Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:
The interpretation is in the reading, obviously. You did it poorly, I did not.

Still no indictment of hedonic regression. Nice try.

"indictment
noun
1. an act of indicting.
2. Law . a formal accusation initiating a criminal case, presented by a grand jury and usually required for felonies and other serious crimes.
3. any charge, accusation, serious criticism, or cause for blame.
4. the state of being indicted. " - Websters dictionary (highlight and italics mine)


The dictionary would appear to disagree with you. Since his entire statement would appear to be an example of #3, as he rather bluntly observes that if a person were to do it it would be a flat out crime, and the government is misusing it to create a fraudulent illusion of lower inflation.

dogma wrote:
No it didn't, read the graph. Obviously 1979 dollars will zero out in 1979 anyone who has passed high school math will know that.

Um, no, since it didn't cost zero dollars in 1979. The real price and adjusted price will converge, but none of them will zero out, since that's a graph depicting price fluctuations. I suspect you're simply trolling at this point.

BaronIveagh wrote:The dictionary would appear to disagree with you. Since his entire statement would appear to be an example of #3, as he rather bluntly observes that if a person were to do it it would be a flat out crime, and the government is misusing it to create a fraudulent illusion of lower inflation.

So now your having to go with extremely broad interpretations as well as mixing technical and laymen use to feel like you are winning an argument? I mean, if that makes you feel better go for it, but it isn't very sound.

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:If a guy that got his PhD after 10 years, in Vermont, is the best you can do; then I'm not worried.

Unless it's either Ben or Jerry.

Meh. Professors Ben and Jerry are over rated. Pofessor Blue Bell however is da bomb. Strangely enough, I don't think cows really do think Brenham is heaven as there were a bunch out on the road in front of the main turn off the other day. Apparently they were making a break for the freedom train, with the fuzz in hot pursuit.

Ahtman wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:The dictionary would appear to disagree with you. Since his entire statement would appear to be an example of #3, as he rather bluntly observes that if a person were to do it it would be a flat out crime, and the government is misusing it to create a fraudulent illusion of lower inflation.

So now your having to go with extremely broad interpretations as well as mixing technical and laymen use to feel like you are winning an argument? I mean, if that makes you feel better go for it, but it isn't very sound.

How is it a broad interpretation to point out that dogma claiming something is not an indictment, when it is the dictionary definition of what an indictment is?

It's like holding up a dachshund and claiming it's a goldfish, then having some other person claim you are using a broad definition of what a fish is when you call him out on it.

Normally I'd have given up by now and just let the thread drop, but being called a liar (inaccurately) by dogma is a good way to get me to stay for the brawl.

BaronIveagh wrote:
How is it a broad interpretation to point out that dogma claiming something is not an indictment, when it is the dictionary definition of what an indictment is?

It's like holding up a dachshund and claiming it's a goldfish, then having some other person claim you are using a broad definition of what a fish is when you call him out on it.

Normally I'd have given up by now and just let the thread drop, but being called a liar (inaccurately) by dogma is a good way to get me to stay for the brawl.

The quote is an indictment, but not of hedonic regression. Its an indictment of government policy, which is not the same thing as hedonic regression.

dogma wrote:
The quote is an indictment, but not of hedonic regression. Its an indictment of government policy, which is not the same thing as hedonic regression.

I never said that hedonic regression itself was the problem, it was that the government used to it produce a misleading figure that did not accurately represent the reality of the situation and that because of this the governments released numbers were not useful in producing a realistic measure of inflation. I'll add that this is most particularly evident when you try and take housing and medicine into account. While the CPI does, after a fashion, try to take housing into account, it's misleading at best and failing to account for medical costs is absurd at this point as the number of senior citizens is growing rapidly relative to the rest of the population.

Even with a fixed value adjusted for inflation at the government's number, gasoline is rising in price.



And if you don't think that oil companies try to control policy, you might check that sudden, massive drop in price and compare it to the dates, since it matches the run up to the US Presidential election in 2008. Drill Baby, Drill.

BaronIveagh wrote:
I never said that hedonic regression itself was the problem, it was that the government used to it produce a misleading figure that did not accurately represent the reality of the situation and that because of this the governments released numbers were not useful in producing a realistic measure of inflation.

1: You didn't differentiate between the two, and actually conflated them at first.

2: You're claiming that a statistical measure that is determined by statistical measures is not accurately measured by statistical measures, which is more than a little ridiculous.

