Re: Bubblemania
Thanks for the accurate data. Elsewhere, I have read that the pre-war baby bust began in the mid-1920's--before the great depression--and so could not have been entirely a result of the difficult times of the '30's. If it isn't too much trouble, can you either confirm or disconfirm this claim?~Alypius In a message dated 1/26/03 8:02:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (demographically, the boom began in 1943) The fertility rate (measured per 1000 women) in 1943 barely exceeded that of 1942 (2,718 v. 2,628), follwed by declines in 1944 (2,568) and 1945 (2,491), only a bit higher than the rates of 1941 (2,301) and 1940 (2,301). In 1946, however, the rate rose to 2,943 and thereafter remained above 3,000 through 1964 (3,208) and then again in 1965 (2,928), 1966 (2,736), 1967 (2,573), 1968 (2,477), and 1969 (2,465). I've generally heard demographers to include the years 1946-1964 in the Baby Boom, although one might arguably include 1965 or exclude 1946. The Baby Boom stands out even more starkly if one uses live birth rates per 1,000 women: the number doesn't exceed 100 until 1946, and then does so every year through 1964, after which it again falls below 100. (Source: Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Part I, pp. 51-53.) DBL
Re: Bubblemania
In a message dated 1/30/03 8:30:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for the accurate data. Elsewhere, I have read that the pre-war baby bust began in the mid-1920's--before the great depression--and so could not have been entirely a result of the difficult times of the '30's. If it isn't too much trouble, can you either confirm or disconfirm this claim?~Alypius Historical Statistics contains fertility and birth rates going back only to 1940. Looking at live births (the data on which go back to 1909), the number seems to have risen more or less steadily from about 2.7 million in 1909 to 3 million in 1914 and then stayed around 3 million through about 1926, when it began to tail off to about 2.6 million in 1929 and finally down to 2.3 million in 1933. The number stayed around 2.3-2.4 million through 1937, and then around 2.5 million through 1940. It rose for the following three years: 2.7, 3.0 and 3.1. For 1944 the number fell back to around 2.9, and then rose to 3.4 in 1946, the first (and lowest) year of the Baby Boom. The number rose to over 4 million for the years 1955 through 1964, and even in 1965-1970 (the last year of the data in the Bicentenial edition of Historical Statistics) always remained about 3.5 million. DBL
Re: Bubblemania
Alypius Skinner wrote: . . . . It became obvious to me fairly early in the '90's that resentment against US foreign policy had made Americans overseas the preferred target of terrorists. Not in the Seventies? -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Re: Bubblemania
In a message dated 1/26/03 8:02:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (demographically, the boom began in 1943) The fertility rate (measured per 1000 women) in 1943 barely exceeded that of 1942 (2,718 v. 2,628), follwed by declines in 1944 (2,568) and 1945 (2,491), only a bit higher than the rates of 1941 (2,301) and 1940 (2,301). In 1946, however, the rate rose to 2,943 and thereafter remained above 3,000 through 1964 (3,208) and then again in 1965 (2,928), 1966 (2,736), 1967 (2,573), 1968 (2,477), and 1969 (2,465). I've generally heard demographers to include the years 1946-1964 in the Baby Boom, although one might arguably include 1965 or exclude 1946. The Baby Boom stands out even more starkly if one uses live birth rates per 1,000 women: the number doesn't exceed 100 until 1946, and then does so every year through 1964, after which it again falls below 100. (Source: Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Part I, pp. 51-53.) DBL
RE: Bubblemania
I would say no. The current wave of anti-American terrorism seems to have its genesis in our presence on the Arabian peninsula as much, if not more than it does with support for Israel. Not that the latter isn't being used for a justification, though. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Anton Sherwood Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 9:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bubblemania Alypius Skinner wrote: . . . . It became obvious to me fairly early in the '90's that resentment against US foreign policy had made Americans overseas the preferred target of terrorists. Not in the Seventies? -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Re: Bubblemania
Bryan D Caplan wrote: Another annoying thing about the I told you there was a bubble people is that a good chunk of the stock market crash can be attributed to the 9/11 attacks (more specifically, indirect effects via policy changes). If ever there were a random shock, it was 9/11. Shame on Bryan for asserting such a falsehood. Here is a graph of the Nasdaq market. It is very clear that the crash happened well before 9/11. Indeed if one compares the fall that occured around 9/11 with what happened previously the argument for bubbles appears even stronger because whatever shock occured prior to 9/11 must have been much bigger than 9/11 to generate the large crash. Alex -- Alexander Tabarrok Department of Economics, MSN 1D3 George Mason University Fairfax, VA, 22030 Tel. 703-993-2314 Web Page: http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/ and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621 Tel. 510-632-1366 inline: nasdaq.gif
Re: Bubblemania
