email gambit (was fuck the math . . .)
I haven't had so much fun since a bunch of latter-day Anarcho-Pagans called me provocateur and police agent. O.K., O.K. I can see I'm not welcome here. Unless I get positive feedback from other subscribers, Pen-l won't have me to kick it around anymore. *That's* my gambit. I'm not in it for the gratuitous abuse. Roger Odisio wrote, Typical email gambit, I see. Create a strawman position (Max, I, and others aren't merely answering the "arithmetic" question about progressivity, but "seem to be arguing" for some claim of distributive justice), attribute it to others, and whack away. But you've added a novel twist, at least. That strawman you've created is so unworthy, you say, you refuse to talk about it! I can't think of anything further I could possibly want to say on the topic of progressivity, Tom, including in response to whatever it is you can dream up to say about my last two messages. Bye. Tom Walker
Re: email gambit (was fuck the math . . .)
Tom, don't go! Behind the original question I posed about "progressive taxation" was a motive. In preparation for someday attacking the analysis that is going to defend the California de-regulation as a form of "progressive taxation." I wanted to check to see if there was any basis for claiming, as the economists are, that a drop in electric rates was progressive because small users spend more of their income on electricity than do large users, and thus were going to get a more "progressive" impact from the (supposed) future drop in electric rates. I thought that was a ridiculous claim, and still do, but wanted to check about the definition of "progressive taxation" used by mainstream economics. For my purposes, which is to attack a forthcoming report, I've learned that I should attack on the substance of what they are doing rather than on the basis of a single, unequivocal, well-agreed-upon definition of progressivity. It seems to me that a change that widens the dollar gap between money in the hands of the poor and the rich is not "progressive." (By the way, I never suggested that it is bad for the poor to cut their electric rates -- seems as if somebody erroneously inferred that.) I opened my Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis and learned that there are even worse positions available to those who see things differently than I do in this discussion. Nobody has yet brought up the marginal utility of money as a reason for calling such a change progressive. The marginal utility of money for the rich is much lower than for the poor, hence one would have to give them a huge electric rate cut to give them a sum of money than would have the same marginal utility as a small rate cut for the poor. How did we miss getting that argument? There are other bases for attacking the forthcoming study, and I will use those. One thing the authors do is produce forecasts of the increase in electric consumption for various classes of customers, and for the state as a whole. They only produce numbers for rate cuts. I asked them if they were assuming fully reversible preference functions -- which baffled them. They had no idea of the assumptions behind elasticity studies. Surely, I said, consumption wouldn't go back to its original level if any rate cuts were reversed. After a little discussion they replied "We're only looking at rate cuts, not increases." So much for Berkeley Ph.Ds in economics off to another prestige department and looking for publications. Just run regressions and get the grants. Gene Coyle Timework Web wrote: I haven't had so much fun since a bunch of latter-day Anarcho-Pagans called me provocateur and police agent. O.K., O.K. I can see I'm not welcome here. Unless I get positive feedback from other subscribers, Pen-l won't have me to kick it around anymore. *That's* my gambit. I'm not in it for the gratuitous abuse. Roger Odisio wrote, Typical email gambit, I see. Create a strawman position (Max, I, and others aren't merely answering the "arithmetic" question about progressivity, but "seem to be arguing" for some claim of distributive justice), attribute it to others, and whack away. But you've added a novel twist, at least. That strawman you've created is so unworthy, you say, you refuse to talk about it! I can't think of anything further I could possibly want to say on the topic of progressivity, Tom, including in response to whatever it is you can dream up to say about my last two messages. Bye. Tom Walker
Re: email gambit (was fuck the math . . .)
I haven't had so much fun since a bunch of latter-day Anarcho-Pagans called me provocateur and police agent. O.K., O.K. I can see I'm not welcome here. Unless I get positive feedback from other subscribers, Pen-l won't have me to kick it around anymore. *That's* my gambit. I'm not in it for the gratuitous abuse. Roger Odisio wrote, Typical email gambit, I see. Create a strawman position (Max, I, and others aren't merely answering the "arithmetic" question about progressivity, but "seem to be arguing" for some claim of distributive justice), attribute it to others, and whack away. But you've added a novel twist, at least. That strawman you've created is so unworthy, you say, you refuse to talk about it! I can't think of anything further I could possibly want to say on the topic of progressivity, Tom, including in response to whatever it is you can dream up to say about my last two messages. Bye. Tom Walker I'll provide some positive feedback... Brad DeLong
Re: email gambit (was fuck the math . . .)
Our system has been down. I have not been able to follow this thread. The mail I am reading is also out of order, but it seems that Roger is going over the top with Tom. please stop. Timework Web wrote: I haven't had so much fun since a bunch of latter-day Anarcho-Pagans called me provocateur and police agent. O.K., O.K. I can see I'm not welcome here. Unless I get positive feedback from other subscribers, Pen-l won't have me to kick it around anymore. *That's* my gambit. I'm not in it for the gratuitous abuse. Roger Odisio wrote, Typical email gambit, I see. Create a strawman position (Max, I, and others aren't merely answering the "arithmetic" question about progressivity, but "seem to be arguing" for some claim of distributive justice), attribute it to others, and whack away. But you've added a novel twist, at least. That strawman you've created is so unworthy, you say, you refuse to talk about it! I can't think of anything further I could possibly want to say on the topic of progressivity, Tom, including in response to whatever it is you can dream up to say about my last two messages. Bye. Tom Walker -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: email gambit (was fuck the math . . .)
Michael Perelman wrote: Our system has been down. I have not been able to follow this thread. The mail I am reading is also out of order, but it seems that Roger is going over the top with Tom. please stop. Could you please explain what you mean by "it seems that Roger is going over the top with Tom'', Michael, so I could at least try to understand what you are accusing me of, or find objectionable? Particularly since you admit you haven't followed the thread and have only read things out of order. Perhaps I could (gently) suggest that you read the thread in sequence before you reach judgments like this. And then, at least, please make a clear statement of the problem. Seems elementary, doesn't it? Moreover, you don't seem to have noticed that I had already said I had said all I was going to say on the topic. Your asking me to stop was unnecessary. RO