BaronIveagh wrote:
While the CPI does, after a fashion, try to take housing into account, it's misleading at best and failing to account for medical costs is absurd at this point as the number of senior citizens is growing rapidly relative to the rest of the population.

It isn't misleading at all, it does exactly what the methodology describes.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Even with a fixed value adjusted for inflation at the government's number, gasoline is rising in price.

Yeah, when you fix the value to 1979 dollars, and ignore the fact that gasoline has been historically without value due to being useless.

BaronIveagh wrote: if you don't think that oil companies try to control policy, you might check that sudden, massive drop in price and compare it to the dates, since it matches the run up to the US Presidential election in 2008. Drill Baby, Drill.

Is that what I said? It doesn't sound like what I said, maybe you should read more closely.

BaronIveagh wrote:And if you don't think that oil companies try to control policy, you might check that sudden, massive drop in price and compare it to the dates, since it matches the run up to the US Presidential election in 2008. Drill Baby, Drill.

Wait, if oil companies control policy, why would they want to increase oil drilling? When prices are higher, their profits (absolute, if not percentage) increase as well.

Wasn't that why Bush ran up oil prices during his term, so oil companies could get more money?

dogma wrote:
2: You're claiming that a statistical measure that is determined by statistical measures is not accurately measured by statistical measures, which is more than a little ridiculous.

No, I'm claiming the statistics are being cooked so that they work out mathematically but do not really represent the reality of what they're supposed ot be tracking. Sort of like how no motion picture has turned a profit in the last forty years or so on paper, but they keep right on making movies and money is coming from 'somewhere'. The accounting all adds up, but in reality something is wrong with this picture.

dogma wrote:
It isn't misleading at all, it does exactly what the methodology describes.

A methodology which is increasingly obscured so it's hard to say what the methodology is describing at all. By law, it was intended to track the value of the dollar relative to the cost of living (particularly for those working in US Navy Shipyards, but also for the public in general). If it is actually doing any of those things is now something of a mystery.

dogma wrote:
Yeah, when you fix the value to 1979 dollars, and ignore the fact that gasoline has been historically without value due to being useless.

Except the period measured covers 1979 forward. Unless people didn't drive cars in the 1980s.

dogma wrote:
Is that what I said? It doesn't sound like what I said, maybe you should read more closely.

dogma wrote:
If you really believe the bit about dictating foreign policy, then you don't know much about foreign policy.

biccat wrote:
Wait, if oil companies control policy, why would they want to increase oil drilling? When prices are higher, their profits (absolute, if not percentage) increase as well.
Wasn't that why Bush ran up oil prices during his term, so oil companies could get more money?

Increased drilling does not necessarily translate into reduced cost at the pump. (Regardless of what the supporters of drilling in ANWAR claim) What it does do is reduce cost by reducing the shipping costs and removing the need to compete with other nations for crude in the open market, as they're drilling to increase domestic supply.

Bush ran up prices, but indirectly. Due to having two wars running at once, the military demand for fuel skyrocketed, supply and demand kicks in and the price of gas soars. Combined with Hurricane Katrina reducing refinery output in the Gulf Region, the oil companies had a plausible reason to raise prices even further (actual output reduction nationwide, however, was not heavily effected, but prices nationwide increased). When the two primary candidates for President in 2008 became apparent, fuel companies began lowering prices in an attempt to make the price of gas a non-issue for the presidential elections, as high fuel prices would hurt their preferred ticket (McCain/Palin) as Palin had close ties to the industry.

BaronIveagh wrote:
No, I'm claiming the statistics are being cooked so that they work out mathematically but do not really represent the reality of what they're supposed ot be tracking.

You cannot "cook" statistics without flat, and obviously discernible distortions of data or reporting gaps; these do not exist in the government statistics for inflation. Their reported methodologies are exceedingly thorough, and very clearly show why their results came about. The problem here is that you don't know anything about statistics, and are going on the opinions relayed to you by others without the necessary knowledge to criticize them. This is fine if you don't really care about the topic, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Sort of like how no motion picture has turned a profit in the last forty years or so on paper, but they keep right on making movies and money is coming from 'somewhere'. The accounting all adds up, but in reality something is wrong with this picture.

Nothing is wrong with it at all, you simply don't understand the methodology being used. Perhaps if you put real effort into learning how the mathematics work, you wouldn't have to proceed on what seems to be your gut, and a narrative.

