Testing 1, 2, 3
Boron Elgar
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
Boron
danny burstein
>Have fun kidlets:
>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
31 out of 33. But I'll disagree with their language and choices in 33.
(and it's "unalienable rights", dammmit)
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Boron Elgar
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <epudf51sn246mn6kg...@4ax.com> Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>Have fun kidlets:
>
>>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
>31 out of 33. But I'll disagree with their language and choices in 33.
>
>(and it's "unalienable rights", dammmit)
I thought there were a couple, three questions that were worded pretty
badly.
I'll mark you as an "A" on that test.
art...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:19:00 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
>
> <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>Have fun kidlets:
>
> >>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
> >31 out of 33. But I'll disagree with their language and choices in 33.
>
> >(and it's "unalienable rights", dammmit)
>
> I thought there were a couple, three questions that were worded pretty
> badly.
>
> I'll mark you as an "A" on that test.
I only got a B. 28.
Peter Boulding
wrote in <epudf51sn246mn6kg...@4ax.com>:
>Have fun kidlets:
>
>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
28 (84.85%). My answers to some of their free enterprise stuff were
guesswork.
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Music and Images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/ and
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
DT
boron...@hotmail.com says...
30, not bad for an internal isolationist.
--
Dennis
Tim Wright
--
Tim W
Onomatopoeia
A word that sounds like the sound it sounds like.
Boron Elgar
<pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:09:23 -0500, Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com>
>wrote in <epudf51sn246mn6kg...@4ax.com>:
>
>>Have fun kidlets:
>>
>>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
>28 (84.85%). My answers to some of their free enterprise stuff were
>guesswork.
You should get a bonus anyway, Mr. RightPond.
Boron
Paul Ciszek
In article <5nvdf5tnmj5qbeof2...@4ax.com>,
Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:19:00 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
><dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>In <epudf51sn246mn6kg...@4ax.com> Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>Have fun kidlets:
>>
>>>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>>
>>31 out of 33. But I'll disagree with their language and choices in 33.
Question 33 is fundamentally a mathematical question:
"If T = S, then T/P = S/P"
I found it kind of pointless on a civics quiz--the answer is true,
but not particularly useful.
>I thought there were a couple, three questions that were worded pretty
>badly.
I thought the question about "Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas
would concur that..." had no place on an American civics quiz, since
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas were all goddamn furriners.
Without knowing much about philosophy, I was able to eliminate two
of the possibilities because of anachronisms (Christianity, Evolution)
and another two because I figured Aquinas would not have the approval
of the Catholic church if he held those views.
I had real trouble with their language on number 29:
A flood-control levee (or National Defense) is considered a public
good because:
B. a resident can benefit from it without directly paying for it
It is a public good because all residents benefit from it; in fact,
it is a "strong" public good because everyone living in (or even just
visiting in) the floodplain benefits from the existance of the levy
whether they like it or not, whether they believe in government built
levees or not. *They cannot help but benefit from it*. (For values
of "benefit" defined as "not drowning". Anyone who *wants* to drown
need only climb the levee and jump in the river.) How the levee is
paid for, while important to getting the levee built, is irrelevant
to the fact that it is a public good.
That said, I got 33/33. Taking a test in any of the bullshit
subjects (i.e., anything in the arts or humanities) has very
little to do with the truth.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Jon M
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <epudf51sn246mn6kg...@4ax.com> Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>Have fun kidlets:
>
>>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
>31 out of 33. But I'll disagree with their language and choices in 33.
>
>(and it's "unalienable rights", dammmit)
32 out of 33. Question 33 was my stumbling block, too.
Jon M
Peter Boulding
wrote in <483ef5hvpq377lhnr...@4ax.com>:
>>>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>>
>>28 (84.85%). My answers to some of their free enterprise stuff were
>>guesswork.
>You should get a bonus anyway, Mr. RightPond.
Why, thank you, Mrs Leftpond.
Mark Brader
>>>> http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
Paul Ciszek:
> I thought the question about "Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas
> would concur that..." had no place on an American civics quiz...
You've got a point there.
> I had real trouble with their language on number 29:
>
> A flood-control levee (or National Defense) is considered a public
> good because:
> B. a resident can benefit from it without directly paying for it
>
> It is a public good because all residents benefit from it...
Agreed.
> That said, I got 33/33.
So did I.
Not yet pointed out: all the answers offered for #5 are wrong
(the expected answer is only the one that's least wrong).
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "As always, breakfast recapitulated
m...@vex.net phylogeny." -- Spider Robinson
My text in this article is in the public domain.
N Jill Marsh
28, pretty good for a foreigner techie.
nj"too much usenet"m
--
Welcome, stranger, to the humble neighbourhoods.
Shawn Wilson
> Have fun kidlets:
>
> http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
33/33. Of course...
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:09:23 -0500, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Have fun kidlets:
>>
>>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
>28, pretty good for a foreigner techie.
>
>
>nj"too much usenet"m
You get a ferrin bonus, too.
Boron
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:09:23 -0500:
> Have fun kidlets:
>
> http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
> Boron
29/33, not bad for a furriner.
--
Nick Spalding
Ted The Cat
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:52:31 -0500, N Jill Marsh <njma...@storm.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:09:23 -0500, Boron Elgar
> ><boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Have fun kidlets:
>
> >>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
> >28, pretty good for a foreigner techie.
>
> >nj"too much usenet"m
>
> You get a ferrin bonus, too.
32/33. Do I get a bonus for going to public school in Oklahoma?
John Dean
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:09:23 -0500, Boron Elgar
> <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> <epudf51sn246mn6kg...@4ax.com>:
>
>> Have fun kidlets:
>>
>> http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
> 28 (84.85%). My answers to some of their free enterprise stuff were
> guesswork.
29 - 87.88%
Na na nanana
--
John Dean
Oxford
Paul L. Madarasz
wrote, perhaps among other things:
29/33 here too; and in most of the world, I'm a furriner too.
--
Sorry I can't stop and talk now,
I'm in kind of a hurry anyhow,
but I'll send you a tape from California.
Rick B.
> Have fun kidlets:
>
> http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
32/33. Missed on Lincoln-Douglas, which I think I also missed last time we
did something like this.
Opus the Penguin
Superbly done!
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Opus the Penguin
Opus the Penguin
I got 100%. Plus, I got extra credit for some where I was able to
state the answer before consulting the choices. I could have gotten
extra credit for others if I'd read the answers first and picked the
best one without consulting the question. Many of those answers were
simply wrong on this type of test, regardless of the question.
I thought Question 30 was bogus: "Which of the following fiscal
policy combinations would a government most likely follow to
stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe
recession?" It's not answerable from the information given. But I
assumed they meant a government that was following a Keynsian fiscal
policy, so I picked the "right" answer.
Opus the Penguin
> That said, I got 33/33. Taking a test in any of the bullshit
> subjects (i.e., anything in the arts or humanities) has very
> little to do with the truth.
Yeah. If this had been a test about Science, nobody would be
nitpicking!
Robert Crowe
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:09:23 -0500, the alleged Boron Elgar, may have
posted the following, to alt.fan.cecil-adams:
>Have fun kidlets:
>
>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
You answered 33 out of 33 correctly � 100.00 %
But I thought that question 13 was poorly phrased, so I just went
with my "Best Guess".
What do I win?
Regards,
Rob "Breezed through Civics and American History" Crowe
--
+------------------------------------+-----------+
| I don't matter, you don't matter | robcrowe@ |
| Neither does this mindless clatter | gmail.com |
+------------------------------------+-----------+
Boron Elgar
You just lived here too long, is all...
Boron Elgar
Double bonus. And an oil well.
Boron
Bill Kinkaid
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Have fun kidlets:
>
>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
>Boron
28/33. A few of them I wondered about what they were looking for, but
these questions weren't quite as loaded as the questions in the last
quiz we did like this. I got 4, 6, 7, 10 and 33 wrong. And 11 was just
a wildass guess for me.
The average from people taking the quiz during November is 77.75. What
does the month have to do with it? Should November be higher, this
being Election month?
--
Bill in Vancouver
Boron Elgar
Your approach is one I always take with questions or tests of this
kind. There is some native intelligence in knowing the answer off the
bat and just finding it in the list, and when that fails, there is
the logic that is employed to eliminate the obvious wrong answers and
try to head of the correct one at the pass.
Boron
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:09:23 -0500, the alleged Boron Elgar, may have
>posted the following, to alt.fan.cecil-adams:
>
>>Have fun kidlets:
>>
>>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
>
>You answered 33 out of 33 correctly � 100.00 %
>
>But I thought that question 13 was poorly phrased, so I just went
>with my "Best Guess".
>
>What do I win?
>
> Regards,
> Rob "Breezed through Civics and American History" Crowe
Opus has all the points. I'm sure he'll give a big fat splat-worth for
your performance on the test. If not, you need to step up to the plate
with your feelings about herring.
Boron
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Charles
Greg Goss
>Have fun kidlets:
>
>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
32 / 33.
