A census is also based on real numbers. but someone has to put these numbers together, that's where the estimation comes into the picture.
Your income is based on an estimation of the value of your work.
A price is a real number, estimating the value a customer is willing to pay for the product.
The budgets of the USA, the UK and Norway are based on estimates... And some wishful thinking... hehe...
OK, let's put it this way: Do you believe the figure of 158,000 casualties? Oh, and btw: I'd say estimating the value of the Euro is a hell of a lot different than estimating how many people were killed by daisy cutters.
OK, let's put it this way: Do you believe the figure of 158,000 casualties? Oh, and btw: I'd say estimating the value of the Euro is a hell of a lot different than estimating how many people were killed by daisy cutters.
well, econimics and social science are two different scholastic fields, but they are both taught at university level. Having worked with sociologists a lot, I find the methodology often more solid than many things taught in economics.
Regarding the 150.000 casualties, I think it is a pretty though number. I can easily understand how you have a hard time believing it. But I haven't seen any really good reasons to doubt it. If you have other estimates I'd be happy to check them out.
Maybe futures investment and stock speculation, but the rest of the economy is based an real numbers.
Taxes are based on actual income and real numbers.
Ding! ... You lost your brain.
The economy is based on prediction and speculation. "The rest" of the economy indeed. Seperate the two for us please, go on, give us economics 101.
In addition, 'the economy' is the classic interdependent set of complex systems, aka 'chaos.' It undeniably cannot be predicted. Just this fact should show you that the economy is a social consensus, a construct, but one that we all share an interest in as it keeps us alive. It's EXPRESSED in a snap-shot of real numbers but not constructed from them.
The economy is based on prediction and speculation. "The rest" of the economy indeed. Seperate the two for us please, go on, give us economics 101.
In addition, 'the economy' is the classic interdependent set of complex systems, aka 'chaos.' It undeniably cannot be predicted. Just this fact should show you that the economy is a social consensus, a construct, but one that we all share an interest in as it keeps us alive. It's EXPRESSED in a snap-shot of real numbers but not constructed from them.
This will be beyond you.
Ding! You drank the koolaid.
Seeing that I am so stupid and you are obviously so much smarter than I could ever hope to be, I will not argue with you being that I would lose miserably...
I agree that many factor real and imagined go into the makeup of the "economy" and how it is perceived, however it is measured ultimately with real numbers. Simply believing that the economy is bad does not make it so. In the end real numbers must be used to measure and compare.
The 158,000 figure did come from a University level demographics researcher. She was fired for contradicting then Defense Sec. Cheney regarding casualties in Iraq, more probably because the enormous casualty figure is a (sensitive) matter that Cheney's office would rather the American people not be aware of, rather than because of errors in Ms. Osborne's research.
Considering that 93% of the bombs dropped on Iraq were "dumb" bombs..ie no guidance, mostly dropped from 40,000 feet over centers of population, then a large casualty list would be expected. SDW, what woild be your reason for doubting it? The researcher's resvised estimates, according to that BW article now exceed 200,000.
Or is war like a videogame to you? It certainly is to many Americans...
I agree that many factor real and imagined go into the makeup of the "economy" and how it is perceived, however it is measured ultimately with real numbers. Simply believing that the economy is bad does not make it so. In the end real numbers must be used to measure and compare.
You said it. It's MEASURED with real numbers, and that's it.
And, sorry, but simply believing the economy is bad DOES make it bad.
Remember the bubble? It burst when people stopped believing in it. That's how bubbles work.
When there's an oil crisis, it's not the lack of oil that initially damages the economy, but the belief that the lack of oil WILL damage the economy. Genuine shortages, when they do arrive, mean you have meltdown.
I see. Honestly I didn't see that was the point you were making. First, I again wonder about the accuracy of those numbers. But secondly, why are we to believe that Saddam was neutered in this regard? What was stopping him?
Why don't we hypothesize? Maybe his power was diminishing like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all suggested prior to 9/11.
