----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 10:15 PM Subject: Re: A Scientist Wishes He Was an Economist :) Re: Plus the NY TimesRe: The Washington Post Editorial on Iraq
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:09 PM > Subject: A Scientist Wishes He Was an Economist :) Re: Plus the NY Times > Re: The Washington Post Editorial on Iraq > > > > At 02:47 PM 2/6/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: > > > I randomly selected the past 74 years to obtain the > > >answer for both the Democrats and the Republicans. > > > > I find it highly unlikely that the year 1929 was selected randomly. > > > > What was your methodology? > > > > First year that I've had that was available from BEA. > > http://www.bea.doc.gov/ > > If you have a site for earlier in this century, I'd be happy to include > that. If you would suggest a different span of years, I'll model that too. > But, it should be a fairly long span. > > On second thought, why don't you run your own stochastic model and we can > compare techniques? > I just found a sheet I Xeroxed at Texas A&M that contained data from the first part of the century. I forgot I had it, sorry. So, I went back to 1920. The results are a bit better for the Republicans: their mean annual increase in GDP is now 2.1% vs 4.9% for the Democrats. BTW, the Roaring 20s (20-29) growth averaged about 4.25%, less than the average for the Democrats since 1920. Do I need to go back to '00? Also, before 1929, the percentages were for GNP, not GDP..but I don't think that's enough to drastically change the results for the '20s. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
