Newsweek’s Daniel Gross explains the Consumer Price Index (here’s the official BLS site) in a very simple video. I could do without the goofy sound effects, but it’s a good, 2 minute explanation of how the government tracks inflation.
Per David Simon’s Berkeley talk, though, the video doesn’t go into why this matters. Perhaps they’ll cover that in the next installment of the Economics 101 series.
|
Blogroll
Friends
CT Politics Politics
Technology
West Hartford Blogs Hartford Blogs |
Active Posts
|
|
Track & Validate
|
My friend Kirsten sent me this via email. It’s somewhat interesting. Kucinich is my #1 man — which I already knew, but I was shocked that George Bush was a close second. (Just kiddin!)
January 24th, 2004 at 3:28 pm
Okay — so I’m a non-html chick and this new set-up is kind of confusing to me…..
January 24th, 2004 at 10:54 pm
I’d love to see how Kucinich and Bush could be even remotely near each other.
For me, I got what I expected though I expected Dean or Edwards to be higher. I think their priority rating system is a little whacked though… what are “social issues” in a meaningful way? I have very different priorities between gay rights issues, abortion, living wage issues, and separation of church and state issues… in fact, the gap between them is pretty wide.
I also don’t understand the combinations… Environment/Economy is marginally ok… but Crime/Education??? what the hell is that?
My point in highlighting this is that the candidates that were lower than I expected were probably knocked down because of slight disagreements with me (Somewhats instead of strongly’s) on issues I don’t care too much about (Dean and gun safety devices, Edwards and parental notification, etc). Also, Dean will get knocked down because of a number of “No Opinions” listed for some answers… I doubt he has “no opinion” on some of them, like safety devices on guns…
Here is my list:
1. Kerry
2. Kucinich
3. Sharpton
4. Dean
5. Edwards
6. Clark
7. Lieberman
8. Bush (with a whopping 34%)
Kerry was a 100% and Kucinich was 99%… I have no idea what Sharpton is doing at 3 and I’m surprised at how low Edwards and Dean are. Like I said, Dean’s “No Opinions” hurt and Edwards disagrees with me on some religion-in-politics things…
Neat site (presented by AOL and Time).
Sujal
January 25th, 2004 at 12:08 am
Not what I was expecting at all:
1. Kucinich (100%)
2. Sharpton (99%)
3. Kerry (91%)
4. Dean (88%)
5. Clark (87%)
6. Edwards (77%)
7. Lieberman (73%)
8. Bush (5%)
I’ve actually been leaning towards Edwards, Kerry as an alternative. I must say I’m sad that Edwards will not be staying in the Senate - I don’t think this is his year for the presidency, but I really would love to vote for him in 4-8. Maybe someone will tap him for VP.
January 25th, 2004 at 12:33 am
It’s funny you say that because I was leaning toward Edwards and then Kerry or Dean as a backup. I wonder if it’s because we both read Lessig?
January 25th, 2004 at 12:43 am
I think that’s definitely part of it. Saw Edwards speak in Richmond back during the summer, and was impressed. Actually saw Kerry at the Jefferson Jackson dinner last year, and wasn’t quite as impressed. I was leaning towards Dean at one point, but I’m just not sure that he’s ready for the big leagues yet.
January 25th, 2004 at 11:01 am
My response to that is that Shrub wasn’t ready for the prime time, either. I am beginning to see the necessity of that, but on the other hand, Bush’s machine sure is working D.C. pretty well. I echo what Lessig said… I admire the fundraising and campaign that Dean has, but every time I hear Edwards speak (on TV, in my case), he impresses me.
January 26th, 2004 at 10:44 am
Sharpton was # 3 for this Kucinich gal, too!
Weird.
January 26th, 2004 at 1:40 pm
Here is what I remember:
1. Sharpton (100%)
2. Kucinich (9?%)
3. Kerry (94%)
Interesting results. Not shocked though.