The 158,000 figure did come from a University level demographics researcher. She was fired for contradicting then Defense Sec. Cheney regarding casualties in Iraq, more probably because the enormous casualty figure is a (sensitive) matter that Cheney's office would rather the American people not be aware of, rather than because of errors in Ms. Osborne's research.
Considering that 93% of the bombs dropped on Iraq were "dumb" bombs..ie no guidance, mostly dropped from 40,000 feet over centers of population, then a large casualty list would be expected. SDW, what woild be your reason for doubting it? The researcher's resvised estimates, according to that BW article now exceed 200,000.
Or is war like a videogame to you? It certainly is to many Americans...
I have no reason to believe that number. We're talking about one researcher here. Btw, it appears that the 158,000 figure includes MILITARY casualties, which you did not include in your statements.
I have no reason to believe that number. We're talking about one researcher here. Btw, it appears that the 158,000 figure includes MILITARY casualties, which you did not include in your statements.
If the Pentagon counted the Iraqi dead and came up with the same estimate, would you give it credence then?
I have no reason to believe that number. We're talking about one researcher here. Btw, it appears that the 158,000 figure includes MILITARY casualties, which you did not include in your statements.
you have no reason NOT to believe it either. Except what prejudice you went into this debate with...
Right...just like you have no reason NOT to believe that I'm having sex with Jodi Foster right now.
Have you got a doctoral-degree researchers report saying that?
No, seriously. Multiple sources would be nice. The next best thing is having multiple, solid science institutions backing the methods of the report.
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has eventually concluded that they believe the iraqi millitary deaths to be within a range of 50.000 to a 150.000.
Have you got a doctoral-degree researchers report saying that?
No, seriously. Multiple sources would be nice. The next best thing is having multiple, solid science institutions backing the methods of the report.
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has eventually concluded that they believe the iraqi millitary deaths to be within a range of 50.000 to a 150.000.
It also depends on what conclusion you're drawing. What kind of a number is acceptable for civilian and military casualties? In the case of the Gulf War, I think a large number of military casualties is acceptable. It was war started by Iraq, after all. As far as civilians, that's a bit more complex. sammi jo's original claim, I believe, was that there were 158,000 civilian casualties. This is obviously false according to the article.
Civilian casualties are unfortunate but unavoidable. In the context of this thread, it should be noted that US policy has been to avoid civilian casualties if at all possible. I don't see how one can therefore conclude GWB is going to to the Hague...or even should.
Civilian casualties are unfortunate but unavoidable. In the context of this thread, it should be noted that US policy has been to avoid civilian casualties if at all possible.
from businessweek:
Quote:
Although Cheney said shortly after the 1991 Gulf War that "we have no way of knowing precisely how many casualties occurred" during the fighting "and may never know," Daponte had estimated otherwise: 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system, she calculated.
In all, 40,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the conflict, she concluded, putting total Iraqi losses from the war and its aftermath at 158,000, including 86,194 men, 39,612 women, and 32,195 children.
Quote:
She has since published two studies in scholarly journals about the effects of economic sanctions on Iraqi children, and casualties from the 1991 Gulf War and its aftermath. Her final estimates were higher than her original ones: 205,500 Iraqis died in the war and postwar period, she believes today.
Comments
Originally posted by New
Businessweek?
Estimates and supposition.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Estimates and supposition.
Based on good and solid methodology.
the economics of the western world is based on methods of estimation. the NYSE is. The value of the dollar is. Your taxes. And so on.
No reasonable person? Ding! ... you just lost this round...
Originally posted by New
Based on good and solid methodology.
the economics of the western world is based on methods of estimation. the NYSE is. The value of the dollar is. Your taxes. And so on.
No reasonable person? Ding! ... you just lost this round...
Wrong.
Maybe futures investment and stock speculation, but the rest of the economy is based an real numbers.
Taxes are based on actual income and real numbers.
Ding! ... You lost your brain.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Wrong.
