Presumably, this was open competition -- though many RFPs have been issued on a sole-source basis. We do need to be certain RFPs for technical, scientific, and management services give American (small) businesses a chance to compete for federal $.

Are you saying our government is giving away money to train foreigners on guest workers here or ? I don't know what this means.

There will be at least two more articles on the unemployment report, One on length, types of payroll jobs, overall, part time, which is through the roof and another with some demographics, such as the black unemployment situation, the young, the old and whatever else useful can be extracted.

Stay tuned!

Looks like a pretty good article at Wikipedia Copula_(probability_theory), where a Wiki editor has added a warning label --

The text in this article or section may be incoherent or very hard to understand, and should be reworded if the intended meaning can be determined. The talk page may have details. (August 2011)

The 'talk page' takes you to where the author of the article has posted that a rewrite is in the works. 'WikiProject Statistics' and 'WikiProject Mathematics' are both involved.

But now, about the "1:1 inputs" ... what do you (RO) mean by that? The u_i represent upper bounds for the U_i functions of the X_i, which are components of a pre-transform vector where all X_i are less than or equal to the same upper bound, x (nothing goes to infinity, everything bounded?). So what are the inputs? I am thinking inputs are the upper bounds.

I have googled on "1:1 input" and find only one link, to MIT concerning construction engineering (google-cached homework by Yeunwoo Cho, August 11, 2011) --

www-math.mit.edu/cse/codes/trusscode.m

Cho isn't actually using "1:1" -- really it turns out that every instance of "1:1" is in "-1:1". Cho writes in, I'm not sure exactly which programming language but something like C, pretty standard thing with some i's and some j's and a couple of k's here and there. Like sometimes there's "j=1:N" but sometimes that will be "-1:1" so you get the picture -- start at -1, then probably 0 and then stop at +1.

But I still don't know what "1:1 inputs" are.

What's most interesting ... or troubling ... is the assumption (in many places and maybe fundamental) of continuity. That's what we have discussed before here at EP, although not with the sophistication of the Wiki article. What happens when a discontinuity is imposed on a market, for example, a circuit breaker? Maybe it doesn't matter because there's always some market open somewhere.  But still, the inputs are presumably based on actual market data from moment to moment, maybe even records of actual trades ... and there goes your assumption of continuity in the range of your function, out the window! You would just have to build a whole lot more theory and write (or otherwise generate) many, many more lines of Fortran or whatever. And any 'proof' you thought you could rely on .... what happened to that? What would Gauss say?

It's only the conceptual models that are continuous, wouldn't you think? That is, the underlying thing is discrete mathematics. That is, the empirical copulas. But then there follows immediately the "Monte Carlo integration" for the "quantity of interest" -- approximated through the Monte Carlo algorithm. Now we are going to infinity, of course.

So, okay. Then having given due credit on the pure math side to the one and only Carl Friedrich Gauss (to be expected in any branch of mathematics!) and also Archimedes (how did Archimedes get into this? because "it's all Greek to me"?) -- we get to "Applications," quote below --

Dependence modelling with copula functions is widely used in applications of financial risk assessment and actuarial analysis – for example in the pricing of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Some believe the methodology of applying the Gaussian copula to credit derivatives to be one of the reasons behind the global financial crisis of 2008–2009. Despite this perception, there are documented attempts of the financial industry, occurring before the crisis, to address the limitations of the Gaussian copula and of Copula functions more generally, specifically the lack of dependence dynamics and the poor representation of extreme events.  ....

While the application of copulas in credit has gone through popularity as well as misfortune during the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, it is arguably an industry standard model for pricing CDOs. Less arguably, copulas have also been applied to other asset classes as a flexible tool in analyzing multi-asset derivative products. The first such application outside credit was to use a copula to construct an implied basket volatility surface, taking into account the volatility smile [see link at Wiki] of basket components. Copulas have since gained popularity in pricing and risk management of options on multi-assets in the presence of volatility smile/skew, in equity, foreign exchange and fixed income derivative business.  ....

[One example given as typical application of copulas is ... ] Analyzing and pricing spread options, in particular in fixed income constant maturity swap (CMS) spread options.

Recently, copula functions have been successfully applied to the database formulation for the reliability analysis of highway bridges, to the analysis of spike counts in neuroscience and to various multivariate simulation studies in civil, mechanical and offshore engineering. [citation needed]

There was once, and may still be, a mysterious building in Corvallis, Oregon, where there was very little observable activity of any kind (although building and surrounding grounds were scrupulously maintained) and which had just one label on it, "Applied Theory." People around OSU generally assumed the building to be some part of the secret government (so secret that I can neither confirm nor deny that it exists).

Revenge of the geeks?

The dilemma may be that the more you try to eliminate risk, the riskier it gets.

Hi, Ira! And other interested EP readers!

This is for serious EPers only! Goats only, no sheep need read any further.

Image: Seal, Department of Treasury

Just an image to spice things up!

Scales symbolize equity, justice.

