Global Economy Bursting?

[Randolph Kinney]

The paper the graph was originally taken from is "The Great Leveraging" by Alan M. Taylor http://people.virginia.edu/~amt7u/papers/DP9082.pdf
The proper annotation for the graph is on page 37 of that document (the graph is on page 19) and is "Pradhan, Manoj, and Alan M. Taylor. 2011b. Are EMs the New DMs? Emerging Issues, Morgan Stanley, May 4."

What does this say about your capabilities as a serious researcher, a master at statistics and graphs?

Everyone take note that below the graph in both cases of graphs, it says:

Notes and sources: The dependency ratio is the population of ages 0–19 and 65+ divided by the working age population of ages 20–64. Data from U.N. Population Statistics; see Pradhan and Taylor (2011b).

 

[Randolph Kinney]

I.B.M. Adds an African Lab to Its Growing Global Research Network

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...work/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120814

I.B.M. is opening a research center in Nairobi, adding an African lab to its global network.

Kenya will be the fourth nation where I.B.M. has opened a research outpost in the last two years, after Ireland, Australia and Brazil. The Nairobi center will bring the number of I.B.M. research labs worldwide to 12. By now, about half the company’s 3,000-member research staff is outside the United States.


The Nairobi lab is another step in I.B.M.’s increasing investment in Africa in recent years. In 2006, I.B.M. had offices in four African nations — South Africa, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt. Today, the company has operations in more than 20 African countries.

Africa, I.B.M. says, is destined to become an important growth market for the company.

 

[DMZwerg]

So let me recap.

You do not know where academia gets the population data from.

You do not know where the United Nations gets the population data from.

My knowledge of such is irrelevant when the graph nor dta set has a proper annotation or bibliography defining EXACTLY WHERE the data is from, where additional discussion of the assumptions and data model can be found, and so forth.

Any graph, data set, or document that does not contain such is purely a work of speculative fiction for any who read it.


As to what I may or may not know, I quoted above EXACTLY what paper the graph actually came from (which the article you quoted did not) and EXACTLY what paper the author of same same paper containing the graph stated was the basis for the graph.

So, who really doesn't know what they are talking about here?
The author of the paper used proper annotation, something neither you nor the article that called attention to the graph did. It does not really mater what ancillary information you may or may not have posted if you did not give proper annotation to the original graph nor the data set you claim it was based on. Period.

You do not know the methodologies used to make the statistical representations or projections used by academia, the United Nations or governments.

Actually, I have proved I do. You have not. QED.

Your intellectual opinion on statistics and graphs is based upon ignorance (since you do not these things) and cannot be taken seriously, in addition to your laziness and lack of initiative to find these things out for yourself.

Actually, I worked in academia for some time and know that, in academia, the exact source HAS to be attributed such that any academic reader can flip immediately to that source (or the virtual equivalent). Why you think doing an internet search suddenly makes one an expert on proper annotations in academia is beyond me. It is not the reader's job to find absolute proof of the veracity of data via arcane methods, the annotation is supposed to be there or at least sufficient abbreviated annotation to locate such. The original paper had proper annotation in the Reference section, the graph alone did not, and the data set you provided did not even have abbreviated annotation AFAICT.

You have only succeeded in proving you are not most likely not sufficiently knowledgeable about proper annotation in academia to even discuss the point with me.

 

[DMZwerg]

Everyone take note that below the graph in both cases of graphs, it says:

Notes and sources: The dependency ratio is the population of ages 0–19 and 65+ divided by the working age population of ages 20–64. Data from U.N. Population Statistics; see Pradhan and Taylor (2011b).

You underlined the wrong portion of the annotation ... "see Pradhan and Taylor (2011b)" is the annotation as to which paper, study or such the graph was based on. It is a partial reference to another paper contained to tie the graph to a particular full reference mentioned later in the paper the graph was contained within. With the graph taken out of context like it was said graph is meaningless. Please rectify this flaw in your reasoning in the future if you wish to carry on a discussion about academia.

 

[Big ole Boy]

Dependency .without the graphs

West China - folks live off the land , India - most folks live off the land .....

...Western cultures live off of mass agriculture and mass distribution .... birth rate is less than 2 per household ..

.... so without graphs ... most occidental peoples will have less dependency on the young..

..than the West ...... with any proforma produced ....

... .

 

[Randolph Kinney]

My knowledge of such is irrelevant when the graph nor dta set has a proper annotation or bibliography defining EXACTLY WHERE the data is from, where additional discussion of the assumptions and data model can be found, and so forth.

You have only succeeded in proving you are not most likely not sufficiently knowledgeable about proper annotation in academia to even discuss the point with me.

So your basis of intellectual opinion on the statistics and graphs is now proper annotation.

