OK, thanks... but I think I'll stick with concepts like wage-labor, capital, return on investment, profit, overproduction, etc.
Economics isn't really a dismal science-- unless you're enamored of the "new" Malthusianism, i.e "too many people, too little oil," as much as it its concentrated, immediate history, i.e. a real social relation of production and expropriation. Ergo, "weirder after some point in time than before," is de rigueur. dms ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gassler Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 7:11 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor > >1. Heteroskedastic? What is that? Not in my concise OED. > It means the trend gets weirder after some point in time than before. > > The problem is that concepts like heteroskedasticity refer to samples and how well they reflect the total population. Here we have the total population of US presidential elections, so we do not need statistical inference. > > > > Pleasure, > >dms > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:26 PM > >Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor > > > > > >> dms: > >> > >> > But the trend since 1980 has been pretty > >> > consistenly down. And the trend is your > >> > friend. > >> > >> But that data are clearly heteroskedastic. You cannot > >> reach a conclusion like that about the trend since > >> 1980 just by eyeballing. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Sabri > >> > > > > >
