<div>
<font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#002864">http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958</font>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Verdana" color="#002864" size="5"><strong>The Misleading Indicators</strong></font>
</div>
<font size="4">by Frank Shostak</font>
<font size="2">[Posted May 20, 2002]</font>
</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">![[image]]([/img] The<br />
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the academic panel that dates U.S.<br />
business cycles, moved a step closer to declaring an end to the recession that<br />
it said began in March 2001. The panel often waits for months before calling the<br />
end to a slump, in order to ensure that there is not be a renewal of economic<br />
weakness.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">The possibility that the economy may have reached the<br />
bottom of a slump is also supported by the index of Leading Economic Indicators.<br />
According to the Conference Board that compiles the index, this index has been<br />
posting strong gains--growing by 2.9 percent from September 2001 to March 2002.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Many economists believe that if the effects of<br />
factors that cause economic fluctuations could be ascertained before they start<br />
to have an effect on general economic activity, the government and its central<br />
bank could devise a suitable policy mix to counter these causes.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Likewise, businessmen, by acting on the<br />
information regarding the upcoming impact on general economic activity, could<br />
position their businesses in the most advantageous ways for them. The<br />
economic-indicators approach, then, is seen as a way of capturing early warnings<br />
regarding the upcoming recession or prosperity. What is the rationale behind<br />
this approach? Is it valid?</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><font face="Arial" size="3">What is a"leading indicator"?</font></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">The National Bureau of Economic Research<br />
introduced the economic-indicators approach in the 1930s. A research team led by<br />
W.C. Mitchell and Arthur F. Burns studied some 487 economic data to see whether<br />
the data persistently led, coincided with, or lagged turning points in the U.S.<br />
business cycle.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">The underlying premise of the NBER is that causes<br />
of business cycles are complex and are not properly understood. Furthermore, the<br />
bureau contends, these causes tend to vary over time and, consequently, it<br />
is much better to focus on the outcome of these causes as manifested through<br />
economic data.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">In short, the indicators approach is based on the<br />
view that it is possible to ascertain the state of an economic business cycle by<br />
monitoring economic data, regardless of what the nature of the causes of the<br />
business cycle are. The NBER has identified 31 cycles between December 1854 and<br />
March 2001, according to their peaks and troughs.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Once the data are classified into leading,<br />
coinciding, and lagging peaks and troughs of business cycles, they are combined<br />
into leading, coincident, and lagging indices. These indices are seen as<br />
economic signposts that are expected to alert analysts and policymakers<br />
regarding the state of a business cycle.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">When the leading-indicators index starts to<br />
display signs of weakening, this is seen as a possible indication of weakness in<br />
economic activity in the months ahead. The confirmation that the peak of the<br />
cycle might have been reached is ascertained by means of the coincident index,<br />
while the lagging index provides the final OK that this might be the case. Hence,<br />
by means of these three indicators, it is held, the phase of an economic<br />
business cycle can be established.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<h2><font face="Arial" size="3">The Black Box</font></h2><br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Despite the simplicity of this approach, it does<br />
not always work. Should we regard any fall in the leading index as a precursor<br />
for future economic decline? Is there a criterion that will tell us how many<br />
months the index must decline before we could be certain of an upcoming turning<br />
point in the economic business cycle?</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">The current method that is employed regards three<br />
consecutive declines in the leading index during an expansion as a signal of an<br />
upcoming recession. Likewise, three consecutive rises in the index during a<br />
recession are seen as a signal of an upcoming recovery.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Why, however, are three consecutive months, and<br />
not one or five, required in verifying an upcoming recession, or prosperity? The<br />
indicators approach remains silent on this point. Also, if one were to wait for<br />
the confirmation of the leading index signal on the signal from the coincident<br />
index, what is the point of having the leading index? After all, it supposed to<br />
alert policymakers and businessmen before the boom, or a bust, has started.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Furthermore, in order to be able to classify<br />
whether particular data lead the business cycle, one must have a definition of<br />
what a business cycle is. According to Mitchell and Burns,</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<i><br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Business cycles are a type of fluctuation found in<br />
the aggregate economic activity of nations.... a cycle consists of<br />
expansion occurring at about the same time in many economic activities,<br />
followed by similarly general recessions, contractions, and revivals which<br />
merge into the expansion phase of the next cycle; this sequence of changes is<br />
recurrent but not periodic.<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a></font><br />
</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">In other words, business cycles are seen as broad<br />
swings in many indicators, which upon their careful inspection allow us to see<br />
