I actually attended u.c. Berkeley and USC and had I hammered the GMAT properly, a top 5 program would have been attainable. Instead, I walked in cold to the GMAT, got a deplorable 610, but achieved a 6/6 in the analytical writing section. This is the same section where Asok got a 2
I am, six days a week. I call it a travesty. I spend my nights studying forecasting and mathematical modeling that few would understand (save for asok and eyuppie). I am self-taught with linear algebra (need it for understanding econometric stuff beyond 3 variables). I apply this shit to social media forecasting.
This is where you show your ignorance. The statistical models used for predicting the outcomes of sports games are similar to those used to predict the outcomes of presidential elections. Most of the models you will use for each are non-linear models. For baseball, it could be number of walks versus weather conditions; for political campaigns it could be variables such as probability of a woman voting based on the value of the car she is driving.
By using a series of sophisticated tests, modeling techniques, diagnostics, etc, you can craft a mathematical model that forecasts the likely outcome within a 95% confidence interval.
He's right, though. The fact that the poll results are almost all within the margin of error does not look good for Obama. Undecideds historically have shifted toward the challenger. However, there aren't enough presidential elections to provide a solid sample, and each election has far too many unique variables to quantify.
Moreover, even if a poll has been reliable nine times out of nine in past elections does not mean it will continue to be reliable. It easily could have been reliable because of chance, not necessarily because of superior methodology.
In short, this election will be very close, but I predict Obama will win by +100000 in the popular vote, and will narrowily win the electoral college.
Interestingly, many Russian youths have not forgotten about the Soviet Union and the danger we poised to their parents during the 80s. This is in sharp contrast to our youth, a group of faggy, tight pants wearing, lipstick slathering emo cowards who couldn't point out Russia on a map even if it were highlighted.
And its not like the Soviet Union was this innocent state that cringed from US hegemony. Rather, it was an escalation of sabre rattling which gained steam during ww2 and expanded soon after with the Space Race. It appeared that the Soviets were kicking our asses with technology and for awhile they were. With economic systems that were wholly incompatible, each side of the Cold War had to adopt mutually assured destruction to maintain a balance of power.
It's not like 10,000 ICBMS were manufactured in 1952. The threat grew slowly yet steadily over decades.
In the 1970s and 80s the cold war and the threat of nuclear annihilation sure felt real. But now we face a world war, over declining resources. In a way the amplitude of the threat is similar, in that both scenarios feel imminent
Cost of living adjustments as computed by the SSA:
July 1981 -- 11.2%
July 1982 -- 7.4%
January 1984 -- 3.5%
January 1985 -- 3.5%
January 1986 -- 3.1%
January 1987 -- 1.3%
January 1988 -- 4.2%
January 1989 -- 4.0%
January 1990 -- 4.7%
January 1991 -- 5.4%
January 1992 -- 3.7%
January 1993 -- 3.0%
January 1994 -- 2.6%
January 1995 -- 2.8%
January 1996 -- 2.6%
January 1997 -- 2.9%
January 1998 -- 2.1%
January 1999 -- 1.3%
January 2000 -- 2.5%(1)
January 2001 -- 3.5%
January 2002 -- 2.6%
January 2003 -- 1.4%
January 2004 -- 2.1%
January 2005 -- 2.7%
January 2006 -- 4.1%
January 2007 -- 3.3%
January 2008 -- 2.3%
January 2009 -- 5.8%
January 2010 -- 0.0%
January 2011 -- 0.0%
January 2012 -- 3.6%
Convert those numbers into decimals, where 3.6% = 0.036. Add 1 to each number. Start with 1981 and begin multiplying the numbers together.
End result: 2.742953427
So, according to the SSA the cost of living has increased by 274% since 1981. That, obviously, is a conservative estimate.
Has the average income reason 274%? That would mean, based on 1981 stats, that the average income today would be 21,050 * 2.742953427 = 57739.16963835.
Thus, the average household income in 1981 would be equivalent to over 100k a year today, all other variables held equal.
Not trying to argue with you here but am trying to make a point that things financially were better decades ago.
This recession is longer, deeper, and more severe than the one in the early 80s.
They also changed how inflation was calculated in the CPI index by removing gas and food prices. Today's inflation rate is underestimated.
Also underestimated is the unemployment rate. They obfuscate the issue by only counting a fraction of those truly unemployed. U6 unemployment rate is still at least 15% and even that is a conservative estimate.