BaronIveagh wrote:
A methodology which is increasingly obscured so it's hard to say what the methodology is describing at all.

Yeah, if you don't spend much time looking, and can't interpret anything you find.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Except the period measured covers 1979 forward. Unless people didn't drive cars in the 1980s.

You apparently didn't understand my criticism. The line of comparison is normalized for inflation against 1979 dollars, but the other two lines are raw price data using the dollar value at which the price existed. The graph literally shows nothing beyond the fact that inflation happened, it does not show that the price of gas outpaced inflation.

BaronIveagh wrote:

dogma wrote:
Is that what I said? It doesn't sound like what I said, maybe you should read more closely.

dogma wrote:
If you really believe the bit about dictating foreign policy, then you don't know much about foreign policy.

Interestingly, the words "dictate" and "control" mean different things. You also broadened my comment about oil companies not dictating foreign policy to oil companies not trying to control foreign policy, which is a strawman.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Increased drilling does not necessarily translate into reduced cost at the pump. (Regardless of what the supporters of drilling in ANWAR claim) What it does do is reduce cost by reducing the shipping costs and removing the need to compete with other nations for crude in the open market, as they're drilling to increase domestic supply.

That's not necessarily true. Extraction costs vary significantly by location.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Due to having two wars running at once, the military demand for fuel skyrocketed, supply and demand kicks in and the price of gas soars.

Military demand had very little effect on the oil price, you'll note the price of oil did not increase in a way which was consistent with troop deployment levels. The primary determinants of oil prices are speculation (which is influenced by perceived threats to supply) and actual supply; both of which were affected by the invasion of Iraq among other things (rising global demand being a really big thing).

dogma wrote:
This is fine if you don't really care about the topic, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

No, in all honesty, I really could care less about the subject of inflation, but since you called me a liar, I'm drawing this out a bit until I'm no longer angry about it, and then I'll probably let it drop.

dogma wrote:
Nothing is wrong with it at all, you simply don't understand the methodology being used. Perhaps if you put real effort into learning how the mathematics work, you wouldn't have to proceed on what seems to be your gut, and a narrative.

Actually I understand the methodology in that one quite well. You use a caterer that's a wholly owned subsidiary, to pay them a hideous fee, which goes back into your own pocket, and some carpenters who work for a contractor you own, and you do stuff like that enough, and the movie studio writes it all off as a loss on their taxes despite having had an income of 500 million dollars, and the small businesses you own that support the movie take a small business tax break. It's all very tidy.

If nothing is wrong with it, why is it the guy on the street that's on the losing end?

dogma wrote:
Yeah, if you don't spend much time looking, and can't interpret anything you find.

Yes, actually I did read a few of those, and my 'interpretation' discovered a lot of the usual ass covering and buck passing I found when I was still a government auditor. It took a while, but I eventually found the actual mathematics used buried a text that it would not be immediately apparent that it would be in, and missing from several documents that it probably should have been in.

Although, I did find a wonderful paper by Williams and Greenlees re issues with the weighting system in the CPI-U generating discrepancies and several alternate measures that could be considered. They found none of them to really resolve the issue, but it was an interesting paper none the less.

dogma wrote:
You apparently didn't understand my criticism. The line of comparison is normalized for inflation against 1979 dollars, but the other two lines are raw price data using the dollar value at which the price existed. The graph literally shows nothing beyond the fact that inflation happened, it does not show that the price of gas outpaced inflation.

You might want to look at that bottom line again then. If the price had remained constant relative to inflation, that bottom line would be fairly flat. It's not. It's not as exaggerated as the real price, but it still shows an increase.

dogma wrote:
Interestingly, the words "dictate" and "control" mean different things. You also broadened my comment about oil companies not dictating foreign policy to oil companies not trying to control foreign policy, which is a strawman.

dictate
verb (used with object)
1. to say or read (something) aloud for another person to transcribe or for a machine to record: to dictate some letters to a secretary.
2. to prescribe or lay down authoritatively or peremptorily; command unconditionally.

control
1. to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.

I would suggest that the difference in definition is somewhat fine.

dogma wrote:
Military demand had very little effect on the oil price, you'll note the price of oil did not increase in a way which was consistent with troop deployment levels. The primary determinants of oil prices are speculation (which is influenced by perceived threats to supply) and actual supply; both of which were affected by the invasion of Iraq among other things (rising global demand being a really big thing).