peaks and troughs in general economic activity. However, stating that business<br />
cycles are about swings in the data says nothing about what business cycles are.<br />
In order to define what business cycles are, there is the need to establish the<br />
driving force that is responsible for the emergence of economic fluctuations.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">By ignoring the essential driving factors behind<br />
economic swings, the indicators approach treats boom-bust cycles as something<br />
external to the economy. They are seen as being like viruses that arrive<br />
from outer space and attack the inhabitants of planet Earth. The role of the<br />
indicators in this way of thinking is to provide advanced warning regarding the<br />
upcoming attack of this menace. This, in turn, would permit the government and<br />
its central bank to introduce necessary measures to counter boom-bust cycles.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">If the driving factors of boom-bust cycles are<br />
not known, how is it possible to make sense of movements in the leading index?<br />
Furthermore, how could the government and the central bank introduce measures to<br />
counter something that is unknown?</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Contrary to this way of thinking, data do not<br />
talk, and they never issue any"signals" by themselves. It is the<br />
interpretation of the data, which is guided by a theory, that generates various<br />
"signals."</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">The indicators approach that was created by the<br />
NBER was designed to be as impartial as possible in order to be seen as purely<br />
scientific. This is what Rothbard had to say about the NBER methodology:</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<i><br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Its numerous books and monographs are very long on<br />
statistics, short on text or interpretation. Its proclaimed methodology is<br />
Baconian: that is, it trumpets the claim that it has no theories, that it<br />
collects myriads of facts and statistics, and that its cautiously worded<br />
conclusions arise solely, Phoenix-like, out of the data themselves. Hence, its<br />
conclusions are accepted as unquestioned holy"scientific" writ.<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a></font><br />
</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><font face="Arial" size="3">Are we really ignorant?</font></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Contrary to the indicators approach, boom-bust<br />
cycles are not about the strength of the data as such. (For instance, for the<br />
NBER, a recession is a significant decline in activity spread across the economy,<br />
lasting more than a few months.) It is about activities that sprang up on the<br />
back of loose monetary policies of the central bank.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Whenever the central bank loosens its monetary<br />
stance, it sets in motion an economic boom by means of the diversion of real<br />
funding >from wealth generators to various false activities that a free<br />
unhampered market would not facilitate.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Whenever the central bank reverses its monetary<br />
stance, this slows down or puts to an end the diversion of funding toward false<br />
activities, and that, in turn, undermines their existence. In short, the trigger<br />
to boom-bust cycles is central bank monetary policies--not some other group of<br />
mysterious factors.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Consequently, whenever a looser stance is<br />
introduced, this should be regarded as the beginning of an economic boom.<br />
Conversely, the introduction of a tighter stance sets in motion an economic bust.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">Furthermore, whenever the central bank changes<br />
its interest-rate stance, the effect of the new stance doesn't assert itself<br />
instantaneously; it takes time. The effect starts at a particular point and<br />
shifts gradually from one market to another market, from one individual to<br />
another individual. In short, the previous monetary stance may dominate the<br />
scene for many months to come before the new stance begins to assert itself.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">So while an economy could be in the midst of a<br />
liquidation process, i.e., an economic bust, on account of the still-powerful<br />
influence of the previous boom, this will not be seen in the data. If economists<br />
were to proclaim that there was no need to be concerned with the health of the<br />
economy since the leading index remains strong, they would be passing on<br />
erroneous information to their audience. If in a few months' time the tighter<br />
stance began to assert itself, the consequent fall in the leading index would likely catch<br />
most economic gurus by surprise.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><font face="Arial" size="3">The Longest-Ever Expansion?</font></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font face="Arial" size="3">According to the NBER, between March 1991 and<br />
March 2001, the U.S. economy experienced its longest economic expansion ever.<br />
This conclusion is questionable, however, since during this period the Fed<br />
raised interest rates 14 times (see chart). In short, a tighter stance couldn't<br />
have been good news for various false activities.</font><br />
<br />
<br />
<p align="center"><font face="Arial" size="3">[img]) </font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Thus, between February 1994 and February 1995,
the Fed raised the federal funds rate target from 3.25 percent to 6 percent, an
increase of 2.75 percent.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">This tightening was followed by an easier stance
that began in July 1995 and ended in January 1996, with the federal funds
falling to 5.25 percent.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Then, in March 1997, the central bank raised the
federal funds target rate by 0.25 percent, to 5.5 percent. This level was kept
until September 1998, when the new cycle of easing was introduced. Between that
time and November 1998, the federal funds rate target was lowered to 4.75
percent.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Then, on June 1999, a new cycle of tightening was
set in motion, with the federal funds rate rising to 6.50 percent by May 2000.
