On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 04:16:07 GMT, Joseph Bartlo
wrote:

JATO

I am glad the government is producing the forecasts. Sounds to me like your
just ****ed because they are giving tax payers something for free that you
want to charge them for. If your product is so much better and someone has
a real need for it, they will buy it. If not I guess the product isn't
worth the cost.

Would be nice if this were always true, but quite often people do pay for
an inferior product and don't want one that is better. It also depends
to some extent who is providing the product, who endorses it, etc. People
will assume something is good from a certain source, but if you actually
verify the forecasts, you may find otherwise. People are told something
is good or bad enough times, and they generally become convinced of that.

I see pros and cons to David's argument, and he probably sees enough of his
and others forecasts to make an honest evaluation of their accuracy. Yet
proving his is more accurate with verifications would make a better argument.


Well there is an old saying you get what you pay for. If someone in the
private sector can produce data that are so much better than the free
service the government provides, then the knowledgable people who need
these accurate forecasts would be able to tell the difference by
comparison. I believe a good product sells itself. I also hate whiners
and it sound to me like the guy is just whining. But that is just my
opinion.

-JATO