Re: Two Types of Distributions Found In Nature

frequency of what?

You don't believe the long term is important?

You couldn't invest in crop commodity futures?

I'd consider winning big with corn futures more important than having an umbrella on me.

Of course, that's just me.

A libertard who is just living by his wits and has no real future might find the umbrella more important.

Bret Cahill

When all else fails Brat repeats his mantra.

No one knows what the f*ck he means by it or what precise indictment he is leveling but that is part of its purpose, since Brat clearly has a virtually zero grasp of economics (that is almost a given if someone cites a crackpot like Henry George as someone to be taken seriously).

Even more to the point, observe how Brat and his cohorts have been unable to effectively address a single one of the main points in this thread. All we've gotten is foaming at the mouth at the supposed injustice of there being rich people intertwined with some irrelevant babble about "mean" and "median". One has to wonder if these people have - like Rip Van Winkle - being asleep for the last 20-30yrs and are therefore unaware that Marxism and all of its underlying assumptions has been thoroughly discredited.

It's been a long, long time since it's been a purely theoretical issue. The concrete evidence is simply overwhelming both in the total disaster of communism and all of its socialist variants but also in the clear success of capitalism in the re-emerging countries of E. Europe and elsewhere, e.g. Ireland. But they are oblivious as if they were sleep-walkers intoning tired old slogans.

Fred Weiss

Rainfalls occurring at that duration since prediction.

Yes, I do.

I could, but I wouldn't based on expected mean time before next rainfall. Maybe based on expected mean amount of rainfall during the period that agriculture experts consider rainfall critical, or better (more useful) yet would be the probability that rainfall would be between the minimum and maximum that ag experts considered desirable for a strong crop.

If you want to bet on that based on expected mean time (or do you say "expected average mean time"?) to the next rainfall, good luck.

Probably.

Your "Rip Van Winkle" remark below suggests enlightenment is making progress against the ignorance, cowardlice, sloth and dogma of Randroidism in this thread.

The truth is worth repeating. There may still be some people out there who don't know how to discredit "market" economists with a simple question.

Oh, they know. They heard it on the GOP faxvine. That's why _all_ of them will dodge the exact same way.

If any "market" economist touches the question he will be working for much less pay in the productive sector.

Just because you are out of the loop doesn't mean the professionals haven't been warned.

. . .

I have no cohorts. As Henrik Ibsen wrote, "he is the strongest man in the world who stands alone."

Don't get into a snit just because the shrinking minority of rightards who agree with looneytarian boiler plate is now so small and isolated that the GOP abandoned it for creationism and jingoism.

The issue of this thread is very limited:

There only one distribution in Nature where average mean cannot be openly discussed.

OK, that's the issue:

Why are the averages "mean" and "median" irrelevant in only one distribution?

Bret Cahill

lovely and

for example),

quoted text -

The wealth of the United States is currently based on the destruction and exploitation of Iraq. Raping, murdering, maiming and killing.

The health care industry bases its wealth on the exploitation of the sick and vulnerable: e.g.,

- psychoactive drugs for children and the emotionally vulnerable that cure nothing, and make them billions.

- AIDS treatments that are fabulously expensive and never cure.

- organ transplants that are fabulously expensive, do not improve quality of life, and result in death within months.

The "Law Enforcement Industry" in the United States does not enforce law, it makes money.

OK, no jumping to conclusions.

Just focus on distributions in Nature where ave. mean isn't as important or meaningful or "meaty" as median.

Bret Cahill

Note Rob styles himself to be a self taught economist and an independent researcher.

Rob has no clue here because he doesn't do much mainstream reading. Translation is most economist have no interest in what Rob tries to do. Rob didn't realize that mainstream economics can not predict if employment will rise or fall in the long run after wages rises so he tried to claim a model where capital allocation was a choice variable was short run after the mainstream result was pointed out to him. When the paper was published the abstract said nothing about overturning the result just that labor demand could predict employment or another method but they both couldn't be used in conjuction. Rob has a tough time admitting he is wrong which is often.

Here is the abstract

On Labour Demand and Equilibria of the Firm

ROBERT L. VIENNEAU Independent Manchester School, Vol. 73, No. 5, pp. 612-619, September 2005

Abstract: This note considers a linear programming formulation of the problem of the firm. A neoclassical non-increasing labour demand function is derived from the solution of the linear program. Only a set of measure zero on this function, one or two points in the examples examined, provides equilibria of the representative firm. Equilibria of the representative firm are characterized by decisions of its managers that allow the same decisions to be made in successive periods. Hence, one can explain the quantity of labour that firms desire to hire either by a traditional neoclassical labour demand function or by equilibria of the firm, but generally not both.

Rob claims he shows the long run mainstream idea of substitution between capital and labor to be false in this paper yet, he clearly says "Hence, one can explain the quantity of labour that firms desire to hire either by a traditional neoclassical labour demand function or by equilibria of the firm, but generally not both."

So Rob if you prove the traditional neoclassical labor demand function wrong why do you conclude that it can be used to determine who many people a firm will want to hire?

Rob is a liar.

Still waiting to hear about what that distribution in Nature is.

Uh, Oh! It seems to be getting worse. At first it was only discussion of the mean that was causing you to hear voices. Is discussion of the median now having the same effect?

Especially during the high tax Clinton economic boom.

It's not too surprising Buffet contributes to Hillary's campaigns.

Bret Cahill

Who *doesn't* want to discuss the mean? The mean is the good news.

y = 34.856 Ln(x) + 1.2837

That's what a Web-found selection of US income data fits using Excel, x in units of $10,000 . It's also a CDF. The exponential distribution, which... most closely models arrival times for

*Poisson processes*. Which would very closely correlate with how income works, doesn't it? "I got here first...."