Finally, as of January 2001, a new cycle of easing was set, with the federal
funds rate target lowered to 1.75 percent.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">During the so-called prosperity phase, the
leading index fell for five consecutive months between January and May 1995.
According to the accepted rule, this had to be regarded as a valid signal of an
upcoming recession, which, according to the NBER, only arrived in March 2001.
Also, the capacity and production data of various goods displayed rather
surprising weakness for the prosperity phase.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Capacity use of fabricated metal products, after
peaking at 85.2 percent in December 1994, fell to 73.5 percent by March 2001.
The capacity use of industrial machinery and equipment, which topped at around
85 percent between 1995 to 1997, fell to 76.2 percent by March 2001 (see charts).</font>
<center>
<font face="Arial" size="3">![[image]]([/img] [img]) </font>
</center>
<font face="Arial" size="3">The following charts reveal that the capacity use
of iron and steel and nondurable goods had been in a steep downtrend between
1995 and March 2001. Moreover, the production of both electrical equipment and
iron and steel was stagnant during this period. Also, in 1998, during the
supposed prosperity, corporate profits after tax plunged by 13 percent.</font>
<center>
<font face="Arial" size="3"> </font>
<font face="Arial" size="3"> </font>
</center>
<font face="Arial" size="3">It would appear that as long as the NBER does not
officially declare the economy has reached a peak, no recession can take place.
On this Murray Rothbard wrote:</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Everyone waits for the National Bureau to speak;
when the oracle finally makes its pronouncement, it is accepted without
question. Thus, in 1966, the economy slowed down and receded to such an extent
that I, for one, concluded that we were in a recession. But no, GNP had not
declined quite long enough to meet the Bureau's definition of a recession, and
that, unfortunately, was that. And since we were not in what the Bureau called
a"recession," we by definition continued to be in a
"boom."<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a></font>
<h1><font face="Arial" size="3">What is the true leading indicator?</font></h1>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Since central bank monetary policies are
responsible for boom-bust cycles, changes in these policies obviously are
leading indicators of things to come. In other words, the data that meet the
criteria of a leading indicator are the instruments of central bank monetary
policy, i.e., the federal funds rate and monetary injections.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">If, on a particular date, the central bank
announced a looser monetary stance by lowering interest rates, the date of the
announcement must be regarded as the proper beginning of an economic boom.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Conversely, when the central bank announces a
tighter stance, this implies that the process of an economic bust was set in
motion. This type of information is very useful, for it tells us that various
false activities that sprang up on the back of the previous loose monetary
policy are likely to be in trouble in the months ahead.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">What, then, is one to make of the peaks and
troughs of economic fluctuations as established by the NBER? How important is
this information? By officially proclaiming that an economy is either in a
recession or in a recovery phase, the NBER adds very little to the obvious. In
fact, the NBER announces its verdicts long after peaks or troughs have been
reached.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Thus, the March 2001 peak was announced on
November 26, 2001. The March 1991 trough was announced on December 22, 1992. The
July 1990 peak was announced on April 25, 1991.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Most economists, however, are of the view that
the information about past boom-bust cycles in terms of their average duration
is very valuable, for it provides a possible clue as to how long an upcoming
cycle might last.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">But on this, most economists contradict
themselves, since by their own admission the causes of cycles are variable. That
implies that cycles are not homogeneous and, therefore, that no meaningful
average can be established. According to Rothbard:</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3"> [H]istory means change, and it is absurd to
assume that the underlying population of all this data remains constant and
unchanging, and therefore can be averaged meaningfully.<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a></font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Rather than classifying data in terms of leading,