Maybe futures investment and stock speculation, but the rest of the economy is based an real numbers.
Taxes are based on actual income and real numbers.
Ding! ... You lost your brain.
A census is also based on real numbers. but someone has to put these numbers together, that's where the estimation comes into the picture.
Your income is based on an estimation of the value of your work.
A price is a real number, estimating the value a customer is willing to pay for the product.
The budgets of the USA, the UK and Norway are based on estimates... And some wishful thinking... hehe...
Originally posted by New
A census is also based on real numbers. but someone has to put these numbers together, that's where the estimation comes into the picture.
Your income is based on an estimation of the value of your work.
A price is a real number, estimating the value a customer is willing to pay for the product.
The budgets of the USA, the UK and Norway are based on estimates... And some wishful thinking... hehe...
OK, let's put it this way: Do you believe the figure of 158,000 casualties? Oh, and btw: I'd say estimating the value of the Euro is a hell of a lot different than estimating how many people were killed by daisy cutters.
Originally posted by SDW2001
OK, let's put it this way: Do you believe the figure of 158,000 casualties? Oh, and btw: I'd say estimating the value of the Euro is a hell of a lot different than estimating how many people were killed by daisy cutters.
well, econimics and social science are two different scholastic fields, but they are both taught at university level. Having worked with sociologists a lot, I find the methodology often more solid than many things taught in economics.
Regarding the 150.000 casualties, I think it is a pretty though number. I can easily understand how you have a hard time believing it. But I haven't seen any really good reasons to doubt it. If you have other estimates I'd be happy to check them out.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Wrong.
Maybe futures investment and stock speculation, but the rest of the economy is based an real numbers.
Taxes are based on actual income and real numbers.
Ding! ... You lost your brain.
The economy is based on prediction and speculation. "The rest" of the economy indeed. Seperate the two for us please, go on, give us economics 101.
In addition, 'the economy' is the classic interdependent set of complex systems, aka 'chaos.' It undeniably cannot be predicted. Just this fact should show you that the economy is a social consensus, a construct, but one that we all share an interest in as it keeps us alive. It's EXPRESSED in a snap-shot of real numbers but not constructed from them.
This will be beyond you.
Ding! You drank the koolaid.
Originally posted by Harald
The economy is based on prediction and speculation. "The rest" of the economy indeed. Seperate the two for us please, go on, give us economics 101.
In addition, 'the economy' is the classic interdependent set of complex systems, aka 'chaos.' It undeniably cannot be predicted. Just this fact should show you that the economy is a social consensus, a construct, but one that we all share an interest in as it keeps us alive. It's EXPRESSED in a snap-shot of real numbers but not constructed from them.
This will be beyond you.
Ding! You drank the koolaid.
Seeing that I am so stupid and you are obviously so much smarter than I could ever hope to be, I will not argue with you being that I would lose miserably...
I agree that many factor real and imagined go into the makeup of the "economy" and how it is perceived, however it is measured ultimately with real numbers. Simply believing that the economy is bad does not make it so. In the end real numbers must be used to measure and compare.
Considering that 93% of the bombs dropped on Iraq were "dumb" bombs..ie no guidance, mostly dropped from 40,000 feet over centers of population, then a large casualty list would be expected. SDW, what woild be your reason for doubting it? The researcher's resvised estimates, according to that BW article now exceed 200,000.
Or is war like a videogame to you? It certainly is to many Americans...
Originally posted by NaplesX
I agree that many factor real and imagined go into the makeup of the "economy" and how it is perceived, however it is measured ultimately with real numbers. Simply believing that the economy is bad does not make it so. In the end real numbers must be used to measure and compare.
You said it. It's MEASURED with real numbers, and that's it.
And, sorry, but simply believing the economy is bad DOES make it bad.
Remember the bubble? It burst when people stopped believing in it. That's how bubbles work.
