----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 7:37 PM Subject: Re: The New Math
> > ----- 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 got it from "The Labor Department (news - web sites) reported Wednesday that new applications filed for unemployment insurance dropped by a seasonally adjusted 15,000 to 339,000 for the week ending Dec. 27." Which was in his first post on the subject. I also saw the report on the seasonal adjusted unemployment elsewhere. > 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? > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