coincident, and lagging the business cycle, it is more useful to classify the
data in terms of their sensitivity to changes in the central bank?s monetary
stance. For instance, a loose monetary stance tends to benefit activities that
are involved in the production of intermediate goods in relation to activities
that are involved in the production of consumer goods. The converse takes place
when the central bank tightens its stance.</font>
<h1><font face="Arial" size="3">Conclusions</font></h1>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Contrary to the accepted way of thinking, the
indicators approach adds very little to our understanding of what business
cycles are all about. Economists' various pronouncements regarding the
state of the economy--pronouncements which are based on the leading indicators
index--are downright arbitrary. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the
NBER?s official pronouncements regarding peaks and troughs of business cycles
are of much help to businessmen and policymakers.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="2">
<div>
<hr align="left" width="33%" SIZE="1">
</div>
<font size="2">Frank Shostak, Ph.D., is an adjunct scholar of the Mises
Institute and a frequent contributor to Mises.org. Send him <font color="#000080" size="2">MAIL</font> and
see his outstanding Mises.org <font color="#3571ca" size="2">Articles
Archive</font>. Dr. Shostak expresses gratitude to Michael Ryan for helpful
comments during the writing of this article.</font>
<div>
<hr align="left" width="33%" SIZE="1">
</div>
<div>
<div id="ftn1">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><font size="2">[1]</font></a><font size="2"> Quoted
in Allan P. Layton and Anirvan Banerji, "What is a Recession,"
www.businesscycle.com.</font>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><font size="2">[2]</font></a><font size="2"> Murray
N. Rothbard, <em>Making Economic Sense </em>(Ludwig von Mises Institute,
Auburn, Ala.), p. 232.</font>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><font size="2">[3]</font></a><font size="2"> Ibid.,
p. 231.</font>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4"><font size="2">[4]</font></a><font size="2"> Ibid.,
p. 233.
</font>
</div>
</div>
</font>
<center>
<HR>
</center> |
hallo,
in der tat interessant - jedoch als"misleading" würde ich den indikator dennoch nicht bezeichnen. das"misleading" liegt in der regel in der interpretation, besonders bei aus zahlreichen einzelgrößen"komponierten" indikatoren. und in der momentanen"sondersituation".
hinzu kommt noch die"medien-interpretation", die immer auf"sensation", schlagzeile oder quote ausgerichtet ist - oder reine unkenntnis darstellt.
ein beispiel waren die us-wachstumszahlen im 1. quartal - ungeheuerliche 5.80 %. jedoch NUR in der annualisierten jahresrate. nach üblicher berechnungsweise gegen vorjahresquartal dagegen ganz normale 1.6 %. diese zahl, vom census ebenso veröffentlicht, jedoch von den medien überhaupt nicht beachtet. ebensowenig die berechnungsweise der annualisierten jahresrate, die nach einem starken einbruch automatisch (!), rechnerisch (!) und logisch (!) zu einem so starken anstieg führen muß (prinzipiell: in % zum vorquartal mal 4 (!), was unter den gegebenen umständen automatisch einen überhöhten wert liefert). misleading also nur, wenn man die aktuellen voraussetzungen nicht beachtet.
ähnlich ist es mit der derzeitigen"inflationsrate". der deutsche"warenkorb" besteht aus 750 waren und dienstleistungen. betroffen von den unstrittigen preissteigerungen zum jahreswechsel waren jedoch hauptsächlich direkt im portemonnaie spürbare preise, benzin, tabak, lebensmittel. also gibt es einen"spread" zwischen"gefühlter" und realer inflation. der kostenanteil für"ernährung" am gesamten haushaltsbudget ist jedoch die letzen jahre durch sinkende preise anteilig stark zurückgegangen (arbeitsstunde pro steak). andere komponenten, z.b. mieten oder telekommunikation werden jedoch abgebucht, und preissenkungen weniger wahrgenommen. zumal man nicht dauernd umzieht, aber deutlich mehr telefoniert.
das mißtrauen in einzelne zahlen schwindet, sobald man sich näher damit beschäftigt und weniger auf die medienhysterie hört.
bei den verschiedenen"composite"-indikatoren sieht es momentan so aus, daß die sichtbaren anstiege seit dem herbst 2001 in sehr hohem maße nur den"weichen" (und volatileren) komponenten zu verdanken sind. dies ist ebenfalls logisch, klima, stimmung, vertrauen, aktienkurse haben eine kräftige gegenreaktion auf den einbruch/schock gezeigt. das muß auch so sein. und IST damit aber ein teil realität, den man schlicht nicht ignorieren darf. der jedoch auf dem hintergrund der ereignisse unbedingt entsprechend gewertet werden muß.
die frage ist daher, inwieweit diese"weichen" komponenten nicht nur einen"unvermeidlichen pendelschlag" in die gegenrichtung darstellen - der sich aber alsbald wieder relativieren wird. sogar eine gewisse erneute enttäuschung könnte (wiederum logisch vorprogrammiert) darauf folgen.
