Re: Two Types of Distributions Found In Nature

Considering the source, the numbers are not at all startling.

Someone suggested sumthin' about weathermen predicting rain but I could never figger out how the ave. mean was less important than the median in that example.

OK, smarty pants, _you_ try to keep the Randroid on topic.

Whenever I say anything about ave. mean income he calls me a smelly pinko Maoist Marxist Stalinist.

Bret Cahill

The main point of the OP was that there was only one distribution in Nature where median was a valid useful meaningful parameter but not ave. mean.

A large majority got his point.

Bret Cahill

This is _definitely_ off topic.

We need to discuss distributions in Nature where the ave. mean ain't important.

Bret Cahill

. . .

Then why do you think anyone would believe that the average mean isn't as "meaty" as the median?

. . .

Now you are suggesting that those who bet on corn futures are doing it without any statistical information whatsoever.

Anyway luck isn't the issue. In fact, winning isn't the issue either because losing money on corn futures a bigger issue than the umbrella.

The issue is, what is more important, the money involved in the corn futures or the umbrella?

Those who live by their wits and rely on silly word games can never have much interest in the long term.

But don't try to suggest that since _you_ don't think the long term is important, that _others_ have the same short term goals.

Bret Cahill

Which the OP has so far steadfastly refused to reveal. The only distribution from Nature that has been discussed in this thread so far is rainfall frequency, which the OP rejected as not the one that he had in mind.

Yes, it was clear that you couldn't figure that out. So what was the distribution from Nature that you were thinking of?

Always apply KISS when discrediting rightards:

Try to get then to answer The Question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

That way everyone can watch them cut 'n run and know they are nothing but cowardly frauds.

No muss no fuss.

Bret Cahill

"If monied interests pay outspoken market economists to dodge questions fundamental to markets, next thing you know, you have a lot of market economists dodging issues fundamental to markets."

-- Bret Cahill

You know, snipping the discussion of more meaningful statistics that I would use doesn't prevent anyone from looking at the previous message and seeing that this is a bald-faced lie.

Right, which is why I'd look at the other forecasts, not the mean time until the next rain.

Corn. That doesn't make the mean time until next rain more important than the median time to next rain.

many thousands of people very wealthy

We have discussed this horseshit from John before. And, believe me, it is horseshit. The most important point to be made here is that of the deficits, and the fact that the economy did very well after the Democratic tax hikes of 1990 and then 1993. Whether the rich paid more taxes or not is totally irrelevant. The middle class paid more taxes because they had a lot more income from having decent jobs. The big boys paid less because they had more income from capital gains as opposed to ordinary income and those capital gains were from actually INVESTING in the economy as opposed to sucking on straight economic rent.

What evidence, moron? The payment of taxes by the rich is NOT the objective of tax policy when that policy is being managed by intelligent beings.

What a Republican apologist. We've been through this one too. The reduced military spending started in 1990 due to Democratic control of the budget. The Repukes didn't get back into power until 1995. And the defeat of "Hillary Care" was a nothing as regards the general economy. The gains came from a tax code that encouraged actual investment as opposed to economic rent collection. But that sort of reality does no good in politics because people do not understand what economic rent is. It is much more important to say the things Bret says because he is talking in a language that Joe Sixpack has a shot at understanding in the short frame. You and the Republicans lose any time the reality can be brought to light. But it gets technical and when that happens the voter's eyes just sort of gloss over.

This is the lie that will not die. It was the "We get to lie about our earnings" bubble as opposed to the "dot.com" bubble.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

Military spending has NOTHING to do with the war on terror other than pissing off the terrrrrrrrrrrists and making more of em.

Here's the income data:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

What is not said is that the cut was only for unearned income OTHER THAN CAPITAL GAINS. Wages were already maxed at 50% on income over what would now be $600k.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice how these people fail to mention that tax INCREASES of 1986 and

So as the economy cratered in 1980 - 1984 the rich still had plenty of income from bonds while the middle class was unemployed. Wages NEVER recovered from the Paul Volcker recession. The bullshit artists are very very good at cherry picking economic data. Looking at ALL the data explains why the rich SEEMED to be paying more of their income in taxes while the middle really were paying more of their income in taxes. Percentage of total tax revenue is a farcical statistic that carries no actual economic meaning; especially when you run the economy using a credit card. Ask yourself who buys bonds and T-Bills and who owes who. You can bet yer ass that unemployed people were not buying those 20% yield bonds that had to be sold because of deficits in the 80's. And the people that now hold 2 jobs to make ends meet in the Bush economy aren't buying any T-Bills either. In the Republican economy the rich don't pay their taxes. They lend money to the government instead. And your kids will be paying their kids forever.

I'm not omniscient. Indeed I'm a very humble dialectician.

No one ever made a case supporting the vague notion that median was somehoe more important that ave. mean in the predicting rainfall distribution.

Bret Cahill

How can the defeat of something that never came to be have any friggin saving?

The extent these magical thinking people will go through. Hey, fuckface, you don't create reality by repeating the same lies over an over.

I'd be happy if the economic rightards didn't swear whenever I pop 'em on their behinds with simple innocent questions like:

1. does free speech precede each and every free trade?

1. average mean is less "important" than median in what distributions in Nature?

Bret Cahill

No one expects that. But it would be ideal if you knew what you were talking about when you claimed the existence of such a distribution. If you don't know what that one distribution is, what is your evidence that there is such a distribution.

Your humility in that regard is well founded.

Or, more accurately, no one has ever made such a case that you understood and accepted.

But everyone expects you to stick to the issue, namely, what distributions in Nature have an average mean which ain't important and a median that _is_ important.

So far, the only distribution with that unique status is income distribution.

Bret Cahill

Nope. To have that status, income distribution would have to be an element of Nature, which it isn't--it is purely a man-made phenomenon--and the mean would have to be unimportant rather than just uninteresting. Why do you think that the mean is unimportant?

BTW, I thought of one other type of distribution, actually in Nature, for which people almost always refer to the median instead of the mean (although in this instance, they have exactly the same informational content). One almost always talks of the median time for atoms of a radioactive isotope to exist before they decay. The mean (which is

You never answered it in the other thread.

You claim that there is no energy crisis because we will develop new technologies. You also claim that the development of new technologies is driven by free markets and private enterprise. The second claim is not borne out by the facts. Private investors do not like blue sky research.

What's not borne out by the facts? That private industry will develop new technologies - even speculative ones? If you think it won't than you are seriously ignorant of business history over the last 100-200 yrs.

Fred Weiss