Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
No evidence? lol, check your list a bit more thoroughly. The groups you listed happen to be at the top. Then you mention GE. Do you realize how tied GE is to defense? The fact that they get a reconstruction bid at all is plum, not evidence of any point you're trying to make. They already made all their money back in dividends during the destroying stage.
|
I'll tell you what, you give me $8,843, and next time I get my paycheck, I'll send you $5,927. You would never do this, no matter how much money I might've sent you out of the blue in the past. Sure, GE gets paid to help rebuild what they helped level. But they actually lost money in the rebuilding process. One might rephrase that as GE paid to help rebuild what they helped level.
The groups I listed happened to be at the top because I compared top-10 lists. Of course any overlaps would be at the top. If there were a correlation, there would be 7, 8, 9, 10 overlaps between top 10 contributors and top 10 contractors. The fact that there are only 3 is significant. Accordingly, drawn over the entire list, we only have a correlation coefficient of 0.192, which is not that much better than randomly awarding contracts.
Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
You and I sift through two charts and that qualifies either one of us to question a report that was researched for 6 months? Me thinks you need more info...
|
A report can be researched for ages and still be completely wrong. The length of time committed doesn't make something right. On average, I spend over an hour for each post I write (and still, sadly, make grammatical and spelling errors). Someone can spend thirty seconds looking at it and point out a flaw in my argument. I'm still wrong.
-- Alvin