die"harten basisdaten" sind den weichen komponenten in usa bisher nur mäßig, in deutschland leider fast garnicht aufwärts gefolgt. insofern ist ein"mißtrauen" (besser: hinterfragen!) bei den konjunktur-indikatoren derzeit durchaus berechtigt. dies resultiert jedoch nicht aus schönfärberei oder manipulationen, sondern liegt eher im momentanen"spread" der schnellen und langsamen sowie weichen und harten indikator-komponenten. die die"realität" insgesamt aber durchaus korrekt wiedergeben, da"konjunktur" bildlich immer sowohl aus"stimmungen" als auch"gütern und leistungen" besteht.
ein gutes beispiel liefert der ifo-index: aktuelle LAGE eher besch..., KLIMA mittelprächtig erholt (logisch nach dem schock), ERWARTUNGEN gewaltig(!). was wird da wohl demnächst rauskommen?:-)
jedenfalls muß man diese (relativ seltenen) aktuellen umstände bei der bewertung mit berücksichtigen. das bild, was sich damit ergibt, zeigt allenfalls mal eine"erleichterung" in der psychologie, und lediglich einen gewissen return der harten zahlen auf die schwachen werte vom september. mehr nicht, aber auch nicht weniger! ausgerechnet die aktienbörsen zeigen in dieser situation eine"relative vernunft", als vorlaufender konjunktur-indikator (?).
einen"gewaltigen aufschwung" der wirtschaft wird es nicht geben, bestenfalls eine moderate konsolidierung - und die gefahr eines zweiten absackers (double-dip) oder einer längeren"depressiven phase" seitwärts abwärts ist absolut real. daß hier von der politik versucht wird, wenigstens die stimmung stabil positiv zu halten, ist nichts anderes als"staatstragend" und zu erwarten. die medien übertreiben wie üblich, dinge"schlechtreden" jedoch kann eine krise verschärfen, was in niemandes wirklichem interesse liegen dürfte (?).
besonders in deutschland, daß nach über 50 jahren"nachkriegs(schon)zeit" nur sehr langsam und mit gewaltigen ängsten und unsicherheiten wieder in die"weltrealitäten" zurückfindet, werden veränderungen und schocks wie der 11.september mit sehr viel hysterie und allgemeinem mißtrauen beantwortet. die"triple-w-time" (währungsreform-wiederaufbau-wohlstand) ist unwiderruflich zuende. symbol ist der (verdrängte aber tiefsitzende) verlust der dmark. die in der nachkriegs-geldgesellschaft hauptsächliches (einzig"erlaubtes"?) nationales indentifikationssymbol war. amerika geht es nicht viel anders, da der"technologie-bonus" aus den erbeuteten (europäischen) hochtechnologie-patenten nach 1945 und der"wirtschaftsvorteil" eines geteilten und gelähmten"alten europa" ebenso beendet sind. comeback der normalität, die aber als äußerst bedrohlich empfunden wird.
die wohlstandsverwöhnten bürger speziell in usa und deutschland sehen sich plötzlich nach einer sehr langen schönwetterphase wieder mit der rauhen wirklichkeit konfrontiert. und projezieren angst und mißtrauen zuallererst auf den staat, der bislang garant aller sicherheiten und des sorglosen wohlstands war. mit munterem trotz wird ignoriert, daß ein teil des wohlstands und der staatlichen fürsorge auf pump finanziert war und nun abgearbeitet werden soll.
daraus jedoch (insbesondere bei den biederen staatsbeamten!) eine bösartige verschwörung zu konstruieren, entspricht vielleicht speziell deutscher erfahrung und mentalität. in wirklichkeit kann man sich auf die"amtliche statistik" wahrscheinlich sogar dann noch verlassen, wenn sonst nix mehr funktioniert.
misleading sind allenfalls die aus den zahlen oft willkürlich oder emotional gezogenen schlußfolgerungen, besonders in"statistisch komplizierten" situationen wie jetzt.
die ad-linie in usa (nyse) ist übrigens stabil ansteigend, was einen starken wiederspruch zu den aktuellen indices beeinhaltet:-)
in diesem sinne, grüße, t.a.s.
(der aber NICHT beim statistischen bundesamt auf der gehaltliste steht):-)
<center>
<HR>
</center> |
Thread-Ansicht
Mix-Ansicht
Reihenfolge
Thread gesperrt