But I got lucky on my guesses. Five or so were guesses, and I only
lost one of them.
--
apart from one noisy guy up in Canada, no-one wants
a three-cylinder tissue box on bicycle tires.
Greg Johnson
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Have fun kidlets:
>
>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
25/33. I'd say "not bad for a foreigner", but when I look at the
scores of all the other non-USAn people here, I'm easily the worst.
Heather
Sob. I only got 27 correct, and a few of those were guesses.
--
Heather
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:52:07 -0500:
Fifteen months, forty-five years ago!
--
Nick Spalding
robert schreuder
> Have fun kidlets:
>
> http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
> Boron
27/33 (difficult! esp. the citations - but some questions are
anycivilizedcountrycivicliteracy)
--
robert schreuder
Boron Elgar
wrote:
You live at a greater distance, so you get spotted a few points.
Boron
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>Boron Elgar wrote, in <9doef55h6i2h60e56...@4ax.com>
> on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:52:07 -0500:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:06:16 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Boron Elgar wrote, in <epudf51sn246mn6kg...@4ax.com>
>> > on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:09:23 -0500:
>> >
>> >> Have fun kidlets:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>> >>
>> >> Boron
>> >
>> >29/33, not bad for a furriner.
>>
>> You just lived here too long, is all...
>
>Fifteen months, forty-five years ago!
The American experience is like a bad penny.
Boron
David J. Martin
I fully expected to get a 30, so I was pleasantly surprised to see
33/33. As has been mentioned, some of the questions are worded in an
odd manner, so I wasn't sure I had the right answer.
David
M C Hamster
wrote:
31. And yeah, we did this a year or two ago.
--
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Peter Ward
>
> On 8 Nov 2009 23:26:08 GMT, "Rick B." <deep...@sprynet.com.aq>
> wrote:
>
> >Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >news:epudf51sn246mn6kg...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> Have fun kidlets:
> >>
> >> http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
> >
> >32/33. Missed on Lincoln-Douglas, which I think I also missed last time we
> >did something like this.
>
> 31. And yeah, we did this a year or two ago.
27. Yes, we did, didn't we, I think I got the same score last time (I
never learn). And it's still got the economics questions which have
nothing to do with its supposed subject.
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
I think I'm going to need some grant money and beautiful lab assistants.
- Glenn D.
plausible prose man
> On 8 Nov 2009 23:26:08 GMT, "Rick B." <deepst...@sprynet.com.aq>
> wrote:
>
> >Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >news:epudf51sn246mn6kg...@4ax.com:
>
> >> Have fun kidlets:
>
> >>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
> >32/33. Missed on Lincoln-Douglas, which I think I also missed last time we
> >did something like this.
>
> 31. And yeah, we did this a year or two ago.
Just about one year, to the day. And I missed the same question then,
too.
plausible prose man
> > >news:epudf51sn246mn6kg...@4ax.com:
>
> > >> Have fun kidlets:
>
> > >>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
> > >32/33. Missed on Lincoln-Douglas, which I think I also missed last time we
> > >did something like this.
>
> > 31. And yeah, we did this a year or two ago.
>
> 27. Yes, we did, didn't we, I think I got the same score last time (I
> never learn). And it's still got the economics questions which have
> nothing to do with its supposed subject.
A civics class in America would likely contain some exegesis and
apologia for the soft fascism that is the basis of OECD type national
economies.
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
> Boron Elgar (boron...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Have fun kidlets:
>>
>> http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>>
>> Boron
>>
>
> I got 100%.
Me too.
> I thought Question 30 was bogus: "Which of the following fiscal
> policy combinations would a government most likely follow to
> stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe
> recession?" It's not answerable from the information given.
Sure it is.
> But I
> assumed they meant a government that was following a Keynsian fiscal
> policy, so I picked the "right" answer.
Is it possible to follow the practices given in the correct answer
without being Keynesian? Or is it just tautological?
And is it not "most likely" that the government will follow "Keynesian
policy" in such a situation? If not, do you think the question was
asking about the foreseeable future of our government, or some distant
future government controlled by feral cats and time-traveling cyborgs?
Xho
plausible prose man
wrote:
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
> > Boron Elgar (boron_el...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
> >> Have fun kidlets:
>
> >>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
> >> Boron
>
> > I got 100%.
>
> Me too.
>
> > I thought Question 30 was bogus: "Which of the following fiscal
> > policy combinations would a government most likely follow to
> > stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe
> > recession?" It's not answerable from the information given.
