Comments for Brian T. Schwartz

Comment on Why college costs so much: government financial “aid” is more harm than “aid” by Working during school | Learning Pains

Working during school | Learning Pains — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:44:35 +0000

[...] Why college costs so much: government financial “aid” is more harm than “aid”… (wakalix.wordpress.com) [...]

Comment on How Peyton Manning could increase your income by Brian

Brian — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:53:59 +0000

Hi Ben,

No, the authors of the paper did not study the Broncos’ 2010 & 2011 seasons. It’s a more general study of many teams and seasons. See Table 2 of the paper linked above, & discussions of regression analysis, if you’re interested. I contacted a co-author about how to adjust for inflation. I think there’s a table showing city-by-city data, too, & Denver is included. For all I know the effect was non-existent in Denver, but I didn’t look too closely.

Interesting point about college sports. That is a more direct measurement. Feel free to contact Christian End, the psychologist co-author. I bet he’s read the NY Times article, so I wonder what he said.

From the article, this quote is great: “Big-time sports have become a modern tribal religion for college students.” That, and BIRGing are examples of what I don’t like about college sports. There’s probably some tax-funded stuff I wouldn’t like either, but I’d need to read up on that.

Comment on How Peyton Manning could increase your income by Ben Knowles

Ben Knowles — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:10:41 +0000

hmm… so you’re telling me that these researchers ruled out every other possible reason why denver’s per capita income gain increased in that time period? and it all came back to the broncos? i’m finding that dubious.

there’s also the fact that studies have shown the opposite relation when it comes to college sports: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/education/edlife/how-big-time-sports-ate-college-life.html?pagewanted=all

“‘Here is evidence that suggests that when your football team does well, grades suffer,’ said Dr. Waddell, who compared transcripts of over 29,700 students from 1999 to 2007 against Oregon’s win-loss record. For every three games won, grade-point average for men dropped 0.02, widening the G.P.A. gender gap by 9 percent. Women’s grades didn’t suffer. In a separate survey of 183 students, the success of the Ducks also seemed to cause slacking off: students reported studying less (24 percent of men, 9 percent of women), consuming more alcohol (28 percent, 20 percent) and partying more (47 percent, 28 percent).”

Comment on Economic indicators that best correlate with presidential election results by Mike

Mike — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:41:02 +0000

I note that platform, belief in collectivism vs individual freedom, corruption and other factors appear not to have an effect. Do American voters vote based on how they feel at the moment?

Comment on Economic indicators that best correlate with presidential election results by Stephen Bailey

Stephen Bailey — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:41:20 +0000

I’m glad you mentioned the cooking of the unemployment statistic. Someone should do the research using the labor force participation rate which is much more difficult for the government to manipulate. And, the research should use John Williams’ shadow government statistics unemployment rate as he continues to calculate it the same as it was in 1980. A standard by which something is measured by is relevant only if the standard is sound and not shifting. If the standard for measuring foot size shrinks 30%, that doesn’t mean your foot grew 30%!

Comment on Economic indicators that best correlate with presidential election results by Rock

Rock — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 05:44:48 +0000

Figures lie and liars figure. As long as the numbers that are reported are manipulated by special interests to represent an predetermined opinion, opponents won’t believe them and advocates won’t believe anything else. The artfulness of the propaganda or the lack thereof will have as much if not more influence in the outcome….JMHO

Comment on No compassion in forced giving by Ms Mary Hope

Ms Mary Hope — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:53:03 +0000

From Mary Hope:
I’d love to hear your thoughts on how to deal with ‘aggressive giving’.
I detest people who say they are coming to stay for ‘a few days’ to help clear out a garage, obviously thoroughly enjoying raking through your personal belongings, stay 8 days directing operations and then promise to return to ‘help you do that big cupboard under the stairs’ (or whatever) next time…when they weren’t even invited in the first place.They’ve had free board and food for 8 days, all at your expense.They are invariably people whose children have left home and they need someone to give to whether they have asked for it or not.
Then there those who visit and lavish a totally over the top volume of gifts on you then make demand after demand on you,as if they have bought you but I’m left paying for all the misuse of electricity, water, petrol and food. No gift pays those bills.
M.Hope
mary.hope03@gmail.com

Comment on Technocrats violate our right to buy and sell incandescent light bulbs by lighthouse

lighthouse — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:25:50 +0000

Agree,
and it’s even worse than that.
Overall US energy savings from a ban are a fraction of 1% on US Dept of Energy stats and surveys (http://ceolas.net/#171x).
- yet GE Philips and Osram lobbied for and achieved this US and EU ban as documented on the Ceolas site, just like they achieved a 1000hr lifespan standard before that.
Think: Why do GE and the others welcome a ban on what they are allowed to make?

Comment on Does Boulder’s 4-20 smoke-out denigrate a CU degree? by Cynthia Veal

Cynthia Veal — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:20:56 +0000

Im grateful for the post. Great.

Comment on Jared Polis on U.S. Postal Service: end its “monopolistic protections and special treatment” by Ben Knowles

Ben Knowles — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:21:06 +0000

okay, but the point is that the founders clearly thought there was great utility in having a government-supported service, so much so that they stuck it right up front in our country’s most important founding document. i would think this deserves some reflection as to why that is the case, as opposed to blithely asserting that the whole thing should be ended and replaced with private alternatives. i would also like to see some consideration of what would be lost by such a move, and which communities would be most affected (answer: rural).

on the second point, the phrasing is key, particularly the word “only.” without making it clear that the USPS is unique in this requirement, it seems you are leaving out the context necessary to evaluate it’s financial situation in a fair manner.