Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: What Would You Do With $5M in Ad Time? [UPDATED]

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-08T06:55:24.750-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、...

2009-09-11T07:48:41.953-04:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

^^ very nice 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵...

2009-03-11T22:50:00.000-04:00

^^ very nice 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵...

2009-03-11T22:49:00.000-04:00

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-15T21:35:00.000-05:00

PeteKent's true colors.PeteKent said (yesterday):"...

2008-08-06T03:49:00.000-04:00

PeteKent's true colors.
PeteKent said (yesterday):

"his conversion to Christianity makes him an Apostate for whom the penalty is death under Sharia law"
.
This is PeteKent at his worst. There is no Obama conversion from Islam to Christianity. There is no person who is both informed and honest who says there was.

clarkejeffrey,True. And thanks for your response a...

2008-08-05T22:03:00.000-04:00

clarkejeffrey,

True. And thanks for your response and input...I didn't have time to lay out the detailed supply, demand, and elasticity argument...we were going back and forth and I glossed over key issues.

Yes, meat demand is different to some degree than other food items and tend not to fare particularly well in a weaker economy. And it is absolutely true that costs aren't able to simply be passed on to consumers...

But, and as I alluded to in my previous rants, producers are adjusting production in respone to the lower prices they are receiving versus their high input costs...they're losing money so they're cutting production...

This will happen to a point that they are making money again...which will come from a combination of things...lower demand for some of those (feed) inputs as the livestock industry in general cuts back should lower grain prices...but ultimately, they will benefit the most when their product (be it chicken, beef, or pork) hits that elasticity point where the price starts ratcheting up very high relative to the production cuts being made...then the market for meat will hit a new equilibrium (as some consumers will not pay such high prices while others do) and that equilibrium will be much higher than it is now because of a supply/demand shift in the industry.

So eventually, those high costs will make it to end consumers through the meat channel...

I'm a commodity analyst...I've got the inside trac...

2008-08-05T21:35:00.000-04:00

I'm a commodity analyst...I've got the inside track on these things.

Hey, I’m a hedge fund manager. I guess only Wall Street guys have the time to post on these boards.

When livestock producers adjust production enough, THEY WILL BE seeing those price hikes that the crops/grains people enjoyed...then you will see who is profitable.

Not entirely true. Yes a rise in input prices does get partially passed onto the consumer. But the producer typically has to eat at least some of the costs as well. If they all got passed on, you would never see companies objecting to their products being taxed. Would you?

Exactly how much of the extra costs get passed on is dependent upon the elasticity of supply and demand. Less technically put, if the price goes up, are people going to buy less of it? Will suppliers make less of it?

Meat is to a certain extent a luxury good. It has a much cheaper replacement available.
People want to buy it but they don’t need to buy it. If the price gets too high, they will buy considerably less. A poor economy would already be putting indirect pressure onto meat demand. The increasing prices have a more direct effect. It can’t be denied that when people have less money and meat cost more, people will substitute veggies and grains for meat at least some of the time.

Elasticity of supply is another issue. Basically, the question is how much of the cost of production is overhead. With too much overhead, there is a big reason to continue to make the product even when the price for the finished good just barely covers your marginal costs. The producers end up eating almost all of the price increase themselves and continuing to operate at a loss.

If anybody is curious about why airlines continue to sell tickets at roughly the same prices that they charged five years ago even with fuel costing four times as much, the answer is elasticity of supply and demand. Rising fuel prices hurt airlines far more than they hurt airline passengers. I know. I’m one of the fools that watched an airline investment lose 95% of its market value over the last year.

I admit that I’m not an expert on the meat industry but I do know that input prices aren’t just directly passed onto the consumer and that while the amount of the impact on producers varies across industries, rising input prices at a time of fairly elastic demand is not good for any industry.

lilnev,And a good point you brought up on the gas ...

2008-08-05T18:14:00.000-04:00

lilnev,

And a good point you brought up on the gas station that few people realize...profit margins at gas stations are slim...and they are many times forced to sell gas at a loss...they just hope they can be competitive enough to not have to do that very often, and they rely on profit margins from in-store items...but people don't cut them much slack either.

lilnev,Agreed. The link was weak to grocery stores...

2008-08-05T18:12:00.000-04:00

lilnev,

Agreed. The link was weak to grocery stores...I was thinking more about their "executives" than the stores themselves...

All the while, trying to make the point that it's not prudent to just run in and slap an "extra" tax on somebody or some thing just because they are in the distribution channel of something vital to our survival - food, fuel, or otherwise...

