Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Support


  • Accident Compensation

  • Save money when shopping online, visit Coupon croc for the latest discount codes and vouchers.

  • See blogs and businesses for USA


  • Southern Utah University

  • Search Now:
    In Association with Amazon.com
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2004

« Serendipity | Main | An Apple a Day Keeps Charlize Theron ... »

Comments

spencer

Since WW II the average quarterly growth rate of real GDP has been 3.5%.

It has been above 5% some 31% of the time, above 6% some 27% of the time and above 8% some 12.6% of the time. The above 5% includes the above 6%, etc.

It looks to me that your grading scale suffers from inflation. If you used something like a normal distribution a 4.3% growth rate would still be a C.

David Tufte

Hmmm. Well this is open to debate, so here goes.

1) I only went back to 1983, but the average is just about the same (a 3.4 in my sample versus 3.5 in yours).
2) A "B" is above average on grade scales. My metric has anything above a 3.5 grading out as a "B", so that sounds semantically correct.
3) The GPA for my sample works out to be a 2.39. Is that indicative of grade inflation - I am regarded as a somewhat hard grader, but I often have classes with higher GPAs?

Another way of looking at this is that most people regard 1997-99 as really good years. Yet the average growth then was just about the same as in this quarter - 4.4% vs. 4.3%.

I think it's a lot more instructive to say that Clinton got 3 A's, 4 B's, and 5 C's over that period, and then to note that Bush got a B for this quarter, and be happy with that.

For curiosity, Bush has gotten 1 A, 7 B's, 3 C's, and a D over the last 12 quarters. Putting that into GPA terms, it makes clear that there isn't much difference between Clinton's 2.8 (in his best years) or Bush's 2.7 over the last 3 years.

My point is that it focusing too highly on the numbers obscures the fact that the economy is doing pretty well.

Bayram

Anne,暫未了解 標智滬深300中國指數基金 但覺得匯豐中國翔龍基金幾好 不似A50的被動 它有基金經理積極管理 基金經理往績幾好 但此基金不是全投資於A股 好像佔5成 可分散風險 若要全投A股要選另一些 印象中還陸續有來 anonymous (下次請留名)之前亦已提過 蝕本離場最甘的要算97年的東力(978) 抽新股被分派過多 上市跌破招股價一兩成止蝕 蝕了約兩萬元 使筆者97年總括只能打和 Redmonkey

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Reading














  • The Earthsea Cycle
  • From Archetype to Zeitgeist

Non-Economics Blogroll

Gone but not Forgotten

Information

Movie Rating