Something More Upbeat

On Jul 27, 5:59 pm, "
wrote:
On Jul 27, 5:48 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

wrote:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._07/011682.php

Hmmm. OTOH, it appears to have some data density.

I'll take it!

I think the WSJ line looks dumb, but I'm pretty sure Mark Thoma's line
isn't a whole lot better, maybe worse.

I'll concede that this is better evidence for the Laffer Squiggle than
the Laffer Curve.

Mark Thoma's line uses fewer free parameters and
runs closer to the data points. Also, he probably
constrained it to go close to (0,0), since that
point is fixed. Anyone got the actual data table?

You like apples with your oranges?

Howard Kveck wrote:
Speaking of graph smoothing:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._07/011682.php

Why does that remind me of a podium girl I checked recently ?

On Jul 27, 5:48 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article . com,

wrote:
On Jul 27, 7:55 am, Howard Kveck wrote:

Speaking of graph smoothing:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._07/011682.php

Hmmm. OTOH, it appears to have some data density.

I'll take it!

I think the WSJ line looks dumb, but I'm pretty sure Mark Thoma's line
isn't a whole lot better, maybe worse.

I decided you're right -- it is worse. It looks like a linear
regression. Using linear regresssion on something that is curved (by
definition) is lame. Bad data, mixed data, bogus process... it makes
plain old doctored data not look so bad. lol

On Jul 28, 12:57 am, Donald Munro wrote:
Howard Kveck wrote:
Speaking of graph smoothing:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._07/011682.php

Why does that remind me of a podium girl I checked recently ?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...tit+cu rve%22