I agree that grocery stores are a loose comparison except that they are a step along the way in delivering something we need.

Didn't mean to bite anyone's head off, but I hope you all see my point that windfall profit taxes are not necessarily the answer, as there's always somebody somewhere "profiting" off of necessary items.

Make sense now?

Mule Rider,Comparing oil producers to farmers is s...

2008-08-05T18:02:00.000-04:00

Mule Rider,
Comparing oil producers to farmers is somewhat legitimate (though the ripostes that farmers are facing higher input costs, and farming is far more distributed, are legitimate as well). But comparing oil producers to grocery stores is just silly. Grocery stores are not producers of the scarce commodity, they're just a distribution channel. Their mark-up is limited by the competition between grocery stores to be the most efficient distribution channel. The oil equivalent is the gas station owner, who makes the same 2 cents/gallon margin whether the base cost is $1 or $4.

Fabian,You're still at it, huh? I'm still having t...

2008-08-05T17:54:00.000-04:00

Fabian,

You're still at it, huh? I'm still having to apologize for my facetiousness, I guess.....because I really didn't believe in taxing those "96,000" farmers...however, the principle is the same...in that, when any industry is making sensational profits, that shouldn't be an impetus for the government to simply go in and get "extra" taxes.

When I said "only for livestock guys" the position of the wording in that sentence was wrong. My bad. I was so quick to type that I didn't phrase the argument properly...yes, inputs have gone up dramatically for EVERYBODY. But even price increases to grain/crop guys for pesticides, fertilizers, etc. are nothing compared to what they've received for their commodities. Corn zooming past $7/bu, wheat over $8/bu, and soybeans at $13/bu or higher brought those guys significantly higher returns beyond any price increases for inputs or land rental.

When I said "only for livestock guys", I meant they were the only ones who were yet to see prices received exceed their input costs...but IT IS COMING.

You haven't debunked shit. I work for a commodity research and consulting firm. Don't preach to me about "pesticides have gone up" as debunking my argument if that's all you got...I've got access to a full costs and returns outline of the agriculture industry at my disposal, and I know who is and who ain't making money...

You're counterargument to my "lame" retail grocery store argument is baseless and short-sighted. Yes, because of stiff competition, retailers are more likely to absorb costs shocks near term and have a huge chunk of their profits eaten or take a loss until commodity prices calm down...but as the underlying industry adjusts, and so do they...they can't operate at a loss forever...it simply takes the whole thing to work through the system,and eventually they HAVE TO pass along those costs.

It's not stupid. High input costs have been passed to "downstream" farmers (livestock)...and they are being forced to adjust...then, the retailer, who is getting hit on all sides...high meat and grain prices and stingy consumers...is making adjustments as well.

The adjustment hasn't hit retailers yet...but when it does, trust me, they will not be suffering like they are now. I know this. You don't. So shut up.

Mule Rider,I would stop spilling if only your coun...

2008-08-05T17:14:00.000-04:00

Mule Rider,
I would stop spilling if only your counter argument wasn't even greater garbage.
Oh and by the way in econ 101 they only teach you how to take a first derivative, that won't help much.
I am well aware of the fact that 90% of the grains are produced by 10% of the farmers, however that is a stupid counterargument since that is still 96000 people (according to the EPA) compared to 5 big oil companies. See a difference?
"Only for livestock guys"
Are you kidding me? You tell me to do research and then you spill this out? Look up some of the input prices for farmers. Pesticides...
I happen to live in a farm ing state and let me tell you when talking to farmers they can pretty easily debunk your argument.
Your bit about grocery stores is the worst though. Did you actually read my argument? Retailing is a terribly unprofitable business. Higher food prices are not going to lessen competition between the hundreds of different retailers. That's just plain stupid.

honestly, at this point, I really don't see what e...

2008-08-05T17:09:00.000-04:00

honestly, at this point, I really don't see what else Obama can do. He missed the small window of opportunity he had to make offshore drilling another gas tax holiday, and then embraced the opposition plan without any reason whatsoever. Where's his ammunition at this point? He can't go negative during the Olympics, he can't.

McCain's ads will be positive during the Olympics, contrasting the negativity he's been obsessed with. It will cripple Obama given recent polling.

What Obama needs is a new uplifting message complete with something that leaves a sour taste in the mouth of voters who say "McCain" while *NOT* going overtly negative. It's a massive problem that, frankly, I don't see the Obama campaign overcoming until the convention (if then).