>
> Sure it is.
Where am I going wrong on No. 33?
> > But I
> > assumed they meant a government that was following a Keynsian fiscal
> > policy, so I picked the "right" answer.
>
> Is it possible to follow the practices given in the correct answer
> without being Keynesian? Or is it just tautological?
Bill and Rich and sometimes Dave, they seem to have a bit of trouble
with the Gricean maxims.
>
> And is it not "most likely" that the government will follow "Keynesian
> policy" in such a situation?
Anyway, the spending part...taxes, who knows? I haven't noticed any
tax thing with the latest round of stimulus, but perhaps not raising
taxes as wouldn't be irresponsible if there wasn't a recession on
would be like cutting them.
> If not, do you think the question was
> asking about the foreseeable future of our government, or some distant
> future government controlled by feral cats and time-traveling cyborgs?
First person to finish "and I for one welcome our new..." is a fag! no
give backs!
Opus the Penguin
>> policy combinations would a government most likely follow to
>> stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe
>> recession?" It's not answerable from the information given.
>
> Sure it is.
>
>> But I
>> assumed they meant a government that was following a Keynsian
>> fiscal policy, so I picked the "right" answer.
>
> Is it possible to follow the practices given in the correct answer
> without being Keynesian? Or is it just tautological?
>
Yes.
> And is it not "most likely" that the government will follow
> "Keynesian policy" in such a situation?
Which government? We are asked about "a government". So which single
policy combination would Josef Stalin, Franz Joseph I, Qin Shi Huang,
Caligula, Montezuma, Charlemagne, George III, and Grover Cleveland
all follow?
Even stipulating the current US government, I'd hesitate to call any
of the choices "most likely". We certainly didn't follow Keysian
policy during the boom.
--
Opus the Penguin
Opus the Penguin
> M C Hamster <davol...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> "Rick B." <deepst...@sprynet.com.aq> wrote:
>>
>> >> Have fun kidlets:
>>
>> >>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>>
>> >32/33. Missed on Lincoln-Douglas, which I think I also missed
>> >last time we did something like this.
>>
>> 31. �And yeah, we did this a year or two ago. �
>
> Just about one year, to the day. And I missed the same question
> then, too.
>
>
Can you provide a link to the thread? I thought it was a different
quiz last time.
plausible prose man
wrote:
> plausible prose man (Georgefha...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > M C Hamster <davol...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >> "Rick B." <deepst...@sprynet.com.aq> wrote:
> >> >Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote in:
>
> >> >> Have fun kidlets:
>
> >> >>http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
>
> >> >32/33. Missed on Lincoln-Douglas, which I think I also missed
> >> >last time we did something like this.
>
> >> 31. And yeah, we did this a year or two ago.
>
> > Just about one year, to the day. And I missed the same question
> > then, too.
>
> Can you provide a link to the thread?
Search Google groups for "civic literacy test."
plausible prose man
wrote:
> Xho Jingleheimerschmidt (xhos...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > Opus the Penguin wrote:
>
> >> I thought Question 30 was bogus: "Which of the following fiscal
> >> policy combinations would a government most likely follow to
> >> stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe
> >> recession?" It's not answerable from the information given.
>
> > Sure it is.
>
> >> But I
> >> assumed they meant a government that was following a Keynsian
> >> fiscal policy, so I picked the "right" answer.
>
> > Is it possible to follow the practices given in the correct answer
> > without being Keynesian? Or is it just tautological?
>
> Yes.
>
> > And is it not "most likely" that the government will follow
> > "Keynesian policy" in such a situation?
>
> Which government?
Well, probably ours, huh? Given it is a US civics literacy test.
>We are asked about "a government".
No.
>So which single
> policy combination would Josef Stalin, Franz Joseph I, Qin Shi Huang,
> Caligula, Montezuma, Charlemagne, George III, and Grover Cleveland
> all follow?
Do you and Rich come up with this stuff ahead of time, or are you
really just bent that way?
> Even stipulating the current US government, I'd hesitate to call any
> of the choices "most likely".
What?
> We certainly didn't follow Keysian
> policy during the boom.
I am very confident you can't tell me what "Keysian [sic] policy"
instructs us to do during a boom, certainly not without looking, and
even if you can, well, that wouldn't help you answer the question, now
would it?
" Which of the following fiscal policy combinations would a government
most likely follow to stimulate economic activity when the economy is
in a severe recession?"
"...stimulate economic activity" and "...is in a severe recession."
Opus the Penguin
>
>> We certainly didn't follow Keysian
>> policy during the boom.
