----- 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