It wouldn't increase or decrease with deployment levels. That's a misconception. The DoD buys up the outputs of refineries in proximity to their zone of operations and adjusts output to match need, or purchasing additional refinery outputs. The price of oil would increase based on an increase or decrease in how many operations entered into exclusive contracts with DoD, not the troop deployment levels, since DoD stockpiles any surplus production at depots.



In 2004 the DoD consumed 144m barrels a day, or roughly the consumption of the nation of Greece, and constitutes the single largest purchaser of oil in the world, according to American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Red Cavaney. I have a hard time imagining that that a 40% increase over peacetime usage by the worlds largest purchaser made no impact on the market.

BaronIveagh wrote:
If nothing is wrong with it, why is it the guy on the street that's on the losing end?

He wasn't smart, or well positioned enough to do anything else?

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, actually I did read a few of those, and my 'interpretation' discovered a lot of the usual ass covering and buck passing I found when I was still a government auditor.

Its called citation, and you generally should keep going past the reading of the first article. In fact, you have to, if you want to understand.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Although, I did find a wonderful paper by Williams and Greenlees re issues with the weighting system in the CPI-U generating discrepancies and several alternate measures that could be considered. They found none of them to really resolve the issue, but it was an interesting paper none the less.

To reiterate: different statistical measures report different things.

BaronIveagh wrote:
You might want to look at that bottom line again then. If the price had remained constant relative to inflation, that bottom line would be fairly flat. It's not. It's not as exaggerated as the real price, but it still shows an increase.

No, it wouldn't. When you adjust price X for dollar value Y you calculate how much X would cost if priced in dollar value Y. This tells you nothing about money supply, average income, etc. It tells you only that X would have cost less (or more) if the dollar was valued as it were when point Y was concurrent.

BaronIveagh wrote:
dictate
verb (used with object)
1. to say or read (something) aloud for another person to transcribe or for a machine to record: to dictate some letters to a secretary.
2. to prescribe or lay down authoritatively or peremptorily; command unconditionally.

control
1. to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.

I would suggest that the difference in definition is somewhat fine.

Sure, but it exists, and given my web persona you might expect me to exercise that difference.

BaronIveagh wrote:
The DoD buys up the outputs of refineries in proximity to their zone of operations and adjusts output to match need, or purchasing additional refinery outputs.The price of oil would increase based on an increase or decrease in how many operations entered into exclusive contracts with DoD, not the troop deployment levels, since DoD stockpiles any surplus production at depots.

And yet the price statistics don't support this claim.

BaronIveagh wrote:
In 2004 the DoD consumed 144m barrels a day, or roughly the consumption of the nation of Greece, and constitutes the single largest purchaser of oil in the world, according to American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Red Cavaney. I have a hard time imagining that that a 40% increase over peacetime usage by the worlds largest purchaser made no impact on the market.

First, no, the US DoD is the single largest government consuming body in the world.

Second:



You ouwld expect it to do up if what you claim is true.

dogma wrote:
Its called citation, and you generally should keep going past the reading of the first article. In fact, you have to, if you want to understand.

No, citation wasn't what I was reffering to, god knows we've all had to do enough of that, though it can be used for ass covering and buck passing (and is in several of these) no, I was referring to how some of them blame everything from the consumer to the data collection personnel to the lag inherent in the system for any and all inaccuracies, contradictions, or anomalies.

and now you're just baiting me since I actually read several of them and you even thoughtfully quote me on one of the later ones right off the bat...

BaronIveagh wrote:
Although, I did find a wonderful paper by Williams and Greenlees re issues with the weighting system in the CPI-U generating discrepancies and several alternate measures that could be considered. They found none of them to really resolve the issue, but it was an interesting paper none the less.

dogma wrote:
To reiterate: different statistical measures report different things.

Yes, we know that, you've said it enough times already, but that was not the point, and you know it. They were looking into alternatives because someone realized there was a problem with the existing system and were seeking a solution to the problem.

dogma wrote:
No, it wouldn't. When you adjust price X for dollar value Y you calculate how much X would cost if priced in dollar value Y. This tells you nothing about money supply, average income, etc. It tells you only that X would have cost less (or more) if the dollar was valued as it were when point Y was concurrent.

