tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post4242286758553269730..comments2024-03-12T22:19:32.339-04:00Comments on The New Arthurian Economics: Unscheduled stopThe Arthurianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-7025725912129310632013-09-03T05:17:25.579-04:002013-09-03T05:17:25.579-04:00But Christensen's calc already has a -1.5 fudg...But Christensen's calc already has a -1.5 fudge factor in it. Now we need another fudge factor? Anyway it is the arbitrariness of the fudge that I object to. If we need to eyeball the graph and make the adjustment, then why bother with all the preliminary calcs to line things up?<br /><br />Besides, my version of Christensen's calc is in the right place and doesn't need the fudge factor. Because I got the sequence of operations right.<br />The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-71645128072869552712013-09-02T21:35:29.434-04:002013-09-02T21:35:29.434-04:00If you subtract some constant in the range of 125 ...If you subtract some constant in the range of 125 from Lars' numbers, do the lines then overlay?<br /><br />Maybe that is the explanation for Lars' apparently arbitrary subtraction of 1.5 [IIRC] that got you so piqued in the first place.<br /><br />Cheers!<br />JzBJazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.com