Dario,RCP has Obama winning IN and NV. Both are be...

2008-08-05T17:08:00.000-04:00

Dario,

RCP has Obama winning IN and NV. Both are below 50% in Nate's models though so I don't think they would be in Obama's column for the most likely electoral results.

Fabian said: "But farming is a business that is no...

2008-08-05T17:03:00.000-04:00

Fabian said: "But farming is a business that is not dominated by a few multi billion dollar companies but by smaller farmers."

Wrong. Maybe farmers aren't multi-billionaires, but you need to check the stats...go to www.nass.usda.gov. Only the largest 10% or so of farmers are dominating 90% or more of the production/revenues.

"These farmers have seen the cost of it's inputs rise significantly. Land is more expensive, seeds are more expensive..."

Only for livestock guys...yes land is more expensive as are inputs for crops/grain producers, but their price received the last 2 years has far outpaced any input costs...check your sources. Go to www.nass.usda.gov or www.ers.usda.gov or any other site that has farm production costs and returns.

When livestock producers adjust production enough, THEY WILL BE seeing those price hikes that the crops/grains people enjoyed...then you will see who is profitable.

Likewise for grocery chains...as food supplies ease back relative to the growing population, they will be able to pass on much higher prices relative to their costs to wholesalers/farmers/etc.

You will see. This is econ 101.

I was only being facetious anyway about adding a windfall profits tax on these other industries...to make the point that doing so is just as ludicrous for one industry that controls a vital necessity as it is for another.

That is a credible comparison. You need to do research in field of commodities and agriculture before you spill some of your garbage again.

emperor:No-- ironically, not all "registered" vote...

2008-08-05T17:00:00.000-04:00

emperor:
No-- ironically, not all "registered" voters are "likely". It's the reverse. Likely voters are registered voters who have consistently shown they can show up to the polls, so they've voted in years past or are absolutely confident they'll show up this year cause they're so engaged, etc. So it seriously skews away from first time and apolitical voters. The issue that it's "likely" that some voters are being registered to vote between now and the election is a separate matter entirely.

Pete Kent: Whatever both candidates say, the US wi...

2008-08-05T16:57:00.001-04:00

Pete Kent: Whatever both candidates say, the US will inevitably have to increase taxes on the short to medium run. The size of the budget deficit is not sustainable, and will on the medium term not be financeable anymore. Currently, the way out is through the money press (labelled as "providing liquidity to the financial markets"), but that cannot continue forever without devaluating the USD even further. The consequences would be inflation, driven by rising import prices and fuelled by monetary oversupply, followed by rising interest rates (due to inflation, and in order to attract foreign capital to finance the trade deficit). This would lead to further deterioriation of the real estate market, more banks to be bailed out by the FED, and so on and so forth.

So, to me, the question is not, whether taxes will be raised, but which ones will be raised. You are right in saying that excessive profit taxes will be hurting, but that is mostly applying to tax rates above 50-55%. I don't expect any politician to go there. Clearly hurting are labour taxes, including any social security / health care contributions levelled on employers - an instant incentive for reducing employment.

What is generally believed to be the economically most acceptable form of tacation is taxing consumption - in general (VAT / sales tax), or the consumption of certain products like, e.g. tobacco or alcohol.[Without going into details, this only applies to taxing final consumption. Taxing intermediate inputs can be quite a disaster.] The downside to consumption taxes is that they drive inflation, and leave less money in people's pocket, thus potentially increasing poverty.

What does that mean? The next president has to choose between:

(a) raising profit/ income taxes, thus reducing investment incentives and encouraging capital export - problematic when you run a huge trade deficit and need to import capital;

(b) raise VAT/ sales taxes: hurts low-income groups the most, and will increase poverty; or

(c) raise gas tax: hurts the middle class (the poor often don't have a car at all), but stimulates investment, reduces the trade deficit, and makes local products more competitive /higher transport costs on imports).

I would recommend option (c), also as a means to effectively combat climate change.

Unfortunately, the whole issue seems so far not to be discussed at all, by neither of the two candidates. Probably, both assume the electorate will not like the message, and any mention of the need for tax increase will kill the chance or wimning.

We had a similar thing here in Germany in 1994. The Social Democrats stated that taxes needed to be raised to finance the costs of upgrading East Germany's infrastructure, while the Kohl government promised to not raise taxes. Kohl won, raised taxes (income, tobacco and gas tax) mmediately after winning, and lost the next election in a landslide.