When there's an oil crisis, it's not the lack of oil that initially damages the economy, but the belief that the lack of oil WILL damage the economy. Genuine shortages, when they do arrive, mean you have meltdown.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I see. Honestly I didn't see that was the point you were making. First, I again wonder about the accuracy of those numbers. But secondly, why are we to believe that Saddam was neutered in this regard? What was stopping him?
Why don't we hypothesize? Maybe his power was diminishing like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all suggested prior to 9/11.
Originally posted by sammi jo
The 158,000 figure did come from a University level demographics researcher. She was fired for contradicting then Defense Sec. Cheney regarding casualties in Iraq, more probably because the enormous casualty figure is a (sensitive) matter that Cheney's office would rather the American people not be aware of, rather than because of errors in Ms. Osborne's research.
Considering that 93% of the bombs dropped on Iraq were "dumb" bombs..ie no guidance, mostly dropped from 40,000 feet over centers of population, then a large casualty list would be expected. SDW, what woild be your reason for doubting it? The researcher's resvised estimates, according to that BW article now exceed 200,000.
Or is war like a videogame to you? It certainly is to many Americans...
I have no reason to believe that number. We're talking about one researcher here. Btw, it appears that the 158,000 figure includes MILITARY casualties, which you did not include in your statements.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I have no reason to believe that number. We're talking about one researcher here. Btw, it appears that the 158,000 figure includes MILITARY casualties, which you did not include in your statements.
If the Pentagon counted the Iraqi dead and came up with the same estimate, would you give it credence then?
Originally posted by SDW2001
I have no reason to believe that number. We're talking about one researcher here. Btw, it appears that the 158,000 figure includes MILITARY casualties, which you did not include in your statements.
you have no reason NOT to believe it either. Except what prejudice you went into this debate with...
Originally posted by sammi jo
If the Pentagon counted the Iraqi dead and came up with the same estimate, would you give it credence then?
Nice try.
I would probably want multiple sources.
Originally posted by New
you have no reason NOT to believe it either. Except what prejudice you went into this debate with...
Right...just like you have no reason NOT to believe that I'm having sex with Jodi Foster right now.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Right...just like you have no reason NOT to believe that I'm having sex with Jodi Foster right now.
Have you got a doctoral-degree researchers report saying that?
No, seriously. Multiple sources would be nice. The next best thing is having multiple, solid science institutions backing the methods of the report.
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has eventually concluded that they believe the iraqi millitary deaths to be within a range of 50.000 to a 150.000.
Originally posted by New
Have you got a doctoral-degree researchers report saying that?
No, seriously. Multiple sources would be nice. The next best thing is having multiple, solid science institutions backing the methods of the report.
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has eventually concluded that they believe the iraqi millitary deaths to be within a range of 50.000 to a 150.000.
It also depends on what conclusion you're drawing. What kind of a number is acceptable for civilian and military casualties? In the case of the Gulf War, I think a large number of military casualties is acceptable. It was war started by Iraq, after all. As far as civilians, that's a bit more complex. sammi jo's original claim, I believe, was that there were 158,000 civilian casualties. This is obviously false according to the article.
Civilian casualties are unfortunate but unavoidable. In the context of this thread, it should be noted that US policy has been to avoid civilian casualties if at all possible. I don't see how one can therefore conclude GWB is going to to the Hague...or even should.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Civilian casualties are unfortunate but unavoidable. In the context of this thread, it should be noted that US policy has been to avoid civilian casualties if at all possible.
from businessweek:
Although Cheney said shortly after the 1991 Gulf War that "we have no way of knowing precisely how many casualties occurred" during the fighting "and may never know," Daponte had estimated otherwise: 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system, she calculated.
In all, 40,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the conflict, she concluded, putting total Iraqi losses from the war and its aftermath at 158,000, including 86,194 men, 39,612 women, and 32,195 children.
She has since published two studies in scholarly journals about the effects of economic sanctions on Iraqi children, and casualties from the 1991 Gulf War and its aftermath. Her final estimates were higher than her original ones: 205,500 Iraqis died in the war and postwar period, she believes today.