----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 6:43 PM Subject: Re: The New Math
> Out of curiosity, why do you think you are in a position to mock techniques > that are fairly standard in science as well as economics? The normalizing > out of known uninteresting variations, like seasonal variations, that do > not help one answer a question one is interested is very standard. > > In this case, the change in the basic employment picture is of greatest > interest. Since seasonal variations exist, and are not indicative of real > trends, any trend analysis needs to normalize out this variation. It would > be similar to normalizing/subtracting out a known time dependant background > from a physical signal. > > If you are right, then some very successful scientific techniques must be > bogus. If they are bogus, then the obvious question is "why do they work?" > Maybe I am just misunderstanding. "The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 516,501 in the week ending Dec. 27, an increase of 91,785 from the previous week. There were 620,929 initial claims in the comparable week in 2002." It looks like a comparison between the previous week and then with the same week in the previous year. Where would you get a seasonal correction out of that? I would think that most people would read the sentence the same way the Fool did. I certainly did/do. What is it I am missing here? xponent What's The Hubbub Bub? Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
