[Newspoetry] Statistics in Urbana

[Donald L Emerick]

Statistics in Urbana

Dear Frolicking Friends, Stoicking Statisticians, et. al(ickings).:

Well, you may know this already about "impact" statistics,
but, for what it's worth (ha), I offer this piece of information,
to supplement the ever supple commentary of Sir William.

Impact of (economic) institution is computed by using
as its basis the total direct expenditures (dollarized efforts).

Then, one inflates (always inflates, never deflates)
the basis according to a successive orders of marginal effects,
as in the economic ripple of the economic footprint
in the watery flow of the largely vaporous economy.

For you calculus freaks out there, this is an integration function
(which is just a fancy way of saying "we have this addition
to perform, in this highly sophisticated formula for addition,
according to the shape of the curve being integrated" --
and fancy, you should understand, means technical) --
which runs out a total at infinity,
when the ever smaller marginals
become almost trivial
(like most of my newspoetry, perhaps)
(assuming the function is integratiability...)).

The inflation of the basis is called the "multiplier effect":
which is the way we know that the impact is different
for different types of (economic) expenditures of effort.
However, multipliers are really quite difficult to calculate,
from actual data
(an oxymoron for the idea of a kind of data that is not actual,
but, if all data is actual and if what is not-actual data looks like data,
because data themselves, unadorned are in the form of numbers,
and thus if any number may look like any other number,
then, actual data means "these numbers are true measurements"
and unactual data are "those numbers are not true measurements"),
which leads to generic multipliers being estimated (at best, and
at worst, being waived in by magic wands of dubious assumptions).

<Parenthetic remarks really belong, hypertextually, to footnotes
and other redactive out-takes of the source material's
stream of consciousness in one mind, which often unminds others,
when played back, in a nearly live performance -- as an irritating reminder
of the vain pretensions that subject matters have some neat organizations.>


The upshot of this mumbo-jumbo --
which economists learn to speak like a native
(as a native to what is what I ask --
for there never was a native tribe of econometricians
speaking their argot terminalogicized theory=language,
where the "=" is like a double in a chemical formula,
and not the ordinary single bond of an English hyphen,
and I would use even stronger bonds of affiliations
for discussing some of these relationships
but natural languages of the natives (excuse me)
generally leave that task as an exercise for the speaker),
is that the proper NewsPoetry multiplier could be far larger
than Sir William's all too modest estimate for the impact.

Accordingly, I have inflated the ever more inflatable estimate,
hoping that the NewsPoetic bubble economy will never burst,
like Enron's and those of a few others did
(we are not going to have any offshore relationships
with those other (newspoetic) corporations).

Accordingly, I propose that the NewsPoetry impact number
be taken as 3 trillion dollars -- which seems to be saying
that a large part of the economic activity of the United States
is a derivative of NewsPoetic initiatives that began right here.

(And that, my children, is why Sir William is right, as well,
about the whole being overestimated by adding up its parts,
when, in fact, the whole already includes all of the parts,
which generally have no separable function --
ie, you rarely see a body organ, like a pair of lungs,
or heart, just lying around, doing its own thing,
apart from the whole -- unless, that is, you are
in a place of healing or a place of killing, like Afghanistan
(and, soon, perhaps, Iraq).  There is no sanction
for adding up impacts, because then you double count,
at least, everything: impact multipliers are non-additive numbers.)

<<You have just heard a selection from Vol IX, page 822B et. seq.,
of the New Emerickian Pedigological Encyclopedia, 5th edition,
copyright 2001, 1997, 1991, 1983, 1972 --
All (Oil and Mineral and Animal and Vegetable (oh my!) Rights Reserved.
Thanks for listening,
(and please deposit $1.00, in quarters,
if you wish to hear this selection, again,
which, with the multiplier effect in effect here,
comes to (strangely, another $3,000,000,000,000,
or 3 trillion dollars, as we natives like say.)
Donald L Emerick>>