🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <51653@dime.cs.umass.edu>, by yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken):
> In article <1992Aug9.102017.5190@leland.Stanford.EDU> foster@leland.Stanford.EDU (Pablo Estrada) writes:
>>In article <9208050253.AA18988@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>>
>>>A new study by the Economic Policy Institute concludes that  
>>>NAFTA will result in lower wages, fewer jobs and generally  
>>>reduced living standards for the majority of U.S. workers. 
>>Harel,
>>	Excuse me for exposing the validity of your document, but any economist who's read this study knows that it is pure garbage.  
>>	
> 
> So the authors of the study are not economists? Is this by definition?

No, Victor.  As the next quoted line says, the authors of the study
are alleged to be economists whose integrity has been bought, so they
know it's garbage but aren't saying so.  Don't pretend to be naive.

>>	The empirical methodology employed is simply flawed...In my opinion, the Economic Policy Institute (who will do anything for a fee) produced this report to appease the special interests of labor unions.  A more accurate effect of NAFTA is suggested by th
>>e President's Council of Economic Advisors, who predict that at least  325,000 jobs would be created by the end of 1993 alone!!!
> 
> And what is the track record of the President's Couuncil of Economic
> Advisors? Do they possess a verified scientific methodology which has been
> shown to be accurate in predicting economic activity? 

No, but Pablo _thinks_ they're closer to the truth.  You and I know
that that hasn't been established, but we also know that the mere
existence of a difference of professional opinion casts doubt on both
sides, so that neither conclusion alone can be accepted as "truth."

>>	Again, I want to emphasize that the data used in this report was made to fit the results they were looking for, and not the true ones.  Let us not alarm people and falsely mislead them.  Instead, be critical about special interest groups trying to sway y
>>ou to their position.
> 
> Are you able to back this up, or are your critiques of this report purely
> on the basis of your antipathy to its conclusions?

The cited study with contrary conclusions might contain enough
evidence to back it up.  But for once that's a good question, Victor,
and it deserves a good answer.  Nevertheless, the man is right when he
says "be critical of special interest groups."  Just remember,
everybody, both sides have special interests.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)