>
> I am very confident you can't tell me what "Keysian [sic]
> policy" instructs us to do during a boom,
Increase taxes. Possibly decrease spending as well.
> certainly not without looking,
> and even if you can, well, that wouldn't help you answer the
> question, now would it?
It indicates that our government does not follow a strict Keynsian
policy, so that model may not have predictive power.
Mac
+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> plausible prose man (Georgefha...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> We certainly didn't follow Keysian
> >> policy during the boom.
>
> > I am very confident you can't tell me what "Keysian [sic]
> > policy" instructs us to do during a boom,
>
> Increase taxes. Possibly decrease spending as well.
>
> > certainly not without looking,
> > and even if you can, well, that wouldn't help you answer the
> > question, now would it?
>
> It indicates that our government does not follow a strict Keynsian
> policy, so that model may not have predictive power.
This is wrong on so many levels. First,
"Which of the following fiscal policy combinations would a government
most likely follow to stimulate economic activity when the economy is
in a severe recession?"
implies rather strongly that we are talking about a government that's
at least a part-time Keynsian. If the government were laissez-faire,
the the choices of
A. increasing both taxes and spending
B. increasing taxes and decreasing spending
C. decreasing taxes and increasing spending
D. decreasing both taxes and spending
would be completely irrelevant. The question is only meaningful if
you assume that the government actually wants to "stimulate economic
activity."
Next, some variety of part-time Keynsianism, or, for local
governments, Naisnyek economics...you know, kinda like keynsian, but
backwards, are almost universally honored in paractice or breach by
every government that has any control of the money supply.
Finally, showing that something (or someone) doesn't "strictly" follow
some policy or discipline isn't all that useful for deciding whether
they follow any particular one. If we take as a given that
governments, like voters are gonna be a little bit lazy and
shortsighted, it gets real obvious which parts of John Maynard's ideas
they'd follow, and which ones they'd give a pass. (That's the real
trouble with Keynsianism, pace the EconoMonkey. It requires variable
behaviors, and most pols only like the ones that let them do stuff, as
opposed to the ones that tell them not to.)
Opus the Penguin
> On Nov 10, 12:34�am, Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin
> +use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> plausible prose man (Georgefha...@aol.com) wrote:
>>
>> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> We certainly didn't follow Keysian
>> >> policy during the boom.
>>
>> > � I am very confident you can't tell me what "Keysian [sic]
>> > � policy" instructs us to do during a boom,
>>
>> Increase taxes. Possibly decrease spending as well.
>>
>> > certainly not without looking,
>> > and even if you can, well, that wouldn't help you answer the
>> > question, now would it?
>>
>> It indicates that our government does not follow a strict
>> Keynsian policy, so that model may not have predictive power.
>
> This is wrong on so many levels. First,
>
Ok, let's see how you do.
> "Which of the following fiscal policy combinations would a
> government most likely follow to stimulate economic activity when
> the economy is in a severe recession?"
>
> implies rather strongly that we are talking about a government
> that's at least a part-time Keynsian.
Why is that? And which part of the time?
> If the government were
> laissez-faire, the the choices of
>
> A. increasing both taxes and spending
> B. increasing taxes and decreasing spending
> C. decreasing taxes and increasing spending
> D. decreasing both taxes and spending
>
> would be completely irrelevant.
Indeed. But laissez-faire and Keynsian are not the only two options.
> The question is only meaningful
> if you assume that the government actually wants to "stimulate
> economic activity."
>
Yes. And apparently you think the only theory that a government might
apply to this task is the Keynsian one.
> Next, some variety of part-time Keynsianism, or, for local
> governments, Naisnyek economics...you know, kinda like keynsian,
> but backwards, are almost universally honored in paractice or
> breach by every government that has any control of the money
> supply.
>
Interesting. That rather confirms what I'm saying.
> Finally, showing that something (or someone) doesn't "strictly"
> follow some policy or discipline isn't all that useful for
> deciding whether they follow any particular one. If we take as a
> given that governments, like voters are gonna be a little bit lazy
> and shortsighted, it gets real obvious which parts of John
> Maynard's ideas they'd follow, and which ones they'd give a pass.
I agree with that.
> (That's the real trouble with Keynsianism, pace the EconoMonkey.
> It requires variable behaviors, and most pols only like the ones
> that let them do stuff, as opposed to the ones that tell them not
> to.)
>
I think you forgot the part where you showed how what I was saying
was "wrong on so many levels". Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was
saying. But your reply confirmed my point in the instance noted and
didn't seem relevant in the other.
