Sameer

You could probably get a coefficient of 1 if you wanted to because your coefficients are likely to be biased, this is a non economical/mathematical relationship, ie its abstract so econometrics can only help if you can actually figure out some sort of mathematical equation for quota and company.

Probably why noone ever tried it, the only things that would work would be obvious things that would not require econometrics but common sense.

ie increase small loans to the poor ie microfinance= how much better off do they get...

daa its a no brainer.

Advocate

Please speak for yourself ! Only !! ( As I hope you are.)

YOU could probably get a coefficient of 1 if you wanted to because your coefficients are likely to be biased. Well.

There are some academically sound ways of using Economtric techniques for exactly this kind of a situation. Not too many 'developmental economists' know about them if you know what I mean. Common sense tells me that: Strong Economy means people have money left over after meeting their daily needs to invest &/or speculate so it should lead to Strong Stock Market. And not the other way around.

Till the Econometricians decided to test the data and the common sense turned out to be wrong. You know it and you are having difficulty convincing the uneducated in this field about this ROBUST conclusion on another Thread. And you are politely calling them the 'developmental economists'.

Now it may be your turn to be called 'developmental economists'. Let us wait & find out. Let us not change the subject.

That is a DIFFERENT Econometric study.Not when we are dealing with the 'No Brains'. Or the 'Developmental Economists'.

Sameer

I have no clue why my last post got you so excited and bring up things from other threads.


My posts were not even addressed to you, they were general. NOR WAS THE TERM DEVELOPMENT ECONOMISTS ascribed to anyone on this forum or anyone person in general, noone asked but assumed so....
I dont think you ever understood what was going on in that thread about "SOME development economists", hint: it actually had nothing to do with the argument in the said thread itself. , hint those who use traditional growth accounting framework assuming optimal allocation of resources...., let us not go there. and the word "some" should be used as well. I dont know where you are getting "no brains" from, quite the creative lad, some development economists have suggested no link btw the stock market and economic growth because they used traditional Solow style growth accounting framework and got some mixed results. Note they believe that the there is no link period be it one way or the other, they would disagree with your common sense too i am afraid. , hence the comment what do they know...., in any event their conclusions have been superceeded by MORE recent papers on the manner using more sophisticated means. Are you married to an economist who argued against it or something, you are taking this so personally. look it up liquidity effect is one factor eminating from the stock market which contributes to LR growth, if yo dont believe it, its okay, believe what you want, life will go on regardless.


I have provided you with a few links to acclaimed papers which have been published in reputable journals, if you wish to continue this furthur, i dont care enough, email them and debate with hem or question their quant skills, i was not the one who wrote the papers.
Before the smiley faces, try at least ot make sense, new members, double identities after a bit of a beating, it always gets better on WAB.

I have no desire to convince anyone, i dont care, as i mentioned n times on that thread (REFER TO POST 122 ON THE INDIA ECONOMY THREAD), this is a forum and opinions count,, i only post, for some reason a certain fellow took it personally, still cant understand why, and took swipes at "passable quant skills of others" (if you know what i mean) and it was the end of that, all along i stuck to topic and posted to key and recent well acclaimed papers about the direction of causality, i could care less if you or anyone else wishes to believe in them or not, clearly risk managers and other sectors of FIs ae at the moment.
btw i think that "the uneducated" (i have more respect for others than you it seems, i would not call someone on this forum that, everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses) members of this forum can quickly look up the said pages of the thread and see what really happened and how one side was desperately trying to take personal swipes at others when presented with evidence....

p.s: there is no convincing required, it is afterall the domnant theory in this specific field now, a quick google on stock markets and economic growth should clear that mess out for you and more importantly, it is the basis of financial market forecasting ie stock market being a leading indicator of economic strength, read leading.
Not that, as i mentione 10000 times on that thread, saying that the economy leads the stock market can be correct as well, it is indirectly correct through interest rates as i posted on that thread after Observer's post. However academia has concluded that the causality eminates more strongly from the stock market than it does from the economy, again you can take it up with academia.



Econometrics is not useful in prooving abstract Muslims in AP style concepts.

