<Hawaii's "Energy for tomorrow" The Oil Drum A Thursday Open Thread>

27 comments on Yep, Stuart's right about GSP/Cap...VMT does matter, even multivariately...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Dave Cohen on January 19, 2006 - 5:58am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
From Paula's weblog
I think Stuart has the causation backwards. It isn't driving that makes you poor, its being poor that makes you drive.
And now, PG, you're giving us the "multivariate regression on the data". Sigh. And Stuart's stuff which this follows re: "So, what's the takeaway? Stuart's right: states with higher vmts have lower gsp/cap, even after controlling for education and population density".

What about people? I mean, human beings--they are not statistics or variables like at the University of Chicago (Milton Friedman school of economics)--my alma mater, by the way.

Let's be honest here. Paula's statement (above) is simply correct. Common sense tells us this, not sophisticated modelling and multivariate regressions. This has to do with the real experiences of actual people trying to live their lives. Being poor doesn't mean shorter commutes because they live outside the highly centralized, expensive world in which the rich people live. It means longer commutes because the people providing these services to the well-off can't afford to live where they (the rich) do and so therefore must live in cheaper, more affordable outlying areas. This is a great tragedy and a large (perhaps the biggest) reason why exurban and suburban sprawl has taken place.

Modelling, statistical analysis, differential equations et.al. are just fine but this is the real world where people live--as best they can in a ever-more marginalized and impoverished social situation. Less math & modelling and more paying attention to how and where people actually have to live, please?

Do you know WHY this kind of modelling is fucked up? Because economists took individual people out the equation and starting dealing with their notion of aggregates. I suppose that would be OK if there was any reality in their results but there isn't. It's all self-serving and serves the political powers representing the rich & well-off. Do you remember the Laffer curve (President George the 1st called it voodoo ecomonics). Now, tax cuts for the rich and benefits cut offs for the poor are par for course.Come on, let's get real.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on January 19, 2006 - 6:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
  1.  Dave, I can model Vmt/cap too.  We're testing hypotheses here Dave, providing evidence to make a point.  I saw nowhere in there where I said that I had a market on the correct answer, nor do I even know if the theory/hypothesis we tested there is sound.  These methods provide summaries of the data, that's all.  If you want to reverse the causal arrow, then suggest an hypothesis.  I'll test it.

  2.  If we had individual level data, I would use it.  We don't.  I have already cautioned in Stuart's first post about ecological fallacies and the like.

  3.  I don't get your normative displeasure about all of this.  We can test Stuart's reasonings, we can test Paula's reasonings, and we can test common-fucking-sense, can we not?  Data are good things, are they not?  If I can find an empirical basis for a normative case, isn't it a lot better than a normative case on its own?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dave Cohen on January 19, 2006 - 8:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yeah, OK.

Re: #3 "[your] normative displeasure..."

is based on the statistical use of human beings and their behaviour in the aggregate. People are individuals first--at least a relatively few are, but most of them are fully acculturated and predictable --and maybe that's my problem. I can't blame you for that nor will I bring up the term "sheeple" which most people here at TOD probably don't even remember now anyway. This is my own personal annoyance and hardship--it pisses me off sometimes. People can be modelled in the aggregate-- sigh, :( -- except for ones like me who appear to be 2 standard deviations on the wrong side of the "success" bell curve.

Bad mood, lots of shit going wrong... sorry

In any case, that Peak Oil situation appears to be going OK, huh????
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on January 19, 2006 - 1:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
No worries, man.  I hope things get better for you...

Also, that's exactly what I am saying re: the ecological fallacy.  All I can make are statements about with this data is STATES and trends in those states, not individuals.    

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on January 19, 2006 - 12:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
its being poor that makes you drive

I agree with this last causation statement of yours.
Simple economic analysis should explain why.

Some geographic locations (i.e. Manhatten, San Francisco) evolve into centers of commerce.

People compete to be near those centers of commerce.
That is why rents are highest at ground zero and taper off as distance from ground zero increases.

The poor cannot afford ground zero rents. So they live farther away. If there is no decent mass transit (not the case in Manhatten, but fairly true for places like San Francisco), the poor have to drive.   and drive and drive.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Paula on January 19, 2006 - 6:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It may seem like obvious common sense, but in the world of science, there is no such thing. I mean, its obvious that the sun, moon and stars revolve around the flat earth, right? This is what we see every day. This "common sense" doesn't fall apart until someone starts doing the calculations.

I could well be wrong in my assertion that Stuart originally had the causation backwards, but unless someone runs the numbers, there's no way to be sure. Personally, I'd rather see the numbers and know for certain I was wrong, than proceed forward without certainty that I'm heading the right direction.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on January 19, 2006 - 8:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
aaaaaa-men.  
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

27 comments on Yep, Stuart's right about GSP/Cap...VMT does matter, even multivariately...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version