On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:37:23 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is hard to imigine someone going back ovfer 200 years to get their > > economic growth projection and then narrowing to half of a standard > > deviation. > > In other words, you don't have a clue about what you are writing, and > are just playing Eliza again, repeating sound bites randomly instead of > giving an analytical basis for your argument. > > If this is the kind of thing that is coming to pass for cogent > discussion as a result of the expansion in internet blogging in the last > few years, then I despair for the future. It seems that attention spans > are rapidly approaching 30 seconds and that people think that sound > bites are better than detailed knowledge and careful study.
I don't why I try to respond to these repeated ad hominem sound bites accusing me of repeating sound bites randomly. To repeat it in words even a half-educated engineer can understand the 200+ year GDP is flawed because it assumes they can accurately measure GDP that far back - that historical GDP has its own set of assumptions. Anyone who does a long-term future projection and uses only a half of a standard deviation for their upper and lower bounds doesn't know economics or statistics unless they have some agenda. My last marketing project was analyzing 70,000 FEDEX locations that implemented various changes in hours and procedures on a random basis with no controls to determine which measures improved profitability. Gary "random sound bites" Denton _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