Perhaps some people (you know who you are) should move on now rather than bring up the same issue constantly on other unrelated thread, grow up and stop taking swipes about the econometrical skills of others, remember its all screwed up anyway, that damn paradox and move on.


As far as this topic is concearned, if you can create a sound econometric model which would probably require hundreds of simultenous equations due to engoneity constraints, then I certainly wish you all the best because noone has ever been able to do it with unbiased estimates (econometrical/statistical term rather than personal), i dont know who you are or where you could have read such papers, clearly your statistical skills are well beyound mine so i wont try to pursuade you otherwise. Watch though finding corroletion coefficients may be easy, them being statistically significant and dealing with your sample size structure, thats another story and is even more important. Good luck to you or anyone else attempting such an endevour.
okay ji?
take care


Just Browsing

It is in my opinion that all communities in India that have low average incomes should be given preference in gaining public sector jobs provided they meet minimum requirements, be it Muslim, Kashmiri (i being one would not protest), Budhist etc you name it. It should not be extended towards the private sector. I do not disagree with much of what you say about the cultural hindrances in the IndianMuslim community, i cannot, however there are other reasons for their relative backwardness such as the jobs most Muslim men have 9work in low paying unproductive unorganized sector), have low access to financial tools etc etc etc... In that respect, the Government feels that it can play a role while i will grant you that the AP law is but the begining and is rather more political than practical, however the Planing Comission aims at extending the rules in the next 2 5 year plans.

Advocate

Written text as a medium of communication has its positives & negatives. It's often impossible to avoid misunderstandings.

No, your previous post or this one did not get me excited. They just disappointed me for reasons which'll become clear below. In Post #15 to Just Browsing, you said:

"Also I am no shy communist but i do volunteer a lot ,,, , guess that makes me into a leftie but if you ever followed the India economy thread where I tend to post, you would quickly realize that my views are quite different."

You believed that if Just Browsing had gone to some other thread, he'll understand you better. So before commenting on your Post, I went there to understand you better. And now you don't want me "bring up things from other threads".

Are you making sense to yourself? Because, to me, you are not.

What if Just Browsing went to those threads to understand you as per your
directive and started quoting you? Will you complain about him too? You are contradicting yourself. A general post in an internet forum invites comments from anyone. If you don't want that, please say so in your post. I am baffled. Have I missed some special rule on the FAQ page, known only to some? I know. The purpose of your using the term was to let the people who don't agree with the conventional opinion that Stock Market is a Lead Indicator, know that they are in good company with DEVELOPMENT ECONOMISTS. I don't see anything wrong with that.

You were doing the best you could as politely as you could. When I used the term, I was doing exactly the same. I tried but could not find any clarity in what you just said. From your use of the term "no brainer" in the last sentence of your post # 46 which is obviously addressed to me as it follows mine & has no one else's name as the addressee. It did not require any creativity on my part at all.

By the way, I am older than a lad. I disagree with them. I would try to explain to them why but how hard I would try
would depend on how dogmatic they are & how much spare time I have. Again I am baffled. I don't take ignorance in someone else personally at all. That's why, I stayed away from that Thread. Again I am baffled. You say: "If you dont believe it ... ". Show me where in my post you saw a lack of belief in "it" ? Please show my quote. Your links as far as I could tell showed that Stock Market was a lead Indicator. I have had that conviction for many years after considerable thought. Your invitation to me to debate & email to argue my own belief with someone who believes the same thing, indicates to me that your interpretation of my post has gone off track somewhere. I don't know where unless you start pinpointing my quotes. of what? Please be specific.This is irrelevant. I did not see in the FAQ page for this forum that I am required to genuflect. Could you explain this?

I did not post anything on the Indian Economy thread because I thought I would become just as frustrated with a couple of participants in my attempt to explain your position which I agreed with, as Just Browsing may become here with your position which I don't agree with.

My first post on this thread was supposed to be a satire. In hindsight, it went astray because JustBrowsing responded in such a way that he took on too big a task for a thread. That led to my second post to try to get him focussed.

I agree with his posts and intend to respond to them.

If you want me to ignore your posts, please say so. I'll have no difficulty. I don't have any idea what this means.Your comments here show that you are very upset.