Mac
wrote:
> Mac (ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU) wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 12:34 am, Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin
> > +use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> plausible prose man (Georgefha...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> >> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> We certainly didn't follow Keysian
> >> >> policy during the boom.
>
> >> > I am very confident you can't tell me what "Keysian [sic]
> >> > policy" instructs us to do during a boom,
>
> >> Increase taxes. Possibly decrease spending as well.
>
> >> > certainly not without looking,
> >> > and even if you can, well, that wouldn't help you answer the
> >> > question, now would it?
>
> >> It indicates that our government does not follow a strict
> >> Keynsian policy, so that model may not have predictive power.
>
> > This is wrong on so many levels. First,
>
> Ok, let's see how you do.
>
> > "Which of the following fiscal policy combinations would a
> > government most likely follow to stimulate economic activity when
> > the economy is in a severe recession?"
>
> > implies rather strongly that we are talking about a government
> > that's at least a part-time Keynsian.
>
> Why is that?
Because one part is easy, and largely popular. That's the part about
spending money you don't have during a bust. The other is difficult,
and unpopular. That's the part about getting it back in boom, and
restraining the economy just as the usual yahoos are claiming that
prosperity eternal is at hand.
>And which part of the time?
I assume the mental debilitation hasn't progressed this far.
> > If the government were
> > laissez-faire, the the choices of
>
> > A. increasing both taxes and spending
> > B. increasing taxes and decreasing spending
> > C. decreasing taxes and increasing spending
> > D. decreasing both taxes and spending
>
> > would be completely irrelevant.
>
> Indeed. But laissez-faire and Keynsian are not the only two options.
Name another one -different in actual practice, as opposed to name-
(Hint: Reagan seemed to like the spend-what-you-don't-have side rather
well), that is given serious consideration now, or has been in the
last 70 years, or is likely to be in the next 8 or 10. Note that the
initial terms were broad-brush, so quibble, cavil, and nuance don't
really count.
> > The question is only meaningful
> > if you assume that the government actually wants to "stimulate
> > economic activity."
>
> Yes. And apparently you think the only theory that a government might
> apply to this task is the Keynsian one.
Show a meaningful distinction in spending patterns (not the dreams and
folklore about how it would be paid back) in the last 70 years, or
likely in the next 8 or 10.
> > Next, some variety of part-time Keynsianism, or, for local
> > governments, Naisnyek economics...you know, kinda like keynsian,
> > but backwards, are almost universally honored in paractice or
> > breach by every government that has any control of the money
> > supply.
>
> Interesting. That rather confirms what I'm saying.
To you. Just as Mr. Friedman seemed rather proud of his ability to
explain how Kipling out-browned Browning.
> > Finally, showing that something (or someone) doesn't "strictly"
> > follow some policy or discipline isn't all that useful for
> > deciding whether they follow any particular one. If we take as a
> > given that governments, like voters are gonna be a little bit lazy
> > and shortsighted, it gets real obvious which parts of John
> > Maynard's ideas they'd follow, and which ones they'd give a pass.
> I agree with that.
Yet you just got through asking, just a few lines up, "Why is that?"
Maybe that trip to Mexico is in order. It certainly couldn't hurt.
> > (That's the real trouble with Keynsianism, pace the EconoMonkey.
> > It requires variable behaviors, and most pols only like the ones
> > that let them do stuff, as opposed to the ones that tell them not
> > to.)
>
> I think you forgot the part where you showed how what I was saying
> was "wrong on so many levels". Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was
> saying. But your reply confirmed my point in the instance noted and
> didn't seem relevant in the other.
Given a basic knowledge about how the US federal government has
behaved over the past 50 years, and how it seems likely to behave over
the next 8 or 10, and the context provided by the different possible
answers, it was blindingly obvious what answer was expected, and
why . Except to you, Bald One. Why is that?
> Opus the Penguin
Breathed should sue.
> The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Where's a penguinist when you need one?
Opus the Penguin
I knew what answer they expected. I got it "right".
> and why . Except to you, Bald One. Why is that?
>
Well, for one thing, it's not clear to me that the current
administration is cutting taxes overall.
>> Opus the Penguin
>
> Breathed should sue.
>
Scotland should sue.
>> The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
>
> Where's a penguinist when you need one?
>
>
We lost her years ago. I don't know where she is now.
--
Opus the Penguin
Mac
+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mac (ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU) wrote:
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I think you forgot the part where you showed how what I was
> >> saying was "wrong on so many levels". Perhaps I wasn't clear in
> >> what I was saying. But your reply confirmed my point in the
> >> instance noted and didn't seem relevant in the other.
