----- Original Message ----- From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 10:13 PM Subject: Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
> At 10:16 AM 5/5/2005 -0400, Bob Chassell wrote: > >His hypothesis is > > > > ... the political party with the Presidency would probably be > > somewhere just above sunspot activity ... > > > >Clearly, it is wrong. > > I think it is clearly nothing of the sort. The very premise of the > analysis is too badly flawed to be at all usefull. And again, I note that > there is no theoretical model to support the proposed conclusions. > > >Put another way, Dan is right when he suggests that the economic > >policy of an administration is meaningful. > > I don't think that I disagreed that the economic policy of a Presidency is > meaningful. > > >Presumably, over an 80 year time period, economic cycles would get out > >of sync with political cycles, which come every four years *exactly*. > > False. The Presidency does not change Party every four years. The > political cycle is thus irregular. > > Moreover, since 1953 there have been nine recessions. Yours and Dan's > analysis would ascribe 8 of those recessions to Republican Presidencies. Would you then, be happy with a comparison from 1920 to 1952? the number of recessions slightly favor the Republicans over that time. Also, I can do a rigorous stochastic analysis of the year to year, two year to two year correlations, (and others you suggest) in order to see if your idea that one year's growth is strongly correlated to the previous years is valid. But, I don't want to take the time to do it, if you know you will dismiss results that contradict your viewpoint out of hand Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