Thirteen stars represent the original states, 1789.

The key ... what exactly does that signify?

_______________

Pending Ira's response  ... it happens that interesting and lively discussion is occurring over at EP's left-column-for-links -- Angry Bear.

Discussion over at Angry Bear actually refers to, and discusses, documentary evidence drawn from economic history, "going as far back as the data allows in the United States."

Discussion based on data! What a concept! Check it out!

The Effect of Individual Income Tax Rates on the Economy, Part 1: 1901 - 1928

The Effect of Individual Income Tax Rates on the Economy, Part 2: The Great Depression and the New Deal, 1929 - 1940

The Effect of Individual Income Tax Rates on the Economy, Part 3: WW2 and the Immediate Post-War Recovery

There's also (at Angry Bear) a related three-part series, "Define Rich" by Daniel Becker ('Divorced one like Bush')

Define rich Part 1

Define rich Part 2

Define rich Part 3

Part 3 is where tax table data are involved.

Also another series by author of 'Define rich', this two-part series entitled 'Opus 1' (still 'to be continued') --

Opus 1: A Discussion on taxation

Opus 1, Second movement: On taxation

The 'Opus 1' series specifically addresses the question of what is "the real reason beyond the income tax"? The discussion starts with, and leans on, "a paper that incorporates a review of a book: Does Atlas Shrug? [The paper is titled] 'The Economic Consequences of Taxing the Rich'. It caught my attention because the paper is written by a tax lawyer: Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, the Irwin I. Cohn Professor of Law and director of the International Tax LL.M. Program ... He also served as consultant to the U.S. Treasury on tax competition and OECD on tax competition, and is a member of the Steering Group of the OECD's International Network for Tax Research and chair of the American Bar Association's Tax Section Committee on Consumption Taxes."

Avi-Yonah's paper (March 2002) is available as a downloadable PDF online, courtesy of The Yale Law Journal (111 Yale L.J. 1391, 2002).

Avi-Yonah cites to "an excellent historical survey by W. Elliot Brownlee of the rates facing the rich from the beginning of the U.S. income tax in 1913 to the present" (Avi Yonah, quoted in 'Opus 1' at Angry Bear).

__________

I digress slightly here to note that the founder of the original (now much-debauched) Chicago school (of economics), Henry C. Simons, was  a professor on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School, not in the Department of Economics. Although a professor of law and not an economist by profession, Simons created much of basic monetarist theory and founded the original 'Chicago School'. How did a law professor become a leading light in both economic theory and economic policy? The answer lies in Simons' approach to economic policy -- namely by way of asking the fundamental question of libertarian thought as it applies to economics, "What economic policy best furthers individual liberty?" Simons believed that individual liberty was not only compatible with democracy but dependent on it. Simons' purpose and work was subsequently perverted by the later -- not the initial -- work of Nobelist Milton Friedman. Perversion of Simons' vision of libertarian economics (which Simons perhaps would have termed 'neo-classical') is today enshrined in the avowedly anti-democracy Ludwig von Mises Institute (located in Alabama, although proclaiming to be the defining source for all economics of the 'Austrian School').

For more on Simons and the 'Chicago Plan', see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_plan
__________

Excerpted for review purposes from 'Opus 1' (at Angry Bear) --

"I never really thought about it, but laws are the means by which we create taxation. They do reflect our reasoning. So, maybe we need to consider law arguments as we discuss taxes?" (Opus 1, Part 1).

"Let me give a little bit of my philosophy here. A long time ago I figured out that in the end, after all the pros and cons are lined up, the research is done, the discussion had, the reason anyone does anything is because they wanted to do it. [Formulation of 'Postmodernist' premise, current c. 2000 C.E.]  ...  Secondly, I am only as free as I allow you to be. [Formulation, IMO, of basic 'post-anarchist' premise]  Before someone starts thinking “libertarian talking here”, I understand that if in my freedom I accumulate enough money such that you have to rent a toilet from me verses buying your own, I'm not free because now I have to make sure the toilet is always available at the time of your need. If I don't accommodate your timing, then I am at risk of retaliation by you (and maybe a few of your friends).

"I have presented in the past that the goal of our economy is defined in the Constitution: ['Opus 1' quotes Preamble of the Constitution, neglecting to cite to Sixteenth Amendment or to extensive evidence as to intent of the People and of Congress in enacting and ratifying that amendment to the Constitution. Anyway, to continue quote of 'Opus 1' ... ]

"Specifically but not exclusively “domestic tranquility”, “general welfare” and “posterity”. An economy has been developed to serve our purpose. In the crudest terms of economic purpose; to create capital, as in "a company exists to create profit". But for me, the crude answer begs the question: why create capital? Because I want to... because of my values. I see taxation as how money comes into play in meeting the goals as stated."