It doesn't need to say any of the things you reference to disprove your point. You point, being, at that time, that gas prices have been increasing at or below inflation. If this were true, the bottom line in the diagram would be fairly flat, as the cost of fuel would not fluctuate, or might even decrease, relative to that fixed dollar rate. It does not. What it does say is the cost of gas increased using that fixed value, meaning that the rate of increase and decrease would have had to have been greater then the rate of inflation.

dogma wrote:
And yet the price statistics don't support this claim.

"DESC (the Defense Energy Support Center, part of the logistical arm of DoD) typically awards fuel contracts based on the lowest cost to the point of delivery, typically for lengths of one year." - Department of Defense Fuel Spending,
Supply, Acquisition, and Policy, Anthony Andrews, Congressional Research Service

dogma wrote:
First, no, the US DoD is the single largest government consuming body in the world.

Second:



You would expect it to do up if what you claim is true.

"...DESC’s purchases, however, do not necessarily correspond with DOD’s actual consumption. DESC may draw fuel down from storage to supplement demand and may replenish fuel stores with purchases. DOD also maintains a fuel “war reserve” that it may draw down in contingencies."
"DESC’s total fuel purchases peaked at 145.1 million barrels in FY2003, when U.S. forces invaded Iraq." - Department of Defense Fuel Spending,
Supply, Acquisition, and Policy, Anthony Andrews, Congressional Research Service

What your graph shows is actual consumption, not purchase. Further, if you show how that graph breaks down, the reason for the peak in consumption in 1980's and the drop off in 1991 becomes clear:



1991 saw the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and this led to a reduction in military aviation fuel consumption as part of NATO. As such, a certain amount of it was defrayed by other NATO members, much as during the 1st Gulf War when Saudi Arabia supplied US forces with free fuel.

BaronIveagh wrote:
No, citation wasn't what I was reffering to, god knows we've all had to do enough of that, though it can be used for ass covering and buck passing (and is in several of these) no, I was referring to how some of them blame everything from the consumer to the data collection personnel to the lag inherent in the system for any and all inaccuracies, contradictions, or anomalies.

Yes, because those things cause inaccuracy relative to the data being produced. "Inaccuracy" doesn't mean what it does in general parlance when considering statistics.

BaronIveagh wrote:
and now you're just baiting me since I actually read several of them and you even thoughtfully quote me on one of the later ones right off the bat...

Several isn't enough.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, we know that, you've said it enough times already, but that was not the point, and you know it. They were looking into alternatives because someone realized there was a problem with the existing system and were seeking a solution to the problem.

No, they were looking into alternatives because looking into alternatives is how you remain employed as an academic, or analyst. Its called "publish or perish".

BaronIveagh wrote:
It doesn't need to say any of the things you reference to disprove your point. You point, being, at that time, that gas prices have been increasing at or below inflation. If this were true, the bottom line in the diagram would be fairly flat, as the cost of fuel would not fluctuate, or might even decrease, relative to that fixed dollar rate.

Yes it does because that's how you compare relative cost against inflation.

BaronIveagh wrote:
"DESC (the Defense Energy Support Center, part of the logistical arm of DoD) typically awards fuel contracts based on the lowest cost to the point of delivery, typically for lengths of one year." - Department of Defense Fuel Spending,
Supply, Acquisition, and Policy, Anthony Andrews, Congressional Research Service

Not relevant.

BaronIveagh wrote:
1991 saw the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and this led to a reduction in military aviation fuel consumption as part of NATO. As such, a certain amount of it was defrayed by other NATO members, much as during the 1st Gulf War when Saudi Arabia supplied US forces with free fuel.

And yet, according to you, fuel prices have gone up faster than inflation, and this has been largely driven by military action; which is not supported by any information, or any argument have made.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

dogma wrote:
No, they were looking into alternatives because looking into alternatives is how you remain employed as an academic, or analyst. Its called "publish or perish".

Yes, but in most fields saying that the conclusion is that there is no conclusion other than what everyone already knew (that different formulas yield different results) would not fly. It would be like a physicist publishing a paper that reveals that dropped objects fall to the ground via gravity. Unless he's checking someone else's work or revealing that he's found the Higgs Boson, it wouldn't qualify as 'publishing' unless he happened to be the first to discover gravity.

dogma wrote:
Not relevant.