Your having to ask me to read POST 122 ON THE INDIA ECONOMY THREAD which I have read carefully, for some reason, means to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of my position on this matter.

We'll make the misunderstanding greater if I comment further without understanding what, why or where the origin of this misunderstanding is.

My suggestion is that if you consider this discussion important, please be specific with your objection to my posts WITH MY ACTUAL QUOTES. I see a blatant distortion here. My phrase was " the uneducated in this field".

The "field" referred to, by implication, was 'Economic Forecasting", A neuro-surgeon would be considered "uneducated in this field". Do you disagree?, Was the blatant distortion intentional? Or, my post has made you so angry that some important words such as "in this field" just disappeared from the computer monitor? I believe you were unfairly criticised and Monk defended you well. This to me proves that you have no clue what my belief is.

Let me say it again: I believe that Stock Markets are a Leading Indicator of Economic Growth. I challenge you to show me otherwise in my posts. Now, it is my turn to be just as frustrated with you as you were with others on the Indian Economy thread.

Because here you are WRONG.

And not for the first time, on this thread, either.

In Post 13, Just Browsing asked you a Question:

"If the income of EVERY PERSON in India, INCLUDING the burqua clad MUSLIM WOMEN and INCLUDING the ISLAMIST BIGOTS who keep them down, increased overnight ONE THOUSAND times what it is today, what will be the change in the Gini Index?".

When you returned with some mumbo-jumbo, he asked you to to refer this question to a Professor of Mathemaics or Statistics which would have required just a phone call and would have shown that you were wrong. You are yet to respond to his request. I tried making sense of this statement but failed. The reason could be that you are upset. Who are the "people"? What "issue"? What "unrelated thread"? Swipes where? What is the "all" in "all screwed up anyway"? What "damn paradox"? I heard you.

Sameer

You have no clue as to what I said, nor do I have the time to respond to your lengthy responses (let me give it one last shot)when the no brainer comment was not adressed to you, you seem to think that I am upset and you still seem to be confused aout the stock market and LR growth and YOU, NOT ME, seem to be bringing it on an unrelated thread.

I ASKED JB, NOT YOU to read more what i post in ord to know that I am no communist, somehow how this relates to you is beyound me, quit pretending to be included in conversations that have nothing to do with you, okay?

As far as I am concearned you could believe that the the causality runs the other way around or invent another theory, i really dont have the time.

"I tried but could not find any clarity in what you just said."

You seem to think that i am using the term "development economists and ascribing it to a person here or trying to put it nicely blablabla, i get your point, its not what i did, it is unfortunate that you are trying to get into something you still cannot understand (ie the argument onthe thread), IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU OR ANYONE but it has a lot to do with growth accounting.

You seem to be upset because you still seem to bring up stock exchanges on an unrelated thread and seem to be assuming many things about the term "development economists"

"If the income of EVERY PERSON in India, INCLUDING the burqua clad MUSLIM WOMEN and INCLUDING the ISLAMIST BIGOTS who keep them down, increased overnight ONE THOUSAND times what it is today, what will be the change in the Gini Index?".

No change would occur in the index as I MENTIONED ALREADY OR DID YOU MISS THAT? However it was not what i had said, i was not talking about all incomes increasing at the same pace now was I? ie if we minimize the Muslim average income gap, we will improve the gini because the Muslim clad will come from a lower base with a higher % increase compared to the majority, minimizing the gap afterall aims at doing just that so if you are successful at minimizing the income gap, this will happen and the gini will change as Muslims will contribute more towards total output.
Advocate ji, do you even know how to compute the gini index, you do know that the amount of calculations required would be beyound a calculator right which is why I assume JB's post ment something else, ie if incomes of all groups go up equally then the gini index wont change, again as i mentioned before, it was not what i was saying, i know its mumble jumbo but economics is a bit more complicated than philosophy, i find science and medecine mumble jumbo but then again would not enter into a debate about a scientific topic with them either now would I?? Its okay it wont be the "first time you are wrong either"

I already answered this question, if you cant find it, too bad. If the per capita income of Muslims were to increase ie their shre of total output increases, the GINI index would change.