Clearly, it has be bandlimited somehow to converge on 1 asymptopically, or just peter out when GDP is accounted for.

*IF* this holds, and I do mean *IF*, then the mean and median are related by the factor ln(2). Are they? Dunno. About, guessing from what I've seen. IOW, the ordinary-average guy can expect to see a growth rate about 70% that of the top dogs.

You might as well argue that water is wet or that the night is dark in that case. But you can't use advertising to releive the stress of a TV viewer with that story - gotta convince him he's being left behind, so the new sofa looks like a good investment...

-- Les Cargill

Consider the idea that capital will necessarily be substituted for labor when wages are higher, all else equal. The falsity of this idea has been well-established for somewhere between a quarter to a half-century.

My paper's novelty is not in echoing this result.

The following is not on topic either:

"Explaining wages and employment by well-behaved supply and demand functions for labour is of doubtful logic." -- Robert L. Vienneau (2005). "On Labour Demand and Equilibria of the Firm", _Manchester School_, V. 73, N. 5 (Sep.): 612-619

Clinton's era was far from high tax. The data show a lot people got tax cuts under Clinton and that the wealthy didn't pay much more than they did under George H. Bush. There is nothing high tax about the Clinton years. The Clinton tax being the highest ever was PURE REPUBLICAN SPIN. This was nothing like the Roosevelt tax hike that made a recession into a great depression. Tax rates on the wealthiest were still half or less what they were in 1979 under Clinton.

Now Rob is trying to cover up the inconsistency. He clearly says the traditional labor demand function is wrong but that the paper shows it can predict the amount of labor firms want to hire. So which is it Rob? Is the theory wrong or does it accurately predict how much labor firms want to hire? This is also a change from your paper shows the fact, as if it were your original idea. You are trying to contend both points. I suppose you are voting for Hillary who thinks giving illegals drivers licenses is a good idea but doesn't support doing so. Did you like Al Gore invent the internet too?

Rob again ignores the result of a long run labor demand function. When wages rise capital will increase but the effect on labor firms want to hire is undetermined. Why? Simply because capital is a determining factor of how much labor is hired, Increasing capital also increases the marginal value product of labor which is called the feedback effect. Therefore, one can not determine from theory alone if a rise in wages will, in the long run, increase, decrease or have no effect on the labor firms wish to hire. This supposed shocking revelation is not even a prediction of the model that Rob is shadow boxing with.

It is perfectly on the topic that you are liar who calls anyone who challenges you a liar. You are even lying about what is in your own publications. You can not find that the traditional labor demand function does not work yet that it can determine how much labor is hired. It is one or the other. You are lying if you claim that you prove that the traditional labor demand function does not work. Your abstract clearly says the results of your paper SAYS IT DOES WORK!!!

When taxes are cut across the board, the rich end up paying a larger percentage of the overall collected taxes than before the tax cut. True? False?

When taxes are cut across the board, the rich pay a larger percentage of their income to taxes. True? False?

These are trick questions. Go for it.

This has nothing to do with the discussion. There are actually Clinton diehards who call people who say Clinton had high taxes lying Republicans. Which I find hilarious considering Brent continually wants to say Clinton's taxes were high.

The point has nothing to do with percentages of taxes paid. It is simple. In 1979, the top tax rate was 70%. Reagan intially drop the top rate to 50% then to 28%. Bush raised the top rate by 1993 the top rate was still only 32%.

32% is far from high in comparison to 1979 when the top rate was 70%. Today the top bracket is at 35% this is still half what the 1979 tax rate was.

It is hard to call the Clinton era high tax when the rate was less than half of what it was in 1979 and only about 4% higher than Reagan.

I love it those who say they support the democrats actually using Republican exaggerations. Keep it up this is funny.

I've seen it too, from time to time; the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances, for example, removed the top 1/1500 of its sample in the

2004 version:

"Thus, for the 4,522 families interviewed for the survey, there are

22,610 records in the data set. Three observations were deleted for the public version of the data set for purposes of disclosure avoidance; thus, there are 22,595 records in the public data set for 4,519 families. The codebook provides more detail on the structure of the data set and the steps taken for disclosure avoidance."

-- Roy L

"Explaining wages and employment by well-behaved supply and demand functions for labour is of doubtful logic." -- Robert L. Vienneau (2005). "On Labour Demand and Equilibria of the Firm", _Manchester School_, V. 73, N. 5 (Sep.): 612-619

Before John can coherently argue with the published literature, he first needs to read the relevant literature. But before that, he needs to learn how to read. Until he does both, he is just fumbling.

many thousands of people very wealthy

Thank you. I've pointed this out in somewhat similar terms to Brat many times before. But once he's got a slogan stuck in his brain he feels compelled to endlessly repeat it like a drone regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

There's also of course much more to explain the "economic boom" of the

1990's none of which have anything to do with purported "high taxes", including significantly reduced military spending, NAFTA, welfare reform, the defeat of HillaryCare, a strong Republican Congress, Alan Greenspan at the Fed, the explosion in the use of computers and of course the Internet, etc. etc.

And then one must also acknowledge - without ignoring these factors, including some of Clinton's actual achievements (which however you rarely hear his apologists mention - such as NAFTA or welfare reform)

- that the culmination of Clinton's presidency was also a very devastating economic bust, the bursting of the "dot.com bubble" and a

50% drop in stock values which wiped out a good deal of the economic gains of the period (at least temporarily).

Also, while there may have been a short term economic benefit to reduced military spending and to endangering America's security generally, we paid the price with increased terrorism culminating in

9/11 and the attacks in Madrid and London.

Fred Weiss

So who is privately funding fusion research, Fred?