UNCOUNTED: The New Math of American Elections

[Jon Louis Mann]

UNCOUNTED: The New Math of American  Elections
A  Film by David Earnhardt

Exposes how American voters were cheated during the 2004 and 2006 elections and 
why it will likely happen again in 2008.

Trailer:
 <http://www.uncountedthemovie.com/trailer.html> 
 
"Powerful and persuasive..."
- Howard  Zinn, "A People's History of the United States"

***

Post-Film Panel Discussion with Filmmaker David  Earnhardt
and Special Guests including Mimi  Kennedy, Brad Friedman  of 
BradBlog.com<http://www.bradblog.com/> ,
Steve Heller of VelvetRevolution.us <http://www.velvetrevolution.us/>

Fairfax Cinemas
7907 Beverly Blvd. 
Los  Angeles, CA
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 7:30 PM

Hosted  by: Progressive Democrats of  America  <http://www.pdamerica.org/> 


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The New Math

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: The New Math


> Seasonal adjustments go both ways.  It normalizes the year to take
out the
> natural fluctuations that have no relevance to the underlying
economy.  For
> example, there are plants that shut down over the Christmas
holidays.
> Those workers can file for unemployment for one or two weeks.  That
would
> give a spike in the unemployment figures for that week.  This spike
does
> not have the relevance to total unemployment that people being laid
off
> permanently, because they will be back on the job shortly.
>
> Another example of this is the increase in employment in the summer
and the
> decrease in the winter.  Both need to be factored out to obtain a
long term
> trend.
>

Thanks Dan!
That was the kind of explanation I was looking for.


xponent
Seasonal Affective Adjustment Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The New Math

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: The New Math


> > 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.
>
> WellI read that in the original post also, but I don't see how it
> is relevant.
> Without more information, "seasonally adjusted" could well be a
> euphemism for "sanitized for your misdirection".  IOW, the phrase
> by itself doesn't tell me what is being measured.

But, it does mean something to me.  Years ago, I read about how seasonal
adjustments are made to data like these. It made sense then, and does now.

Further, its worth noting that this is an accepted technique used by a wide
group of ecconomists, of various political persuasions.

> 200k people are absent in that measurement as compared to the general
> stat and I am wondering what their status is that they don't count as
> unemployed.

Its not that.  Its that regular seasonal adjustments must be discounted if
one is to make sense of the trend.  Think of the total unemployment as data
= (long term trend + seasonal adjustment).  One can fit a number of years
worth of data to this, and determine each term.  In order to obtain long
term trend, one needs to subtract seasonal adjustment from data.

> Please excuse my skepticism, but undefined statistics irritate me
> because they leave one guessing at the meaning of the information they
> are supposed to convey.

But, it only takes a quick web search to understand what it is.

Here is a decent explaination of what is done.

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/houston/1997/hb9703.html

> MY guess is that the "seasonally adjusted" numbers exclude the people
> who are almost always unemployed at this time of year and/or those who
> *are* employed at a time when they normally wouldn't be.
> But that is purely a guess and I know this.

Seasonal adjustments go both ways.  It normalizes the year to take out the
natural fluctuations that have no relevance to the underlying economy.  For
example, there are plants that shut down over the Christmas holidays.
Those workers can file for unemployment for one or two weeks.  That would
give a spike in the unemployment figures for that week.  This spike does
not have the relevance to total unemployment that people being laid off
permanently, because they will be back on the job shortly.

Another example of this is the increase in employment in the summer and the
decrease in the winter.  Both need to be factored out to obtain a long term
trend.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The New Math

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: The New Math


>
> - 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
>
> >
> > 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.

