On Jan 14, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
It ("wealth") is not fictitious when you draw on it.
As for regressions, invariably you can 'explain' something with different models.
Doug _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
- Re: [Pen-l] "loss of wealth" [was: Dean Baker: Getting the most bang for the stimulus buck, (continued)
- Re: [Pen-l] "loss of wealth" [was: Dean Baker: Getting the most bang for the stimulus buck, Jim Devine Thu 15 Jan 2009, 15:57 GMT
- Re: [Pen-l] "loss of wealth" [was: Dean Baker: Getting the most bang for the stimulus buck, Shane Mage Thu 15 Jan 2009, 16:16 GMT
- Re: [Pen-l] "loss of wealth" [was: Dean Baker: Getting the most bang for the stimulus buck, Doug Henwood Thu 15 Jan 2009, 01:45 GMT
- Re: [Pen-l] "loss of wealth" [was: Dean Baker: Getting the most bang for the stimulus buck, Max B. Sawicky Thu 15 Jan 2009, 01:57 GMT
- Re: [Pen-l] "loss of wealth" [was: Dean Baker: Getting the most bang for the stimulus buck, Doug Henwood Thu 15 Jan 2009, 02:06 GMT
- Re: [Pen-l] "loss of wealth" [was: Dean Baker: Getting the most bang for the stimulus buck, Shane Mage Thu 15 Jan 2009, 04:22 GMT
- Re: [Pen-l] "loss of wealth" [was: Dean Baker: Getting the most bang for the stimulus buck, Jim Devine Thu 15 Jan 2009, 15:30 GMT
- Re: [Pen-l] "loss of wealth" [was: Dean Baker: Getting the most bang for the stimulus buck, Doug Henwood Thu 15 Jan 2009, 16:43 GMT
- Re: [Pen-l] "loss of wealth" [was: Dean Baker: Getting the most bang for the stimulus buck, Sandwichman Thu 15 Jan 2009, 16:55 GMT