Analysis of 'Opus 1' differs from the analysis of Henry C. Simons, who endorsed redistributive income tax primarily for the purpose of preventing essentially anti-liberty concentrations of economic power, that is, in order to further democratic government within a democratic society. Rather than reasoning, as many do today, that liberty follows from (or is defined as?) unrestrained accumulation of capital in private hands ('globol capital'), Simons believed that the value of liberty was primary, not derivative, and that the preservation of liberty requires that capital be decimated in the cause of necessary restraint of (if I may borrow a term from Ira) "our true enemy" -- which Simons would say is excessive concentration of power whether political or economic, that is, whether concentrated in privately-held fortunes, media ownership, corporate entities or (lest we forget such phenomena as Stalinism!) national or state governments. It is a fortunate by-product of the economics of freedom that, both the stream of economic progress and the stream of personal liberty flow from the same source -- an enlightened people determined to live in a free society.

I suggest that this may be Ira's point, but I'm not sure. Just taking Ira seriously.

See generally, American Monetary Institute

Also see, PDF of paper by Ronnie J. Phillips, The 'Chicago Plan' and New Deal Banking Reform, Working Paper No. 76 (June 1992), including excellent bibliography --

Link immediately starts download of PDF http://levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp/76.pdf

In 1992, economist Ronnie J. Phillips presciently wrote (excerpted for review purposes) --

... technology seems to have driven the developments of near monies in recent years and it is unlikely that 100% reserve banking could have affected the development of computers which, as we have seen in recent years, enable the creation of financial assets which would have been technologically impossible in the past.

... The problems we face today are in large part a direct result of the programs that were implemented during the early New Deal. The first and most obvious is federal deposit insurance. The amount of money necessary to pay off all depositors is unknown. We have done nothing to fundamentally change the situation. Even modest reforms to limit the amount of federal deposit insurance have been difficult to implement.

   The 100% reserve idea did not disappear after the passage of the Banking Act of 1935, in fact, Irving Fisher spent the remainder of his life lobbying Congress and the public on the need for 100% reserves ...  It is also not surprising that in recent years, we have seen the emergence of "narrow banking" or "core banking" proposals which are in the tradition of the 100% reserve plan.

   If we are ever again faced with economic, and particularly financial, problems on the level of the Great Depression, the clamor for the separation of the depository and lending functions of banks may reappear. It is also clear that the Federal Reserve can do little to cajole banks into lending when they do not wish to do so. What we are seeing is banks buying more government debt, which is available today on a scale far beyond the 1930s. The Federal Reserve can effectively restrain activity during a boom, but during a business downturn can do little to stimulate the economy beyond cutting interest rates to historically low levels. This is precisely the situation we face today.

What are the differences between early 1990s and now twenty years later? One thing for sure, central banks had a much easier time controlling the gold market than they do today. For another thing, that was the last of the pre-WTO era. And there are other differences.

See also, entire book by Phillips, The Chicago plan & New Deal banking reform (1995), (link to Google Books).

Also see, A Program for Monetary Stability. The Millar Lectures. Number Three 1959 by Milton Friedman, (no free download, available but no longer in print ).

Also see generally, American Monetary Institute

I'll try to write up another exercise for the reader on these numbers and reference his method vs. some others. I think it's way too low but the fundamental problem here is getting that monthly non-institutional civilian population number and even yearly, accurate.

It's good though he shows his methods. I actually left a comment on his blog where the problem is, it's with the low ball on non-institutional population as well as in payrolls, a job is a job and it doesn't matter if it's 10 hours per week, whereas the CPS are people.

I always tell my anarchist friends that where there's a power grid, there's a government. The only question is whether that government is publicly owned and managed, privately owned and publicly regulated .... or .....  (Some of them have moved off-grid!)

As I recall, going back about 150 years, Fisk and Gould managed high profits (mostly going into their own pockets) for the NYC RR by having crews turn track around rather than replacing it. That would work for a while, because the track was originally T-shaped, and one whole half of the top of the T had not been used. Simple matter of business sense.

But then, as need arose to replace track again, Fisk and Gould management ordered the track turned again .... and again .... and again. Eventually there were frequent accidents. Eventually British share holders staged a revolt, seeking to displace Fisk and Gould, but the rascals avoided the seemingly inevitable by stealing the printing press used to print stock certificates, moving it in the dead of night across the river to New Jersey, there printing up enough shares to control the election of a 'new' board of directors at the next general meeting!

Some anarchists suggest solutions for this kind of misbehavior, not pretty.

The country as a whole hasn't gone from First World to Third World status, for the reasons you point out.

But it's been true for years that we fail dismally on numerous measures when compared to our First World peers.

Isn't the key question whether what we're doing today is going to enable our descendants live a First World life -- or not? On that score I think it's clear we are continuing to make disasterous decisions.

In Mexico the elite lives a mostly First World existence. That's another thing to look at -- the difference between the lives lead by elites, average and poor people.

I'm having to stop and deal with some admin stuff, the site performance has slowed to a crawl. That said, I plan on writing a series of posts on employment, jobs, from the numbers to policy.

Enough is enough and this is just getting outrageous.