"Common sense tells me that: Strong Economy means people have money left over after meeting their daily needs to invest &/or speculate so it should lead to Strong Stock Market. And not the other way around."


http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev...8i3p537-58.html

Author Info
Levine, Ross
Zervos, Sara

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Ross Levine
Abstract

Do well-functioning stock markets and banks promote long-run economic growth? This paper shows that stock market liquidity and banking development both positively predict growth, capital accumulation, and productivity improvements when entered together in regressions, even after controlling for economic and political factors. The results are consistent with the views that financial markets provide important services for growth and that stock markets provide different services from banks. The paper also finds that stock market size, volatility, and international integration are not robustly linked with growth and that none of the financial indicators is closely associated with private saving rates. Copyright 1998 by American Economic Association.
To even say such things as "if I have time" blabla, to even debate with such people, the arrogance you certainly have.

I also cannot believe me posting this paper got you so excited, if you dont believe it, i honestly dont care. , let us not invent what happened on the india economy thread.

Abstract

One of the most enduring debates in economics is whether financial development causes economic growth or whether it is a consequence of increased economic activity. Little research into this question, however has used a true causality framework. This paper fills this lacuna by using Granger-causality tests to provide evidence of a positive and significant causal relationship going from stock market development to economic growth, particularly for less developed countries.
Download Info
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpfi/0012006.html


John Rea,
executive editor;
Craig Tyle,
executive editor;
Sue Duncan,
managing editor.
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005
www.ici.org
SUMMARY
Recent studies suggest that, over the past two
decades, stock market liquidity has been a catalyst
for long-run growth in developing countries.1
Without a liquid stock market, many profitable
long-term investments would not be undertaken
because savers would be reluctant to tie up their
investments for long periods of time. In contrast, a
liquid equity market allows savers to sell their
shares easily, thereby permitting firms to raise
equity capital on favorable terms. By facilitating
longer-term, more profitable investments, a liquid
market improves the allocation of capital and
enhances prospects for long-term economic growth.
capital has been associated with lower stock return
volatility in the long run. Moreover, stock return
volatility does not appear detrimental to long-run
growth. Thus, if policymakers have the patience to
weather some short-run volatility, liberalizing
restrictions on international portfolio flows offers
expanded opportunities for economic development.


Author Info
Ross Levine (World Bank)
Sara Zervos

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Ross Levine
Abstract

December 1996 Do well-functioning stock markets and banks promote long-term economic growth? Yes, but stock markets and banks differ in the financial services they provide. Using data on 49 countries from 1976 to 1993, the authors investigate whether measures of stock market liquidity, size, volatility, and integration in world capital markets predict future rates of economic growth, capital accumulation, productivity improvements, and private savings. They find that stock market liquidity-as measured by stock trading relative to the size of the market and economy - is positively and significantly correlated with current and future rates of economic growth, capital accumulation, productivity growth, even after controlling for economic and political factors. Stock market size, volatility, and integration are not robustly linked with growth. Nor are financial indicators closely associated with private savings rates. Significantly, banking development -as measured by bank loans to private enterprises divided by GDP -when combined with stock market liquidity predicts future rates of growth, capital accumulation, and productivity growth when entered together in regressions. The authors determine that these results are consistent with views that (1)financial markets and institutions provide important services for long-run growth, and (2)stock markets and banks provide different financial services. This paper--a product of the Finance and Private Sector Development Division, Policy Research Department--is part of a larger effort in the department to understand the links between the financial system and economic growth. The study was funded by the Bank's Research Support Budget under the research project "Stock Market Development and Financial Intermediary Growth" (RPO 679-53).
Download Info

http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/1690.html


Sorry to burst the bubble but it is afterall the dominant theory in the field, everyone in this field knows that. ONly indirectly can you find a weak statistical relationship between economy causing long term growth through interest rates, again you can take it up with the World Bank and company "when you have time"

btw i also said the following on the thread,

Sameer
Senior Member


Sameer is Online:
Join Date: 07-12-05
Posts: 1,591 Quote:
Originally Posted by indianguy4u
this is perfectly acceptable,

But read this quote


If my understanding is right, then there is room for debate & research.