When you first claimed:

So, let us see ... even given average lifespan of even 80 years and Baby Boomers are 1946-1964 and given Baby Boomers are already started hitting the 65+ category 1-2 years ago and the last of them will hit 65+ in 2029 why does the chart keep going exponential?

Realize that the chart does NOT take into account persons aged 20-64 that may already be on social security, only population numbers.

You did not know where the data came from, yet you were making this informed opinion. You did not read the graph correctly or recognize that the graph was showing The World Dependency Ratio as it compares to the More developed regions and Less developed regions, not the United States. And you do not know what the dependency ratio is or how it is used.

But you are here to convince everyone that you know what you are talking about when it is plain you do not what you are talking about.

You underlined the wrong portion of the annotation ... "see Pradhan and Taylor (2011b)" is the annotation as to which paper, study or such the graph was based on. It is a partial reference to another paper contained to tie the graph to a particular full reference mentioned later in the paper the graph was contained within. With the graph taken out of context like it was said graph is meaningless. .

You don't even realize that Pradhan and Taylor (2011b) was plotting the data from the United Nations.

I plotted the data set that was used by Pradhan and Taylor (2011b) in post 3316 http://appraisersforum.com/showpost.php?p=2283908&postcount=3316

Now look again at Pradhan and Taylor (2011b) again.

Now look at the U.N. data that I have that was used above, replotted to similar scale of Pradhan and Taylor (2011b), below.

But you can't admit that you are wrong, you can't identify the same data used over and over again in academia, and other reports and that data came from the United Nations. I have the data, you don't. I download the same data from the Untied Nations website that was used by all of these published sources.

It all comes down to proper annotation. I concede that point to you, that you haven't the slightest hint what it means or how it is used or even the ability to recognize the same data plotted as it found in academia or anywhere else. But you know proper annotation when you see it.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

West China - folks live off the land , India - most folks live off the land .....

...Western cultures live off of mass agriculture and mass distribution .... birth rate is less than 2 per household ..

.... so without graphs ... most occidental peoples will have less dependency on the young..

..than the West ...... with any proforma produced ....

... .

You have a point: some people work and learn better from an organized table of numbers. A graph of those numbers is confusing to them.

 

[Big ole Boy]

dependent flesh needs super state

.... and the most dependent need a super-state to survive ..

.. West China and most areas of the occidental world do not need command and control

...fragmentation favors the man with the hoe

...back to earth

 

[DMZwerg]

Now look again at Pradhan and Taylor (2011b) again.

Actually, Pradhan and Taylor (2011b) refers to cs.dogpile.com/ClickHandler.ashx?du=http%3a%2f%2flinkback.morganstanley.com%2fweb%2fsendlink%2fwebapp%2fBMServlet%3ffile%3dvaelk76s-3o4h-g000-90db-0025b3a40100%26store%3d0%26user%3d91raszlrhqn-0%26__gda__%3d1433700628_c8aa5f914313398ee089f6165354f532&ru=http%3a%2f%2flinkback.morganstanley.com%2fweb%2fsendlink%2fwebapp%2fBMServlet%3ffile%3dvaelk76s-3o4h-g000-90db-0025b3a40100%26store%3d0%26user%3d91raszlrhqn-0%26__gda__%3d1433700628_c8aa5f914313398ee089f6165354f532&ld=20120815&ap=1&app=1&c=info.dogpl&s=dogpile&coi=239138&cop=main-title&euip=72.135.196.241&npp=1&p=0&pp=0&pvaid=3e687d25281845c7b518f654c34ae3a9&sid=1830193568.1294201691204.1345000256&vid=1830193568.1294201691204.1323370671.146&fcoi=417&fcop=topnav&fpid=2&ep=1&mid=9&hash=5C069CE9028FA5DD6F06474E59B39B88

Which was mysteriously absent from all your lists.

Whether that data itself is correct is only relevant through 2010. Beyond that is speculation. The problem with the data set (PDF you listed) not having proper annotations is that we do NOT have any reference we can immediately go to indicating the exact mathematical model used and therefore the post 2010 data is suspect.

Maybe you are familiar with the Chicago Tribune headline "Dewey Beats Truman". Well respected paper out to make their print deadline went and did a telephone poll which indicated a landslide for Dewey. What those conducting the poll did not account for is the fact that at that time telephones in the home were still relatively rare and often expensive so the population polled was heavily skewed Republican, thus the result.

So, instead of pointing out the graph, the data set, and so forth, go find where the formulae they used are located then show off how brilliant you believe you are for finding it when I didn't bother.

