| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Anyone Else Still Believe There's Some Size Advantage...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| ... |
 Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Believe it or not some moron spent all day adding up 216 growth rates
to get a 5.3% unweighted average to compare with the 5.2% world growth
rate.
Look at the table:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html
That's all you need.
No need to make it difficult.
If there are about as many countries below the world growth rate as
above, then there's no size advantage for a country to have a higher
growth rate.
The growth rate of a large or small country does _not_ depend on its
size.
And _no_ a 2% variance doesn't mean jack.
The high tax Clinton economic boom would more than have wiped that
out.
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 30, 9:32 pm, BretCah... at (no spam) peoplepc.com wrote:
If an economy is the realized system of human activities related to
the production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and
services of a country or other area and is the end result of a process
that involves its technological evolution, civilization's history and
social organization, as well as its geography, resource endowment, and
ecology, among other factors, which give context, content, and set the
conditions and parameters in which an economy functions; while the
gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is one of
the measures of national income and output for a given country's
economy, defined as the total market value of all final goods and
services produced within the country in a given period of time
(usually a calendar year), also considered the sum of value added at
every stage of production (the intermediate stages) of all final goods
and services produced within a country in a given period of time, and
it is given a money value...
....Then what we have with your analysis is a clear case of "a biased
sample" since in order to use the ranked list at the link as a
criterion, then all other factors must necessarily be identical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a
population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some
manner. It has the following form:
1. Sample S, which is biased, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of
reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization,
Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:
1. X% of all observed A's are B''s.
2. Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.
The fallacy is committed when the sample of A's is likely to be biased
in some manner. A sample is biased or loaded when the method used to
take the sample is likely to result in a sample that does not
adequately represent the population from which it is drawn.
Biased samples are generally not very reliable. As a blatant case,
imagine that a person is taking a sample from a truckload of small
colored balls, some of which are metal and some of which are plastic.
If he used a magnet to select his sample, then his sample would
include a disproportionate number of metal balls (after all, the
sample will probably be made up entirely of the metal balls). In this
case, any conclusions he might draw about the whole population of
balls would be unreliable since he would have few or no plastic balls
in the sample.
The general idea is that biased samples are less likely to contain
numbers proportional to the whole population. For example, if a person
wants to find out what most Americans thought about gun control, a
poll taken at an NRA meeting would be a biased sample.
Since the Biased Sample fallacy is committed when the sample (the
observed instances) is biased or loaded, it is important to have
samples that are not biased making a generalization. The best way to
do this is to take samples in ways that avoid bias. There are, in
general, three types of samples that are aimed at avoiding bias. The
general idea is that these methods (when used properly) will result in
a sample that matches the whole population fairly closely. The three
types of samples are as follows
1. Random Sample: This is a sample that is taken in such a way that
nothing but chance determines which members of the population are
selected for the sample. Ideally, any individual member of the
population has the same chance as being selected as any other. This
type of sample avoids being biased because a biased sample is one that
is taken in such a way that some members of the population have a
significantly greater chance of being selected for the sample than
other members. Unfortunately, creating an ideal random sample is often
very difficult.
2. Stratified Sample: This is a sample that is taken by using the
following steps: 1) The relevant strata (population subgroups) are
identified, 2) The number of members in each stratum is determined and
3) A random sample is taken from each stratum in exact proportion to
its size. This method is obviously most useful when dealing with
stratified populations. For example, a person's income often
influences how she votes, so when conducting a presidential poll it
would be a good idea to take a stratified sample using economic
classes as the basis for determining the strata. This method avoids
loaded samples by (ideally) ensuring that each stratum of the
population is adequately represented.
3. Time Lapse Sample: This type of sample is taken by taking a
stratified or random sample and then taking at least one more sample
with a significant lapse of time between them. After the two samples
are taken, they can be compared for changes. This method of sample
taking is very important when making predictions. A prediction based
on only one sample is likely to be a Hasty Generalization (because the
sample is likely to be too small to cover past, present and future
populations) or a Biased Sample (because the sample will only include
instances from one time period).
People often commit Biased Sample because of bias or prejudice.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html
Quote: If there are about as many countries below the world growth rate as
above, then there's no size advantage for a country to have a higher
growth rate.
The growth rate of a large or small country does _not_ depend on its
size.
And _no_ a 2% variance doesn't mean jack.
The high tax Clinton economic boom would more than have wiped that
out.
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:24 am
|
|