There certainly is room for debate and research which is why i psted the first article which ended the debate. (amongst financial economists and econometricians)
But no worries some developmental economists still debate it and there is nothing wrong in that and certainly if you can find their work and present your case, i would most welcome it

again that was addressed to indiaforu not you, just in case you wish to jump in on a post not addressed to you, a bit different from what you are trying to portray on this thread. Some development economists have found no linkage between stock market and economic growth or virse versa but their EARLIER papers have been superceeded by more sophisticated growth accounting models involving exponential log models rather than Cobb Douglas, ie IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUTTING IT NICELY TO THE "UNEDUCATED LOT".

Had you asked what i ment by that then i would have simply told you and we would not be having this silly argument over nothing.

Please spare me your long responses and sarcasm, when I wish to address a post to you, i will quote you and respond to you and next time i will ask permission from other members ie ask them if they are related to you or know you so that i dont offend you when i address them, just so that you dont jump into a conversation and get all emotional on me about something i did not mean. If you wish to discuss this stock market and economy topic furthur, create your own thread and dont bring it up on an unrelated Muslims in AP thread. [ Again the "no brainer" was not addressed to you or anyone on this thread, it was a general comment about how easy it would be to do such an analysis and would not require any major statistical tool, sorry if you think that i valued your 4th some odd post on this forum enough to actually start debating with you and insulting you, for the nth time i was not so stop creating fake arguments please. Move on and create your own thread about whatever economic theory you wish to discuss (i wonder did you study economics? dont answer that, just a comment type question) and stop bringing unrelated topics on this thread. I have no desire to converse with you about something like econometrics on Muslims in Ap thread or anywhere else, let us just assume, just so that you feel good about yourself, that you are wayyy to intelligent and too much of an accomplished econometrician for me to be able to do that okay? Is it over now?

Let me again be the diplomat, because you are Indian I assume and so am I, that there was a misunderstanding between what i posted and what you think i posted, i do not know you, i do not know if you are a genious or an idiot and if you wish to talk about Muslims in AP and show me how you plan to proceed with your econometrical study, i would gladly welcome it and salute you for it, so if you think that I think that you are "a no brainer",. let me tell you that i do not simply because i dont know you and that this comment was not addressed to you, if you still feel the same way as before, then what the heck, i am sorry, i really dont know how to make this better?
take care

Advocate

Sameerji,

At this time, I'll touch on just one point from your post #50:


You are accusing me of missing "THAT" and insulting me in the bargain.

Question:

What is the Post # ( An Arithematical Number ) of the Post by you, previous to your Post #50, and what is the Line # ( Another Arithematical Number ) in such a post by you, where you have already "MENTIONED ... THAT (i.e. No change would occur in the Gini Index when everyone in the society becomes wealthier by the same multiple)" ?

Note: I'll be looking for the two above-mentioned Arithematical Numbers in your answer. No further references to the Planning Commission of India and NACER are necessary for my edification, in this answer.

Sameer

"NO ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION FROM SAMEER ! ... EVER !"

or this one

"Note: I'll be looking for the two above-mentioned Arithematical Numbers in your answer. No further references to the Planning Commission of India and NACER are necessary for my edification, in this answer."

ever? you sure, you must have missed it then.
maybe because you are too busy creating arguments with someone who does not wish to argue with you or is even interested in having a dumb fight over who asked what about the gini index. , you should try to limit your emotions and make greater use of the search button next tine before using bold letters and underlines.


If the income of EVERY PERSON in India, INCLUDING the burqua clad MUSLIM WOMEN and INCLUDING the ISLAMIST BIGOTS who keep them down, increased overnight ONE THOUSAND times what it is today, what will be the change in the Gini Index?".





" 10-15-2005, 12:27 PM #23 arithmetic enough for you or not?
Sameer
Senior Member


Sameer is Online:
Join Date: 07-12-05
Posts: 1,594 Err

First of minimizing an income gap does improve the gini index, i have no clue as to what numbers you are using, certainly everyone knows that if a commnity has its income increase by 40% and the rest of the country's income also increases by that amount, then of course nothing will change, but then again, it was not what I was saying now was it?I am talking about minimizing the income gap by creating a middle class."

