[From Rick Marken (2004.09.18.0950)]
Marc Abrams (2004.09.18.1308)--
Yes, I made a transcription mistake, because I used h, rather that
then the
triangle and x to indicate a small change in x, but that still doesn't
change the fact that my equation was the right one and Powers was
wrong. Get
over it.
Your assertion that "Powers was wrong" makes it clear that your was
more than a "transcription mistake". If it was just a transcription
mistake you would know that the correctly written equation is exactly
equivalent to the one Bill posted. Bill was simply using a different
form of the equation. You were trying to write the f'(x) form of the
equation that defines the derivative, which is:
f'(x) = lim f(x+h) - f(x)
h->0 --------------
h
Bill was using the dy/dx form, which is
dy/dx = lim f(x2) - f(x1)
x2-->x1 --------------
x2-x1
In this form of the equation, f(x) = y, x2 = x + h and x1 = x so x2 -
x1 = h and x2 -> x1 is equivalent to h - > 0.
What is the basis you use for accepting the sample of 15 quarters of
data as being representative of the entire _population_, that is, of
_all_
quarters of data?I don't understand the question. What 15 quarters was I using as a
sample to estimate a population of quarters?Was it a _random_ sample?
I still don't know what data you are talking about.
Could you frame your questions in terms of the data I presented,
please. What correlations? What pronouncement about growth in GNP
representing what? What did I say growth in GNP represents other than
growth in GNP?No, you equated the deficit and debt as being 'bad' and the 'surplus'
as
being 'good'. I want to know why responsible debt is a 'bad' thing.
Deficits
are intolerable but debts are indeed needed.
It seems like you are talking about the quarterly data on growth and
budget balance over the last 15 years. If so, there was no sampling,
random or otherwise, involved in this data analysis. I didn't equate
the deficit with "bad" and the surplus with "good". And I didn't
present any data on the debt at all. All I did was show that the budget
balance (quarterly government deficit/surplus) was apparently under
control through the Clinton administration.
What is, and what was, the purpose of showing the amount of growth in
the
GNP?
I think you said -- but I have also heard it in the news media -- that
the Bush II deficits were the result of economic sluggishness or
recession that started at the end of the Clinton term and were
exacerbated by 9/11. The purpose of showing the GNP growth data was to
show that economic fluctuations as large as those that were occurring
at the beginning of Bush II (and after 9/11) had occurred through the
Clinton years and had no obvious effect on the budget balance.
Are you really attributing the 'growth' in the economy to a President?
No. I am considering the fluctuations in growth to be a disturbance to
the budget balance which, because it is barely affected by these
fluctuations, was apparently, under control during the Clinton
administration by not during Bush II. So I am assuming that presidents
have little or no control over fluctuations in economic growth.
RSM
···
---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400