Ahem.

Which, of course, explains why the Northeast is the wealthiest region in the country and home to many of the world's largest, most profitable, and most influential businesses.

goochmeister42: Ahem.

[i290.photobucket.com image 640x470]

Wait, Florida is democratic?

/not American, but from everything i've heard about America's wang, I would have thought they'd be quite solidly republican

how do they do academically? do they outperform them there? how about insurance coverage and quality of life?

goochmeister42: Ahem.

Is there any detail to the federal spending shown in that spiffy graphic? I seem to recall a while back a lot of crowing about the amount of federal dollars that went to ROM PAUL's district even though he is not a big fan of federal spending. No one bothered to mention the reason though.

DammitIForgotMyLogin: goochmeister42: Ahem.

[i290.photobucket.com image 640x470]

Wait, Florida is democratic?

/not American, but from everything i've heard about America's wang, I would have thought they'd be quite solidly republican

Florida is a swing state- it goes back and forth between democrats and republicans. In 2008, Obama carried it, but in 2004, Bush did. (There is some debate about which way it went in 2000. Anyone who claims to know for certain is lying.)

Ah, so that's why Minnesota is consistently being outperformed by Mississippi in [some metrics that are apparently considered important].

I don't give a flying fark what that dickweed says; I'd still rather be in California than Texas

Yeah, I imagine the red states do outperform the blue on the race to the bottom.

Soon as I saw TFA tout ALEC I closed the tab.

Illinois.

"If we had to summarize the findings of this publication and our comparative analysis of state policy in one sentence, it would be this: Be more like Texas and less like California."

Yeah California. Why don't you put more oil and natural gas under ground?

impaler: "If we had to summarize the findings of this publication and our comparative analysis of state policy in one sentence, it would be this: Be more like Texas and less like California."

Yeah California. Why don't you put more oil and natural gas under ground?

10% of national production is so lame

/we're just chronic underachievers
//emphasis on chronic

Elandriel: Soon as I saw TFA tout ALEC I closed the tab.

More of a billy baldwin fan then, I guess

Thankfully, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has remedied that deficiency with its study "Rich States, Poor States," the fifth annual edition of which was released earlier this month. Authored by famed supply-side economist Arthur Laffer, Wall Street Journal economic guru Stephen Moore and ALEC's own Jonathan Williams, the 100-plus page report looks at economic competitiveness among the 50 states in exacting detail.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

Quasar: Thankfully, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has remedied that deficiency with its study "Rich States, Poor States," the fifth annual edition of which was released earlier this month. Authored by famed supply-side economist Arthur Laffer, Wall Street Journal economic guru Stephen Moore and ALEC's own Jonathan Williams, the 100-plus page report looks at economic competitiveness among the 50 states in exacting detail.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

Yeah, I'm prepared to dismiss this one out of hand and not feel the least bit guilty.

Flipped through the document. It uses this style of ranking things:

Table 15 | ALEC-Laffer State Economic outlook Rankings, 2012
Based upon equal-weighting of each state's rank in 15 policy variables

Which mean's each policy variable has a value of 1-50. But some variables are binary, such as
• Estate Tax/Inheritance Tax (Yes or No)
• Right-to-Work State (Yes or No)

Which I assume gives every state with the "right" value a 1, and those with the other value of 25 (if half states have such policy). Which means a state with a very small estate tax will have their rank affected to a much greater extent than any rational person would place on the tax.

Ignoring that issue, giving weight ranks from 1-50, instead using some sort of normalization of actual value being measured (such as tax rate), is always a dishonest method. If one state taxes at 5%, 48 tax at 5.1%, and one taxes at 5.2%, the 5% state is not 50 times better than the 5.2% state.

"No matter how you slice the numbers?"

Race to the bottom, is the "conservative" way though. If we could have the freedom from job killing regulations like the Chinese our GDP would grow even faster!

You mean like Wisconsin which is the only state in the union to post net job LOSSES over the last year despite a GOP controlled everything?

Dancin_In_Anson: I seem to recall a while back a lot of crowing about the amount of federal dollars that went to ROM PAUL's district even though he is not a big fan of federal spending.

RON PAUL is not a big fan of federal spending UNLESS it's being done in his his district.

So you're just saying we needed to harmonize the various statistical quirks?

Slaves always work harder than well-paid employees.

Sure, from all of the extra Federal dollars they receive for being so "bootstrappy."

Imperialism: So you're just saying we needed to harmonize the various statistical quirks?

Numbers are fungible; you can't flag the molecules.

Fart_Machine: Dancin_In_Anson: I seem to recall a while back a lot of crowing about the amount of federal dollars that went to ROM PAUL's district even though he is not a big fan of federal spending.