>
> > Given a basic knowledge about how the US federal government has
> > behaved over the past 50 years, and how it seems likely to behave
> > over the next 8 or 10, and the context provided by the different
> > possible answers, it was blindingly obvious what answer was
> > expected,
>
> I knew what answer they expected. I got it "right".
>
> > and why . Except to you, Bald One. Why is that?
>
> Well, for one thing, it's not clear to me that the current
> administration is cutting taxes overall.
Which has what to do with the question in the quiz?
You had a question that presumed government/central bank intervention,
and a single answer that fit it. Nowhere did I see something saying
that each answer was the only possibility; you could quibble about..I
dunno, at least 20 of the other questions on that level.
Opus the Penguin
> On Nov 10, 10:23�am, Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin
> +use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mac (ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU) wrote:
>> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I think you forgot the part where you showed how what I was
>> >> saying was "wrong on so many levels". Perhaps I wasn't clear
>> >> in what I was saying. But your reply confirmed my point in the
>> >> instance noted and didn't seem relevant in the other.
>>
>> > Given a basic knowledge about how the US federal government has
>> > behaved over the past 50 years, and how it seems likely to
>> > behave over the next 8 or 10, and the context provided by the
>> > different possible answers, it was blindingly obvious what
>> > answer was expected,
>>
>> I knew what answer they expected. I got it "right".
>>
>> > and why . �Except to you, Bald One. �Why is that?
>>
>> Well, for one thing, it's not clear to me that the current
>> administration is cutting taxes overall.
>
> Which has what to do with the question in the quiz?
>
We're in a recession. You believe we would typically expect the
government to increase spending (which they have) and cut taxes
(which it isn't clear they've done).
> You had a question that presumed government/central bank
> intervention, and a single answer that fit it. Nowhere did I see
> something saying that each answer was the only possibility; you
> could quibble about..I dunno, at least 20 of the other questions
> on that level.
>
If this government isn't doing what the answer says is "most
likely," then it's reasonable to question just how likely the action
is. How many previous severe recessions can you name that have been
attacked in the manner outlined by the "right" answer? What is your
reason for expecting that future governments will return to the
course that you and the question writers believe is "most likely"?
plausible prose man
wrote:
> plausible prose man (Georgefha...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> We certainly didn't follow Keysian
> >> policy during the boom.
>
> > I am very confident you can't tell me what "Keysian [sic]
> > policy" instructs us to do during a boom,
>
> Increase taxes.
Kind of a crude tool compared to "raise interest rates"; "In one
sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, nobody is any longer a
Keynesian."
> Possibly decrease spending as well.
Uh huh.
> > certainly not without looking,
> > and even if you can, well, that wouldn't help you answer the
> > question, now would it?
>
> It indicates that our government does not follow a strict Keynsian
> policy,
Yes, well...if I told you I was on a low-carb diet, only without the
low-carb part, I bet you can predict what I'm eating throughout the
week.
> so that model may not have predictive power.
Yes, well...I don't agree with you; you always want to load a lot of
unstated information into these premises, and then argue against that
version. "Who are people who've never been in my kitchen" isn't the
answer they're looking for, Cliff.
Opus the Penguin
>
>> > Next, some variety of part-time Keynsianism, or, for local
>> > governments, Naisnyek economics...you know, kinda like
>> > keynsian, but backwards, are almost universally honored in
>> > paractice or breach by every government that has any control of
>> > the money supply.
>>
>> Interesting. That rather confirms what I'm saying.
>
> To you.
If I follow you, there are four options
1. Keynsianism Honored in practice
2. Naisnyek Honored in practice
3. Keynsianism Honored in breach
4. Naisnyek Honored in breach
I'm not quite sure what that entails in your mind. Would it be fair
to say that only option 1 will lower taxes and raise spending in a
severe recession?
--
Opus the Penguin
Mac
wrote:
> Mac (ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU) wrote:
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mac (ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU) wrote:
>
> >> > Next, some variety of part-time Keynsianism, or, for local
> >> > governments, Naisnyek economics...you know, kinda like
> >> > keynsian, but backwards, are almost universally honored in
> >> > paractice or breach by every government that has any control of
> >> > the money supply.
>
> >> Interesting. That rather confirms what I'm saying.
>
> > To you.
>
> If I follow you, there are four options
Nahhh. Simple parallelism. The economy turns down, big governments
with tied central banks, or other influence over the money supply, pay
at least token homage to John Maynard. So do some large, or
comfortable private institutions and individuals. (Warren Buffet is
buying the BNSF now, because it's cheap.)
