----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 6:34 AM Subject: Re: Plus the NY Times Re: The Washington Post Editorial on Iraq
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:59:41PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > If you want, John, I can do a Monte Carlo analysis on the probability > > that random variations could have caused the difference between the > > stock market performance under Republicans and Democrats. > > I'm not John, but I would like to see those simulation results . The simulation I did was for the change in the GDP from 1929 to 2002. During that time period, the Democrats have been in office 40 years, and the Republicans 34. I took as my base sample, the change in the GDP from one year to the next. This provided me an array of values ranging from -13.1% to + 18.4% for the yearly change. For each case, I calculated the product y1*y2*y3...yn for the Democrats (n=40) and the Republicans(n=34). I randomly selected the past 74 years to obtain the answer for both the Democrats and the Republicans. On average, one would have expected the ecconomic growth during the Democratic years to be 35% higher than the growth during the Republican years...simply because there are 40 years to grow under Democrats and 34 under Republicans. Instead, the growth during Democratic years is 4.1x as high as the growth during Republican years. Out of 10,000 simulations, a ratio this high or higher occured 24 times. That means we would expect this to happen 0.24% of the time due to simply random factors. 400 to 1 are not good odds for random occurrences. IMHO, there is a signal here. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