WellI read that in the original post also, but I don't see how it
is relevant.
Without more information, "seasonally adjusted" could well be a
euphemism for "sanitized for your misdirection".  IOW, the phrase
by itself doesn't tell me what is being measured.
200k people are absent in that measurement as compared to the general
stat and I am wondering what their status is that they don't count as
unemployed.
Please excuse my skepticism, but undefined statistics irritate me
because they leave one guessing at the meaning of the information they
are supposed to convey.
MY guess is that the "seasonally adjusted" numbers exclude the people
who are almost always unemployed at this time of year and/or those who
*are* employed at a time when they normally wouldn't be.
But that is purely a guess and I know this.

xponent
TIA Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The New Math

[The Fool]

> From: Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> From: 
> 
> 
> > 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?

The statistical model assumes that hiring will increase before christmas.
 But that's not what's actually happening in reality as more people are
losing their jobs for the past several weeks.  Since seasonal patterns
are being disrupted, the number becomes distorted. That's what happened
this year.  That what happened last year.  That's what happens with bad
statistical models.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The New Math

[Dan Minette]

- 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

Re: The New Math

[Robert Seeberger]

- 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

Re: The New Math

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: The New Math


> > From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > At 05:43 AM 1/1/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
> > >The Spin, 'New Jobless Claims Lowest of Bush Tenure'.
> > >
> >
>
><<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=530&e=1&u=/ap/20031231/
> a
> > >p_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy>>
> > >
> > >"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."
> > >
> > >The reality: ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance
> > >
> > ><<http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm>>
> > >
> > >Weekly Claims Report:
> > >
> > >"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."
> >
> > Sorry, Fool, but you're not going to get very far among the economic
> > statistical community by arguing that seasonal adjustment is
> > inappropriate or even crazier, is somehow politically manipulated.
>
> This is why we say lies, damned lies and statistics.

So, I take it you don't believe in quantum mechanics or statistical
mechanics?  It is, indeed, possible to twist statistics. But, it is also
possible to use them rigorously.

> The Real number of people making new claims this week is ~520k, the Real
> number of people making new claims Last week is ~430k.  The Real Trend is
> upwards by ~90k.  And Yet this ~520k is magically the 'Lowest of Bush
> Tenure' which it plainly is not.  Through the magic wand of seasonal
> adjustment the trend upwards by ~90k becomes a trend downwards of ~15k.
> Not a very good statistical model IMNSHO.

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?"

Dan M.


Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The New Math

[The Fool]

> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> At 05:43 AM 1/1/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
> >The Spin, 'New Jobless Claims Lowest of Bush Tenure'.
> >
>
>< >p_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy>>
> >
> >"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."
> >
> >The reality: ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance 
> >
> ><>
> >
> >Weekly Claims Report: 
> >
> >"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."
> 
> Sorry, Fool, but you're not going to get very far among the economic
> statistical community by arguing that seasonal adjustment is
> inappropriate or even crazier, is somehow politically manipulated.

This is why we say lies, damned lies and statistics.

The Real number of people making new claims this week is ~520k, the Real
number of people making new claims Last week is ~430k.  The Real Trend is
upwards by ~90k.  And Yet this ~520k is magically the 'Lowest of Bush
Tenure' which it plainly is not.  Through the magic wand of seasonal
adjustment the trend upwards by ~90k becomes a trend downwards of ~15k. 
Not a very good statistical model IMNSHO.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The New Math

[John D. Giorgis]

At 05:43 AM 1/1/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
>The Spin, 'New Jobless Claims Lowest of Bush Tenure'.
>
><p_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy>>
>
>"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."
>
>The reality: ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance 
>
><>
>
>Weekly Claims Report: 
>
>"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."

Sorry, Fool, but you're not going to get very far among the economic
statistical community by arguing that seasonal adjustment is
inappropriate or even crazier, is somehow politically manipulated.

JDG 
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The New Math

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:43 AM 1/1/04, The Fool wrote:

The reality: ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance

<>

Weekly Claims Report:

"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."


Still less than a year ago . . .



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The New Math

[The Fool]

The Spin, 'New Jobless Claims Lowest of Bush Tenure'.

<<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=530&e=1&u=/ap/20031231/a
p_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy>>

"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."

The reality: ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance 

<<http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm>>

Weekly Claims Report: 

"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."

---
The New Math:

+92k = -15k
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l