Re: 1.3 growth prediction
- From: "Frank Palmer" <F_L_Palmer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Feb 2007 08:04:31 -0800
On Feb 5, 5:02 pm, Owe Jessen <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 1 Feb 2007 11:52:51 -0800, schrieb "Frank Palmer"
<F_L_Pal...@xxxxxxxxx> :
I'm predicting 2.3% growth in RGDP for 2007.
This isn't based on the recent announcement of preliminary 4th-quarter
results, nor on the housing market, nor on the sunspot cycle.
It's based on the results during the third year of the terms of
Republican presidents since 1960. that's 2.27% growth with a standard
deviation of 1.98%.
More details at:
<a href="http://franklpalmer.tripod.com/eg_2.htm";> What year is it?</a>
Wow... I'm impressed by your prediction. BTW, with that high a
standard deviation and that low a number of observations it ought to
be obvious that your prediction will not be a reliable one.
Owe
--
21 ist nur die halbe Wahrheit.http://www.owejessen.de
(c) Owe Jessen
Yes.
(BTW, the prediction is in the body. "1.3" is a typo.)
Any prediction of growth in a year made in February of that year is
bound to be off. For that matter, the reports of growth in 2006, made
about this time, will probably be corrected later; I've seen
corrections running several years prior to the date I got the reports
from the CEA.
The number of observations, BTW, is already factored into the standard
deviation ("sample standard deviation," as opposed to "population
standard deviation.")
The question is what's your prediction, and what's your basis?
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Income inequality benefits the poor.
- Next by Date: Re: Income inequality benefits the poor.
- Previous by thread: Re: Announcing The Overthrow of All Existing Business Dictatorships Using Victory City Designs
- Next by thread: GDP as a financial asset?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
