2002.
Unfortunately, the number of hours worked was falling dramatically during
this period.

I didn't say either way. I quoted the guy on NPR.

And, I guess since you don't argue with the FACT that productivity is
growing slower with the tax cut, Bush must have screwed up by insisting on
it. He's yet again proven to be an idiot, a liar, or both.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:07:21 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:

One of the claims was that productivity
would increase. He says, "interestingly, productivity growth was
growing quicker before the tax cuts then since."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4258182

And if Jon had said that I would have had no quibble. But growing more
slowly is not the opposite of increasing.

Taking the sentence literally, it means that while there was growth, the
rate of growth slowed down. I don't know what the basis is for his
numbers, but it is problematical to get proper numbers when the period
includes an event like 9/11. In the short term, productivity goes up
when workers are laid off - that's why two of the best quarters in the
last 4 years, as measured by output per hour, were Q4 2001, and Q1 2002.
Unfortunately, the number of hours worked was falling dramatically
during this period.

I don't disagree with that analysis. In fact one of my earlier messages
noted that with regard to productivity

Typically it increases as employment falls, continues to rise for a period
after employment increases, and then falls as employment increases
further.

The fact that Bush is liar or an idiot? Yup.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:34:03 -0800, "JG" said:

And, I guess since you don't argue with the FACT that productivity is
growing slower with the tax cut, Bush must have screwed up by insisting on
it. He's yet again proven to be an idiot, a liar, or both.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? That one was exposed centuries ago, Jon.

Funny how a 'liar' and an 'idiot' can so thoroughly trounce
your silly, scarecrow, liberal senator and his Breck boy butt buddy.

Bwaaahahhahahahahhahahah

CN


"JG" wrote in message ...
The fact that Bush is liar or an idiot? Yup.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:34:03 -0800, "JG" said:

And, I guess since you don't argue with the FACT that productivity is
growing slower with the tax cut, Bush must have screwed up by insisting on
it. He's yet again proven to be an idiot, a liar, or both.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? That one was exposed centuries ago, Jon.

"JG" wrote:
Yup.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com


Dave wrote:
You need to brush up on your Latin a bit, Jon. Wouldn't
want folks to think you're uneducated would you?

Dave


On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:18:19 -0800, "JG"
said:

The fact that Bush is liar or an idiot? Yup.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:34:03 -0800, "JG"
said:

And, I guess since you don't argue with the FACT that
productivity is growing slower with the tax cut, Bush
must have screwed up by insisting on it. He's yet
again proven to be an idiot, a liar, or both.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? That one was exposed
centuries ago, Jon.

Why's that? I'm not dead. Neither am I a true believer in Bu****.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
You need to brush up on your Latin a bit, Jon. Wouldn't want folks to
think
you're uneducated would you?

Dave


On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:18:19 -0800, "JG" said:

The fact that Bush is liar or an idiot? Yup.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:34:03 -0800, "JG" said:

And, I guess since you don't argue with the FACT that productivity is
growing slower with the tax cut, Bush must have screwed up by insisting
on
it. He's yet again proven to be an idiot, a liar, or both.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? That one was exposed centuries ago, Jon.

Not to mention cutting benefits & pay for workers, resulting in
increased productivity in terms of labor costs.


Dave wrote:
Only problem with that argument, Doug, is that productivity isn't generally
defined in terms of labor costs. It's defined in terms of labor hours.


Depends on who is measuring and for what purpose.


You're citing all this to show what, how great the Bush Administration
is managing the nation's economy?


Nope.

OK, in other words, you agree that Bush & Cheney have mismanaged the
economy?

... As I keep saying, I'm simply correcting Jon's factual error. You seem
to be focusing on your agenda, not mine.


Why not? Your "agenda" seems to be to perpetually insult anybody who
fails to sing the praises of the Bush/Cheney administration loudly
enough to suit you, while presenting tired propaganda as "truth" and
long string of circular reasoning as "proof."




In other words, you demand that the NY Times meet your personal
standards of truth & accuracy, even though you're most often offended by
same; although you yourself tell fibs trying to support your
opinions... and you admit that it's a good publication, just not
superior enough to meet your double standard?!?


What is the basis for your charge that I'm offended by truth and accuracy?
I'm criticizing the Times for inaccuracy, not accuracy.


Because they're a lot more accurate about things you'd rather not hear?
You just said the Times was better than many other media sources.



What fibs are you referring to? The productivity has been increasing over
the last few years? Even you have acknowledged that that's most likely true.


"Possible" is quite different from "most likely." And given the lack of
increase in profitability etc etc, it's trivial even if it is true.

So we're back at the start of the circle again. Are you getting enough
exercise doing all this back pedalling and tap-dancing?

DSK

You need to take a chill pill.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:58:15 -0800, "JG" said:

Why's that?

Because you look exceptionally foolish responding to a Latin phrase
without,
apparently, having a clue as to its meaning. I'll give you a little help:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/posthoc.htm

Dave

"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
You need to brush up on your Latin a bit, Jon. Wouldn't want folks to
think
you're uneducated would you?

Dave


On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:18:19 -0800, "JG" said:

The fact that Bush is liar or an idiot? Yup.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:34:03 -0800, "JG" said:

And, I guess since you don't argue with the FACT that productivity is
growing slower with the tax cut, Bush must have screwed up by
insisting
on
it. He's yet again proven to be an idiot, a liar, or both.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? That one was exposed centuries ago, Jon.