At the same time, the ones who have been living at or beyond the edge
of their income -which includes a depressing amount of state and local
government- pull in their horns, and add to the financial route. I
only mentioned that in passing because it is interesting to me how
much smaller government bodies, and agencies within government,
contribute to the financial slosh, overspending when the money is
coming in, and dropping it right when it would be useful.
> 1. Keynsianism Honored in practice
> 2. Naisnyek Honored in practice
> 3. Keynsianism Honored in breach
> 4. Naisnyek Honored in breach
>
> I'm not quite sure what that entails in your mind.
In my mind, nothing; it isn't my construction, although I can see
where you got it. It was an aside, about how not all government is in
lockstep on stimulus spending, with many government agencies the worst
offenders at spending too much in boom and too little in bust.
>Would it be fair
> to say that only option 1 will lower taxes and raise spending in a
> severe recession?
To the extent that we are all Keynesian now (sorta), that does seem to
be what national governments do, pretend to do, or explain why they
ain't doing, although "lower taxes" might be better said as "loosen
the money supply somehow."
Jesper Lauridsen
> Have fun kidlets:
>
> http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
28/33. Got 4, 7, 8, 12 and 15 wrong.
I wonder why they singled out "college educators" as a group in
the preface - especially when you can't choose that in the demographics
questions at the end.
Opus the Penguin
Fair enough. I agree. That's why I thought the question wasn't
answerable. I wasn't prepared to stipulate that the "do" column was
likely to outweigh the "pretend to do" and the "explain why they ain't
doing" columns. It would be interesting to know the statistics, but I
suspect the sample size isn't terribly large.
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
>
> Even stipulating the current US government, I'd hesitate to call any
> of the choices "most likely". We certainly didn't follow Keysian
> policy during the boom.
If the question was about whether the government was likely to follow
Keynesian policy during a boom, it would have been much harder to
answer. But that wasn't the question.
Xho
bill van
Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mac (ANMC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU) wrote:
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mac (ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU) wrote:
> >
> >> > Next, some variety of part-time Keynsianism, or, for local
> >> > governments, Naisnyek economics...you know, kinda like
> >> > keynsian, but backwards, are almost universally honored in
> >> > paractice or breach by every government that has any control of
> >> > the money supply.
> >>
> >> Interesting. That rather confirms what I'm saying.
> >
> > To you.
>
> If I follow you, there are four options
>
> 1. Keynsianism Honored in practice
> 2. Naisnyek Honored in practice
> 3. Keynsianism Honored in breach
> 4. Naisnyek Honored in breach
5. Keynesianism Honored with correct spelling.
Opus the Penguin
That's true. The question was about a severe recession. Do you believe
our current government is following the policy outlined in the
"correct" answer?
plausible prose man
wrote:
> Xho Jingleheimerschmidt (xhos...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > Opus the Penguin wrote:
>
> >> Even stipulating the current US government, I'd hesitate to call
> >> any of the choices "most likely". We certainly didn't follow
> >> Keysian policy during the boom.
>
> > If the question was about whether the government was likely to
> > follow Keynesian policy during a boom, it would have been much
> > harder to answer. But that wasn't the question.
>
> That's true. The question was about a severe recession. Do you believe
> our current government is following the policy outlined in the
> "correct" answer?
Obviously, the government is spending more. I suppose you could call
the tax rebates we've gotten the last couple years "cuts," since the
effect is more or less the same, but otherwise tax cuts are seen as
impolitic given that's what the GOP did during the last major
recession. I would also note, since Obama campaigned on raising taxes,
albiet in a way the "average" american wouldn't feel, but hasn't done
it so far, well, that's almost like a tax cut, isn't it?
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
> Xho Jingleheimerschmidt (xho...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> If the question was about whether the government was likely to
>> follow Keynesian policy during a boom, it would have been much
>> harder to answer. But that wasn't the question.
>>
>
> That's true. The question was about a severe recession. Do you believe
> our current government is following the policy outlined in the
> "correct" answer?
Yep. Much of the tax decreases have been automatic (less income tax and
capital gains tax because less income and capital gains), but there has
also been a butt-load of rebates that, I think, go through the tax
system (or doesn't that count? Where is the cutoff? If it is
refundable it is not a tax decrease, just a hand-out administered
through the tax system?). There have been threats of letting the Bush
tax cuts expire and adding a millionaire tax in the health bill, but so
far as I know they are just threats and none have yet been implemented.
Xho