Really? Because you previously said that the data does not support that being what they do.

dogma wrote:
And yet, according to you, fuel prices have gone up faster than inflation, and this has been largely driven by military action; which is not supported by any information, or any argument have made.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

No, I said it went up due to military demand. Demand is not consumption. Demand is how much they're buying. DoD buys based on two things: how much fuel they think they need in their fuel reserves, and how much they think they're going to actually use. And, further, my statement was that bicat was incorrect in his assertion that the Bush Whitehouse was directly manipulating fuel costs, but rather it was Bush's military actions that were driving the price up (as DoD in response to it's perceived increase in fuel requirements began to purchase increasing amounts of fuel in anticipation of further military action). If you check that price graph again, the price starts to rise late 2001 and continues to rise dramatically all the way to the presidential election in 2008 where it undergoes a sudden drop that may or may not be artificial and then rapidly rises again.

It's remaining high due to a combination of greed and speculation, as well as sensationalist reports of how production will not be able to meet demand in the next year.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, but in most fields saying that the conclusion is that there is no conclusion other than what everyone already knew (that different formulas yield different results) would not fly

No, that's completely wrong, there are literally thousands of pages written on exactly that. Maybe you should reconsider speaking on academia to an academic.

BaronIveagh wrote:
It would be like a physicist publishing a paper that reveals that dropped objects fall to the ground via gravity. Unless he's checking someone else's work or revealing that he's found the Higgs Boson, it wouldn't qualify as 'publishing' unless he happened to be the first to discover gravity.

It qualifies as "publishing" if its in an academic journal.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Really? Because you previously said that the data does not support that being what they do.

Nope, not in that quote.

BaronIveagh wrote:
No, I said it went up due to military demand. Demand is not consumption. Demand is how much they're buying. DoD buys based on two things: how much fuel they think they need in their fuel reserves, and how much they think they're going to actually use.

Yet both price and consumption decreased in line with troop increases.

We can turn it down a bit with regards to tone and general snarkiness please.

Obliged.

dogma wrote:
No, that's completely wrong, there are literally thousands of pages written on exactly that. Maybe you should reconsider speaking on academia to an academic.
...
It qualifies as "publishing" if its in an academic journal.

By that definition Estwing's advertising team would be the number one geologists and paleontologists in the world. Sorry, every field I've ever directly dealt with, to even get through the door at the publication, you had to have some sort of actual discovery or new information to publish or the editors file it in the round file. Granted, as far as academia, mostly I've had to deal with physical sciences, you know, where scientists sweat in the sun instead of smoking cigars all day while pulling in grant money? (Granted, certain branches of chemistry and physics also do that, but I also suspect that it's not a traditional cigar some of them are smoking either...)

dogma wrote:
Yet both price and consumption decreased in line with troop increases.

Really?




The only drop I could find reviewing the average prices was between October of 2008 and Feb-March of 2009. Otherwise it's been heading up. When I get back later, since I have someplace to be and it will take me a bit to dig up the numbers on actual outlay vs deployment levels, I'll take on the other half of your assertion.

BaronIveagh wrote:
By that definition Estwing's advertising team would be the number one geologists and paleontologists in the world. Sorry, every field I've ever directly dealt with, to even get through the door at the publication, you had to have some sort of actual discovery or new information to publish or the editors file it in the round file.

You clearly have never dealt with any academic field in any serious capacity, because you aren't differentiating between academic and popular publications, or good publications and bad publications. No one rates any scholar based on how often he has been published alone. I mean, seriously, Kripke has been published like 30 times, nowhere near half of Chomsky, and yet Kripke is more highly regarded.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Granted, as far as academia, mostly I've had to deal with physical sciences, you know, where scientists sweat in the sun instead of smoking cigars all day while pulling in grant money? (Granted, certain branches of chemistry and physics also do that, but I also suspect that it's not a traditional cigar some of them are smoking either...)

Very few physical scientists sweat in the sun. Chemistry, biology, and physics labs are well air conditioned. The guys that sweat in the sun are anthropologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, and other people who either dig in the dirt or interview people that live their whole lives sweating in the sun.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Really?

Yep, note it actually fell in the aftermath of the surge, when troop levels were at their highest.

BaronIveagh wrote:
The only drop I could find reviewing the average prices was between October of 2008 and Feb-March of 2009. Otherwise it's been heading up. When I get back later, since I have someplace to be and it will take me a bit to dig up the numbers on actual outlay vs deployment levels, I'll take on the other half of your assertion.

But not in concurrence with troop levels.