THIS BY DEFINITION CHANGES THE GINI INDEX. I never talked about income of everyone going up by the same %, why that would be as realistic as pakistan wining a war against India.



which is basically the same as what i just posted

"If the income of EVERY PERSON in India, INCLUDING the burqua clad MUSLIM WOMEN and INCLUDING the ISLAMIST BIGOTS who keep them down, increased overnight ONE THOUSAND times what it is today, what will be the change in the Gini Index?".

No change would occur in the index as I MENTIONED ALREADY OR DID YOU MISS THAT? However it was not what i had said, i was not talking about all incomes increasing at the same pace now was I? ie if we minimize the Muslim average income gap, we will improve the gini because the Muslim clad will come from a lower base with a higher % increase compared to the majority, minimizing the gap afterall aims at doing just that so if you are successful at minimizing the income gap, this will happen and the gini will change as Muslims will contribute more towards total output.

look up the gini index formula and do the calculation yourself and come back to us.



You still dont get what i said, too bad. You seem to again be facinated about what me and JB have to say to each other, again I ask you a quesiton now? Areyou his girlfriend/best friend or son etc, why are you trying to enter a conversation that was not addressed to you?



Can we please move on to something else now? Also if Just Browsing wishes to comment on my answer to him furthur he can surely post on thethread, he does not need a porte parole, he can write and is quite a smart guy, ie no need for you to speak or ask on his behalf.
and please before the sarcasms and smileys, do try to do some research.


Les chiens aboient, la caravanne passe.

Sameer

"You are accusing me of missing "THAT" and insulting me in the bargain."


I have mentioned to you n times that i do not know you and my previous posts were not addressed to you and I have kindly asked you to move on a few dozen times, when will you?
Look if you and Just Browsing have some sort of interesting relationship where you both speak for each other let me know, until then e is more than capable at answering his own posts and you do not need to ask questions on his behalf.

gilgamesh

Mathematical models stink. They have already been discredited. Models can only be a pale shadow of what actually happens, and can never emulate the nuanced, and not so subtle, checks and balances.First to go were the "chartists"(I used to be one ), then went the Scholes and Mertons fan club(LTCM) next in line are the econometrics guys. Watch out!

Great economists like Hayek,Friedman, Coase etc have already writen eulegies for econometrics(economic statistics is relatively safe). Brahmino-Socialists of India, including the Grand-Inquisitor Mahalanobis are responsible for dragging India down to poverty ridden status for so long. They were among the chief proponents of this kind of dogma, courtesy ISI.

Sameer

You are probably right on this topic.
In general it is hard to make a mathematical model with n equations that can encompass the entire economy, in the 80s many economic models were created and most failed, India has a long history at macroeconometric modeling but with a biased socialist twist, you cannot plan everything, only concentrate in certain areas.

it is also true that our socialist masters in India have used models in the past to plan and screw up everything. Hence we are here with 20% of our population living below the poverty line.

I disagree with you about the ISI however, its the damn Chinese, dont you ever notice how our communist party leaders always beat the socialist/communist drums right after a trip to Beijing while China liberalizes furthur, coincidence, i dont think so. Them Chicoms are quite smart.

have you looked at the recent CPM paper, they now claim not to follow the CHinese anymore and plan to adapt marxism to Indian standards, with such people when will we ever grow fast enough?

As per Rodrik, a great economist from Harvard, statistical tests reveal that India is well below its production possibility frontier, ie its not even roducing at its current potetial... tsk tsk tsk

gilgamesh

Er, ISI= Indian statistical institute. Mahalanobis,a physist, was the founder tf this institute. Ronald Fischer was a past director or faculty. Kolmagorov as well.

Sameer

Ohh of course, sorry, i thought you ment Inter Services Agency lol
Right this Mr Mohabitis's plans and vision came about in the 2nd five year plan, in the first, it was quite liberal before wherein only the defence and a few other sectors were regulated.


The edgeworth box with Pareto efficiency became the mantra of the 50s and 60s, as we know it is impossible to be Pareto optimal in practise, hence we are where we are.