I understand the liquidity thing, but see my previous post. The Confederacy printed bills upon bills. The ink on the paper lessened the value of the paper.
I don't get it. Inversely proportional? More cash always equals more, regardless of circulation amounts. 1 is more than 2 every time and will be if the supply increases.
Ok. I can see that. But still more cash doesn't always equal more value (wealth) does it? It would seem that inflation would keep it in check.
To be fair, econometrics via linear regression (which is what multivariate analysis means there) is about as precise as a Matt Simms pass. Just last week, I ran a linear regression that indicated my penis was 13 inches long......soft.
That and unemployment insurance as well. The Fed was created, if I am not mistaken, because people got scared to hell and back after seeing how much power J.P. Morgan had over the economy by basically bailing out the US Government not once, but twice. Would you rather someone that is beholden to Congress control that or some guy off on his own? NOTE: As before, my knowledge of economics is less than zero, so please take what I say as a complete outsider saying stuff he shouldn't.
It's the imputs that are up for debate here. who decides what things that are passed are similar to what opinions?
I consider myself to be in the "working poor" category. We do not have any lobbyists, representatives, senators, or lawyers.
You extended it beyond the confines of the independent variable. Which is a no-no in linear regression.
Then you extended beyond the confines of the dependent variable, which is also problematic in linear regression. If we take Length as the dependent variable (Y axis) and then State (Cold, Warm, Average, Movement, Semi-Erect and Erect) as the independent variable, you could graph that with measurements of only the first three, draw your linear regression line, extend it beyond the three states, and conclude that at Erect, it is 3 feet long. But the reality is that the curve is not linear, it is parabolic with a cliff at the end, or plateau since graphing upward to the Y axis. So the regression didn't fail. Your study did. That's not regression's fault.
You know a lot more about regression than me. My initial post about the regression indicating my **** was 13 inches long....soft, was to illustrate a point about the use of regression in econometrics and the skepticism with which the conclusions drawn therefrom should be viewed with.* Regression is math. But econometrics via regression is a very "soft" science, if it can even be called that. *Because my **** is probably no more than 10 inches long.
Timely article on the American Middle Class. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?hp&_r=0