I have to agree with Alex Bryan. Here is a graph of the SP 500 http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^SPXd=ct=5yl=onz=bq=l About a third of the drop occurred before 9/11, a third occurred immediately after 9/11, and the other 2/3rds occurred in the first half of last year. Why 4/3rds? Because most of the drop after 9/11 was recovered over the next few months. But this is silly anyway. 1) I challenge anyone to explain what 9/11 told us that we didn't already know that would explain something on the order of a 40% drop in the rational valuation of the US capital stock! 2) For that matter, what combination of events could have provided information that would lead one to conclude that the PV of future income streams would be 40% lower in July of last year than it was thought to be in July of 2000? It was a bubble. Financial markets aren't fully efficient. Live with it. ;-} - - Bill William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/24/03 02:24PM Alex T Tabarrok wrote: Bryan D Caplan wrote: Another annoying thing about the I told you there was a bubble people is that a good chunk of the stock market crash can be attributed to the 9/11 attacks (more specifically, indirect effects via policy changes). If ever there were a random shock, it was 9/11. Shame on Bryan for asserting such a falsehood. Here is a graph of the Nasdaq market. It is very clear that the crash happened well before 9/11. Gee, Alex, I said a good chunk, not all, or even 50%. And your graph is of the Nasdaq rather than the broad market, and shows absolute levels rather than percent changes. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not necessary that anyone but himself should understand it. Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks*
Re: Bubblemania
William Dickens wrote: I have to agree with Alex Bryan. Here is a graph of the SP 500 http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^SPXd=ct=5yl=onz=bq=l About a third of the drop occurred before 9/11, a third occurred immediately after 9/11, and the other 2/3rds occurred in the first half of last year. Why 4/3rds? Because most of the drop after 9/11 was recovered over the next few months. But this is silly anyway. That's a good point about the post-9/11 recovery. But I still suspect the indirect consequences of 9/11 played a role. From the graph, it looks like the post 9/11 recovery coincided with the surprisingly easy victory over the Taliban. And it's plausible that part of the subsequent decline stems from the growing realization that further military action would continue after the Taliban's defeat. 1) I challenge anyone to explain what 9/11 told us that we didn't already know that would explain something on the order of a 40% drop in the rational valuation of the US capital stock! 2) For that matter, what combination of events could have provided information that would lead one to conclude that the PV of future income streams would be 40% lower in July of last year than it was thought to be in July of 2000? It was a bubble. Financial markets aren't fully efficient. Live with it. This is a straw man. I was arguing that the size of the bubble is being over-stated, and the importance of standard unforeseeable random shocks understated. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not necessary that anyone but himself should understand it. Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks*
Re: Bubblemania
How does one figure out discount for things like earthquakes, terrorism or other disasters? Fabio Where the probabilities are unknown, there is uncertainty rather than insurable risk, and such chances are like many other uncertainties that entrepreneurship necessarily deals with. One either confronts or disregards the uncertainty. People could escape the threat of terrorism by moving to New Zealand, but few seek that option. I live in California where earthquakes can strike, and choose not to move out. So there are worse things than these possible disasters. People prefer a low chance of disaster than the sure trauma of changing locations and affiliations. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bubblemania
Should markets be priced assuming that nothing will go wrong (random shocks) or should markets be priced assuming that something will go wrong ? If the answer is the latter, then shouldn't some margin of error provided for the consequences of these random shocks ? Are these events truly random. While each one of them seems random, over a period none of them are really as random as they seem because country keep going through assassinations, wars, currency crises, oil price shocks, political crises, floods, droughts, hurricances, the incompetents reaching the highest office etc etc. In the last 100 years hasn't each country seen enough of these kind of random shocks so that we can no longer see them as random. IF that be so, shouldnt markets factor this in their pricing ? Koushik - Original Message - From: Bryan D Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:19 PM Subject: Bubblemania Another annoying thing about the I told you there was a bubble people is that a good chunk of the stock market crash can be attributed to the 9/11 attacks (more specifically, indirect effects via policy changes). If ever there were a random shock, it was 9/11. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mr. Banks: Will you be good enough to explain all this?! Mary Poppins: First of all I would like to make one thing perfectly clear. Banks: Yes? Poppins: I never explain *anything*. *Mary Poppins*