Wow, you guys just keep going.

rubiksnoob wrote:Wow, you guys just keep going.

dogma wrote:
You clearly have never dealt with any academic field in any serious capacity, because you aren't differentiating between academic and popular publications, or good publications and bad publications. No one rates any scholar based on how often he has been published alone. I mean, seriously, Kripke has been published like 30 times, nowhere near half of Chomsky, and yet Kripke is more highly regarded.

I'm going to stop you there and have you define 'academic' and 'popular' as well as 'good' and 'bad' because no matter what rebuttal I give to that, you'll claim that my response is incorrect. So rather then dance around another verbal trap, I'm going to make you clearly define what you're talking about, and then tear it down.

(Assuming that you're talking about Noam Chomsky and Saul Kripke...)
Their level of regard would depend on the specific subject. Chomsky has published on a much wider spectrum of topics then Kripke has.

dogma wrote:
Very few physical scientists sweat in the sun. Chemistry, biology, and physics labs are well air conditioned. The guys that sweat in the sun are anthropologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, and other people who either dig in the dirt or interview people that live their whole lives sweating in the sun.

... you don't think chemists and biologists sweat in the sun too? Where do you think they get their data from, the sample fairy? (Further, that the disciplines you do name as sweating in the sun don't have air conditioned labs they use when not on site?) I've even seen physicists sweat in the sun once or twice gathering data. Perhaps if you came down from the ivory tower for some field work sometime, you might see things like that.

dogma wrote:
Yep, note it actually fell in the aftermath of the surge, when troop levels were at their highest.

Again, consumption does not equal purchase. You seem to have a hard time with this concept. Further, ground vehicle fuel only makes up approx.10% of the DoD's annual fuel purchases. As to why the price dropped over that specific time frame, my opinion is that it was artificial, but I don't have any hard data on it.

The price hike during the surgw was because of mid east instability. Anytime there is big news in that region oil prices go up. DoD ground vehicles use what % of the DOD fuel supply, the DoD fuel consumption is what % of US fuel consumption, and US fuel consumption is what % or world fuel consumption? In 2008 there were also large increases in fuel consumption in both China, India, and Africa.

The oil companies are better equiped to sell butanol than anybody else. It would not be expensive to alter a refinery to refine butanol instead of crude, but it would be very expensive to attempt to build refinerys from scratch without the skilled workers the oil companies have. In short once butanol is profitable the oil companies will jump on that bandwagon and nobody would be able to compete with them.

Easy to drill easy to refine crude is becoming more and more scarce. The remaining oil we have is either more difficult to drill or more difficult to refine. The oil companies know this, and do care about 1 thing: Their bottom line. If Butanol becomes profitable then it's good for their bottom line, they will jump on board, and then sell the entire idea as green.

schadenfreude wrote:
The oil companies are better equiped to sell butanol than anybody else. It would not be expensive to alter a refinery to refine butanol instead of crude, but it would be very expensive to attempt to build refinerys from scratch without the skilled workers the oil companies have. In short once butanol is profitable the oil companies will jump on that bandwagon and nobody would be able to compete with them.

Easy to drill easy to refine crude is becoming more and more scarce. The remaining oil we have is either more difficult to drill or more difficult to refine. The oil companies know this, and do care about 1 thing: Their bottom line. If Butanol becomes profitable then it's good for their bottom line, they will jump on board, and then sell the entire idea as green.

I agree with you on most of these points. The question is how much actual refining would be required, if the bacteria are producing high grade butanol already or if there is some refining required. (It would obviously need some sort of filtration, regardless) If the answer is that it doesn't actually require a great deal of refining, the oil companies become white elephants, as anyone could do it with the right bacterial culture and a backyard setup. If it's a lot, then, yes, the oil companies make out jumping on it.

schadenfreude wrote:The price hike during the surgw was because of mid east instability. Anytime there is big news in that region oil prices go up. DoD ground vehicles use what % of the DOD fuel supply, the DoD fuel consumption is what % of US fuel consumption, and US fuel consumption is what % or world fuel consumption? In 2008 there were also large increases in fuel consumption in both China, India, and Africa.

It's not so much the hike as the drop Oct 2008 - Feb 2009. Oil has been pretty much been rising since 2001. If treated as a nation, the DoD is the 34th largest consumer of oil in the world, and according to some sources the leading purchaser, as most nations have at least some oil industry that offsets this.