RON PAUL is not a big fan of federal spending UNLESS it's being done in his his district.

Yeah. He submits a huge list of things for funding and then vetoes it each time. This way he gets his district their federal dollars AND gets a record that shows he's fiscally conservative.

When I think prosperity, I think Mississippi.

There's a distinct lack of data in that article.

This sounds totally legit because neither ALEC or the CFIF are known to have any specific political leanings.

Subby:

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhha..... . .............

oh, ok whew, I just, oh man ahahahahahahahahaha.

ahahahah.

hahaha

giggle snort

goochmeister42: Ahem.

[i290.photobucket.com image 640x470]

Of course they do better. They have a shiatload of government money helping them out.

ALEC? Yeah sorry I don't trust anything they say.


Do some research on ALEC and its founder Paul Weyrich, then get back to me.

I think it's very much in how you slice the numbers.

And I would put it more as a situation of Urban beating Rural.

Really? It's easier to balance your budget when you don't spend money on your citizens? Imagine that....

If you define prosperity as following conservative values, like the ALEC study does, then technically you are correct. But you haven't proven anything useful.

You mean, the welfare states do better? Color me shocked.

Where I live in NC, the economic growth of the big cities (Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham) has been the engine that has made NC more prosperous as northerners shift to these cities, which has resulted in the state being more Blue than Red, hence Obama's win in 2008. And areas of Texas are becoming more Blue, particularly in areas where the Hispanic population has grown. And the biggest immigration has been in the south, where the red states are.

Dancin_In_Anson: goochmeister42: Ahem.

Is there any detail to the federal spending shown in that spiffy graphic? I seem to recall a while back a lot of crowing about the amount of federal dollars that went to ROM PAUL's district even though he is not a big fan of federal spending. No one bothered to mention the reason though.

Good stuff (as mentioned above).

Thankfully, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).....

That is precisely where I stopped reading.

goochmeister42: Ahem.

[i290.photobucket.com image 640x470]

Since the tax data used for that graphic is six years old (2005, presumably collected in 2006), maybe it's time to retire it. Or even better, update it. I know that Michigan swung into the welfare queen column during the recession, but I'm not sure what other changes happened.

1) When all else fails, make shiat up.
2) All else has failed.

In other news, ALEC pitches yet another pile of bullshiat.

By the way, that's not a news article, that's a book plug.

"It's riddled with data!" LMAO.

Laffer is a blight on economics. His consulting group published a report on the removal of the income tax in Oklahoma. My goodness it is perhaps one of the worst analysis of public economics I think I have ever read. I could feel my head exploding while I read it. Laffer's analyses are horrendous and filled with basic econometric errors. Hell, our first years could write a better report than he did.

Link

Have you driven through Oklahoma lately? It's either a rusty shiathole filled with misery and crumbling roads, or it's beautiful, pristine, untouched land.

impaler: Flipped through the document. It uses this style of ranking things:

Table 15 | ALEC-Laffer State Economic outlook Rankings, 2012
Based upon equal-weighting of each state's rank in 15 policy variables

Which mean's each policy variable has a value of 1-50. But some variables are binary, such as
• Estate Tax/Inheritance Tax (Yes or No)
• Right-to-Work State (Yes or No)

Which I assume gives every state with the "right" value a 1, and those with the other value of 25 (if half states have such policy). Which means a state with a very small estate tax will have their rank affected to a much greater extent than any rational person would place on the tax.

Ignoring that issue, giving weight ranks from 1-50, instead using some sort of normalization of actual value being measured (such as tax rate), is always a dishonest method. If one state taxes at 5%, 48 tax at 5.1%, and one taxes at 5.2%, the 5% state is not 50 times better than the 5.2% state.

ALEC knows that. They're hoping you don't, however. In fact, they're banking on it.

KhanAidan: Laffer is a blight on economics. His consulting group published a report on the removal of the income tax in Oklahoma. My goodness it is perhaps one of the worst analysis of public economics I think I have ever read. I could feel my head exploding while I read it. Laffer's analyses are horrendous and filled with basic econometric errors. Hell, our first years could write a better report than he did.

Link

The key to getting paid in economics is based upon your conclusions, not your methods. As such, rational economists adjust their analysis methods accordingly and skew their methods to achieve the desired results. It's basic economics.

thamike: "No matter how you slice the numbers?"

I think they meant, "Once you harmonize the statistical quirks."

goochmeister42: Ahem.

There's also that the study seems to be only focusing on change in GDP, as opposed to other sociological measures - infant mortality rates, fraction of the population living below the poverty line, fraction of students graduating from high school, and so on...

joonyer: "It's riddled with data!" LMAO.

I thought that was amusing as well.