And who exactly among that group is trained in Input-Output economics, and were purchasing coefficients tailored or adjusted, by whom? Why is processing side over $1.4 billion (maybe far more) annually understated in its real export value -- comparable uncontrolled transaction prices etc. considered -- and did the group adjust for Abusive Transfer Prices among large processors with foreign control of ownership etc.?
I'd love to chat with such a person, and find out where they got their training, how they used inputs and decided data for IMPLAN if they did models or whether they extrapolated from some model... etc.
Let's talk I/O speak, and discuss the odd writing in this report about direct costs etc. Do they have IMPLAN industry balance sheets, value-added, tax and other reports to share? How about the regional definitions, positive and negative shocks evaluated, etc. Or was this some shoot from the hip and sound knowledgeable glossy paper only?
I trust the preparers are not afraid of a little public exposure of their input data, techniques, modeling methodology, and sharing actual analysis reports, and making them available for third-party evaluation. That they just didn't use State and public funds to put out a warped glossy fictional report.
Stephen Taufen, Groundswell Fisheries Movement: (Whose former IMPLAN modeling clients included the Washington Apple Commission and Northwest (and California) Cherry Growers - for impact I/O analysis of international market access fund programs under USDA etc. scrutiny for up to 27 foreign country programs)
McDowell group. Now there's an impartial group. Best statistics money can buy! I wouldn't trust a thing they say....whichever side they're on this time.
The numbers that they came up with are fiction and represents an effort to offset any claims that sports fishing revenue impacts are starting to compete with commercial. It is a preemptive strike to offset the claims that will be made at BOF and Council meetings.But the methodology used and the people behind it make it clear that the numbers are totally unrealistic and will not garner any support. Sounds like ASI, UFA,UCIDA and other very biased organizations had a hand in it.
Let me put it this way, Alaska does not want to know about global cartels price-fixing with their plenary market power given to them by government itself. Or simpler yet, we are screwed if we don't know the value of what we export.
Demean is an interesting word, but the reputation of the ones who should be watchdogging this, from Revenue Dept. to Governor, to Legis and even the state AG, etc. can hardly be lowered any further.
All the Pebble talk, no export valuations shown to Alaskans. Show us your pro forma financial payback and profit models, so the State knows what is a fair share. They exist in some corporate 'war room' - and management knows what they were, and used them to attract investor corporate partners globally.
Just saying, FOLLOW THE MONEY! Stephen - Groundswell
The wolves telling the farmers how much the chickens are worth.
ReplyDeleteAnd who exactly among that group is trained in Input-Output economics, and were purchasing coefficients tailored or adjusted, by whom? Why is processing side over $1.4 billion (maybe far more) annually understated in its real export value -- comparable uncontrolled transaction prices etc. considered -- and did the group adjust for Abusive Transfer Prices among large processors with foreign control of ownership etc.?
ReplyDeleteI'd love to chat with such a person, and find out where they got their training, how they used inputs and decided data for IMPLAN if they did models or whether they extrapolated from some model... etc.
Let's talk I/O speak, and discuss the odd writing in this report about direct costs etc. Do they have IMPLAN industry balance sheets, value-added, tax and other reports to share? How about the regional definitions, positive and negative shocks evaluated, etc. Or was this some shoot from the hip and sound knowledgeable glossy paper only?
I trust the preparers are not afraid of a little public exposure of their input data, techniques, modeling methodology, and sharing actual analysis reports, and making them available for third-party evaluation. That they just didn't use State and public funds to put out a warped glossy fictional report.
Stephen Taufen, Groundswell Fisheries Movement:
(Whose former IMPLAN modeling clients included the Washington Apple Commission and Northwest (and California) Cherry Growers - for impact I/O analysis of international market access fund programs under USDA etc. scrutiny for up to 27 foreign country programs)
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN. WE ARE THE GREAT ASMI.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is a glossy fictional report, duh! And your opaque argot filled, meant to demean word salad is as useless too!
ReplyDeleteMcDowell group. Now there's an impartial group. Best statistics money can buy! I wouldn't trust a thing they say....whichever side they're on this time.
ReplyDeleteEasy on the tauf now, he's on the mark.
ReplyDeleteThe numbers that they came up with are fiction and represents an effort to offset any claims that sports fishing revenue impacts are starting to compete with commercial. It is a preemptive strike to offset the claims that will be made at BOF and Council meetings.But the methodology used and the people behind it make it clear that the numbers are totally unrealistic and will not garner any support. Sounds like ASI, UFA,UCIDA and other very biased organizations had a hand in it.
ReplyDeleteLet me put it this way, Alaska does not want to know about global cartels price-fixing with their plenary market power given to them by government itself. Or simpler yet, we are screwed if we don't know the value of what we export.
ReplyDeleteDemean is an interesting word, but the reputation of the ones who should be watchdogging this, from Revenue Dept. to Governor, to Legis and even the state AG, etc. can hardly be lowered any further.
All the Pebble talk, no export valuations shown to Alaskans. Show us your pro forma financial payback and profit models, so the State knows what is a fair share.
They exist in some corporate 'war room' - and management knows what they were, and used them to attract investor corporate partners globally.
Just saying, FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Stephen - Groundswell