So, it may be wise for both candidates to keep low profile on the tax/ budget deficit issue. On the other hand, why do 67% of respondents to the economist/ YouGov poll think that Obama is not saying what he believes in, and 50% think so about McCain? Maybe the American electorate is not so stupid, and at least somehow aware that unpleasant surprises will be coming up after the election ..

Willis,The RealClearPolitics map of the electoral ...

2008-08-05T16:57:00.000-04:00

Willis,

The RealClearPolitics map of the electoral college said Obama takes 322 and McCain 216.
Obama takes OH, NM, CO, MI, IN

Are all RVs considered to be LVs?

2008-08-05T16:56:00.000-04:00

Are all RVs considered to be LVs?

clarkejeffrey,I got ahead of myself...I knew that ...

2008-08-05T16:55:00.000-04:00

clarkejeffrey,

I got ahead of myself...I knew that grocery stores weren't making a killing...but their "executives" are...and people are always trashing the executives at oil companies...anyway, back to me being ahead of myself...

The reason "ranchers" (your livestock guys) and grocery store guys (Safeway, Giant, Kroger, etc.) haven't done well and farmers (crops/grains) and agribusinesses (fertilizer/equipment, etc.) have is that the "upstream" guys have had the price they receive far outpace their costs (of fuel, etc.)

So a guy growing corn or soybeans or a John Deere plant selling a tractor is making the killing...while the livestock producers and grocery stores are not...NOT YET, anyway.

They have radically started adjusting their production due to high input costs...and seeing as their product(s) are every bit as inelastic as the "upstream" inputs of corn and meal feed, etc., once they've cut production enough, prices will skyrocket AND THEY WILL be making a killing...

Then, Mr. clarkejeffrey, what I posit as the "market situation" will come to fruition....

...sorry for not laying out quite as accurately as the current market suggests...but I WILL BE accurate when these things are changed and as prices adjust in 2009 and 2010.

I'm a commodity analyst...I've got the inside track on these things.

Looking at the current RealClearPolitics polls in ...

2008-08-05T16:51:00.000-04:00

Looking at the current RealClearPolitics polls in the average says this RV/LV discrepancy is a huge problem no one knows how to address:

AP-Ipsos 07/31 - 08/04 833 RV 48 42 Obama +6.0
Gallup Tracking 08/02 - 08/04 2674 RV 47 43 Obama +4.0
Rasmussen Tracking 08/02 - 08/04 3000 LV 46 47 McCain +1.0
CNN 07/27 - 07/29 914 RV 51 44 Obama +7.0
USA Today/Gallup 07/25 - 07/27 791 LV 45 49 McCain +4.0
Pew Research 07/23 - 07/27 1241 RV 47 42 Obama +5.0

Only USA Today/Gallup and Rasmussen tracking use LV models and only they show McCain leads. The average Obama lead of registered voters is 5.5 points. McCain's average lead in the likely voter models is 2.5 points.

I know there has been plenty of discussion here before about the meaning of and salience of each. I'd have to make an additional plug for the RV's though-- to hold off assumptions on who's "likely" to vote given that this primary season was fairly unprecedented in turnout and excitement (due to its sheer length and intensity). With the assumption that the registered voters who stampeded the polls in the primaries will be doubly excited about the election that *really* matters, I'd say the RV's have it.

I just looked at the AP poll and it seemed right i...

2008-08-05T16:49:00.000-04:00

I just looked at the AP poll and it seemed right in line with the Gallup RV Poll. Although, AP does not add up their numbers correctly when they do inital and leaners with John McCain and Obama. I beleive inthe RV Poll it should be 46 to 41 for Obama with Barr and Nader. 47 to 43 w/o Barr and NAder.

Again, right in line with Gallup. Still, too many Hispanics in this poll, but as it is a RV Poll I don't think it really matters.

Well, you're right, Higgly, it does not make sense...

2008-08-05T16:47:00.000-04:00

Well, you're right, Higgly, it does not make sense. Of course, "it" refers to pretty much everything you've said in this thread.

But hey, at least it'll stop you from saying that his whole plan is inflating tires. Maybe.

All of my quotes above are from Obama's energy pla...

2008-08-05T16:46:00.000-04:00

All of my quotes above are from Obama's energy plan, with my view on each. Certainly some of my views may have been presented more extremely than others, but I was trying to explain an overall view of why Obama's step by step plan will not work. It does not make sense. Go to his website and read the plan. Its his plan not mine.