Why didn't I bother? Because no matter how much you can prove the data to be 100% true and correct (which can only be "exact" prior to 2011 and from there on is speculative) does not change that the graph was presented a certain way with a particular agenda in mind ... AFAICT in this case, investments. Yep, that paper appears to have been published in a Morgan Stanley "rag".[/quote]

But you can't admit that you are wrong

Actually, I can. here goes> I am wrong, the data may well have come from what should be a reliable source, but the speculative data (as well as the data set you linked to) was still poorly annotated.

you can't identify the same data used over and over again in academia, and other reports and that data came from the United Nations. I have the data, you don't. I download the same data from the Untied Nations website that was used by all of these published sources.

OK, according to you it came from the United Nations. So, what formulae were used to forecast the data? Please quote exact sources please, as in exactly which papers and studies that indicate the analytical methods and models used, and show me where the data states which papers the forecast data was determined by using said.

How many times data is used in academia and what the source is does not mean a thing unless it is properly annotated. It has to state where it came from. Further, speculation (aka OPINION) must indicate how it was derived.
I can say the world is flat all day long, but until I indicate my source for the information it is merely opinion. I could also state the world is round and again that is meaningless unless I either give you the basic data and formulae so you can prove it to be so for yourself via scientific method *OR* using standard academic methodology, quote which paper exactly I am putting forth this from, such as De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by Copernicus. Until sufficient data is given the statement, paper, or graph may have well been made up on the spot.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Actually, Pradhan and Taylor (2011b) refers to cs.dogpile.com/ClickHandler.ashx?du=http%3a%2f%2flinkback.morganstanley.com%2fweb%2fsendlink%2fwebapp%2fBMServlet%3ffile%3dvaelk76s-3o4h-g000-90db-0025b3a40100%26store%3d0%26user%3d91raszlrhqn-0%26__gda__%3d1433700628_c8aa5f914313398ee089f6165354f532&ru=http%3a%2f%2flinkback.morganstanley.com%2fweb%2fsendlink%2fwebapp%2fBMServlet%3ffile%3dvaelk76s-3o4h-g000-90db-0025b3a40100%26store%3d0%26user%3d91raszlrhqn-0%26__gda__%3d1433700628_c8aa5f914313398ee089f6165354f532&ld=20120815&ap=1&app=1&c=info.dogpl&s=dogpile&coi=239138&cop=main-title&euip=72.135.196.241&npp=1&p=0&pp=0&pvaid=3e687d25281845c7b518f654c34ae3a9&sid=1830193568.1294201691204.1345000256&vid=1830193568.1294201691204.1323370671.146&fcoi=417&fcop=topnav&fpid=2&ep=1&mid=9&hash=5C069CE9028FA5DD6F06474E59B39B88

Which was mysteriously absent from all your lists.

Since you did not bother to download the Morgan Stanley PDF document referred to in the proper annotation reference in THE GREAT LEVERAGING and read it, you did not know a few critical things, namely Pradhan and Taylor (2011b) graph is not found in the Morgan Stanley document. And there is no proper annotation for the graphs used, other than what appears underneath the graph. Now, take a look at the screen shot of the Morgan Stanley page that talks about DM and EM demographics.

Notice anything strange about the graph? Tell me what you see, please, and how does this compare to Pradhan and Taylor (2011b) graph as found in THE GREAT LEVERAGING and the proper annotation:

Pradhan, Manoj, and Alan M. Taylor. 2011b. Are EMs the New DMs? Emerging Issues, Morgan Stanley, May 4.

Whether that data itself is correct is only relevant through 2010. Beyond that is speculation. The problem with the data set (PDF you listed) not having proper annotations is that we do NOT have any reference we can immediately go to indicating the exact mathematical model used and therefore the post 2010 data is suspect.

Because you are so lazy and shoot from the hip, you can research the data for yourself. Your concern over proper annotation with out reading the entire article or proper examination of a graph with its sources labeled, and then your bogus assertions are tiresome.

So, instead of pointing out the graph, the data set, and so forth, go find where the formulae they used are located then show off how brilliant you believe you are for finding it when I didn't bother.

Lazy juvenile go read the United Nations website. I will give you the starting point.

Key Features of National Statistical Systems

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/dnss/kf/default.aspx

Yep, that paper appears to have been published in a Morgan Stanley "rag".

Which you never read but you make ignorant opinions and stupid assertions.

OK, according to you it came from the United Nations. So, what formulae were used to forecast the data? Please quote exact sources please, as in exactly which papers and studies that indicate the analytical methods and models used, and show me where the data states which papers the forecast data was determined by using said.

Lazy, ignorant and uninformed juvenile. Go read the United Nations website.

How many times data is used in academia and what the source is does not mean a thing unless it is properly annotated. It has to state where it came from.

You put too much importance on proper annotation that proves to be false (for you) to retrieve the information that is used. Even when it is properly annotated, you can't make heads or tails of it.