Trump calls out Pfizer for price hikes. Pfizer stock...goes up

JasperL · Jul 16, 2018

Hedgology said:
The equation is not supposed to reflect the original graph.

It's supposed to reflect the underlying data, and can be expressed as a fitted line through the data, which we see in the Fed graph. The fitted line and your equation are or should be equivalents, will produce the same 'predictions' - one is a visual depiction, the other is expressed as an equation. Do the exercise of plugging numbers into your equation, compare them to what actually happened in the real world. What you'll see is predicted values from your equation are far below the fitted line, and don't reflect the actual data, the real world - the predicted values if graphed will skim the bottom of all observations, with nearly all actual results above the predicted amount.

That's obvious, because wages for the 50 year period didn't lag inflation on average by half. That implies steadily worsening living standards with wages falling behind inflation significantly. At 3% average inflation, workers got effective real pay cuts, according to your equation, of about 1.5% per year for a period of 50 years. That simply didn't happen.

The equation reflected the predicted values based on the correlation and variance of the dependent and independent variables. The difference between the predicted values and the observed values is called... wait for it, RESIDUALS.

No, you can't address the data honestly because you are ignorant when it comes to statistics. Your only choice left is to obfuscate and blame everyone else of operating in bad faith, when this could have all been avoided by merely just taking the time to learn about how the data is constructed.

More buzzwords from the science denier. What else is new?

I can't honestly tell if you're trolling or not. I don't know what you did wrong, but you messed up your analysis, deliberately or out of ignorance. And now you aren't knowledgable enough or honest enough to admit you screwed it up.

Hedgology · Jul 16, 2018

JasperL said:
It's supposed to reflect the underlying data, and can be expressed as a fitted line through the data, which we see in the Fed graph. The fitted line and your equation are or should be equivalents, will produce the same 'predictions' - one is a visual depiction, the other is expressed as an equation. Do the exercise of plugging numbers into your equation, compare them to what actually happened in the real world.

You do understand that a regression analysis is merely a used for predictive purposes, correct? It may line up with the real world, it may not.

That's obvious, because wages for the 50 year period didn't lag inflation on average by half. That implies steadily worsening living standards with wages falling behind inflation significantly. At 3% average inflation, workers got effective real pay cuts, according to your equation, of about 1.5% per year for a period of 50 years. That simply didn't happen.

I'm not really interested in what you think happened; I'm only interested in what you can prove.

I can't honestly tell if you're trolling or not. I don't know what you did wrong, but you messed up your analysis, deliberately or out of ignorance. And now you aren't knowledgable enough or honest enough to admit you screwed it up.

Dozens of post later, still no analysis from you...

JasperL · Jul 16, 2018

Hedgology said:
You do understand that a regression analysis is merely a used for predictive purposes, correct? It may line up with the real world, it may not.

Regressions use historical data, as yours does, and the purpose (in the simplest of terms) is to draw a fitted line through that historical data that minimizes the variance - i.e. to our eye will go through the approximate center of those data plots.

If that fitted line doesn't run through the "middle" of the scatter plot, or "line up with the real world," which is the data used for the analysis, then the fitted line is wrong, and you screwed up the analysis.

Do the exercise - plot your equation against the "real world" data in the Fed graph. You'll see the line skims the bottom of the actual ("real world") observations, and instead of minimizing variance would approximately maximize it.

I'm not really interested in what you think happened; I'm only interested in what you can prove.

Dozens of post later, still no analysis from you...

I'll reserve comment because there is nothing I can say that's not insulting, and I don't feel like crafting it in a way to make the mods happy. :2wave: