Finals attendance from '95 to '07

[FrankBeMe]

I firmly disagree, Frank. GDP is directly the result of things like unemployment. Median income is a direct reflection of GDP. Gas prices are included in GDP. Inflation (deflation) is a direct result of GDP.

GDP is the best all-inclusive barometer of economic activity, and economic activity is inclusive of all of the factors you identified and many more.

For instance, the last time we had "stagflation" was in the 1970's during the oil crisis. (For all you youngsters, "stagflation" is inflation combined with a stagnant economy. Be thankful, if you're younger than 30, that you've never lived through it!)

Joe Average Fan isn't concerned with GDP. It's just some big number that's difficult to comprehend. The average person isn't going to think "oh, GDP is down .3% for the first quarter, so I should cut back on things." They're going to look at do I have a job? How secure is it? Can I afford to travel all over with the gas prices pushing $4? How much higher are other prices--food, hotels, flights? Sure, they are all part of GDP, but most people are only aware of their circumstances and how much things cost and where the money is coming from.

[garfield]

of course, all those different indicators can have different correlations with people's spending habits... GDP dropping by itself is one thing, unemployement (which can be a lagging indicator) and consumer spending can show a lot more of 'what do people have to spend at that moment'.

It is because unemployment and consumer spending are both lagging indicators that make them less useful in this comparison. Using them solely would skew the results of comparison and make it less useful.

The GDP numbers used are "revised" numbers, which include these lagging revisions making them accurate representations of all of GDP components.

Edited October 6, 2010 by garfield

[AlexL]

It is because unemployment and consumer spending are both lagging indicators that make them less useful in this comparison. Using them solely would skew the results of comparison and make it less useful.

The GDP numbers used are "revised" numbers, which include these revisions making them accurate representations of all of GDP components.

I would think it would make them more accurate... if someone is unemployed the day of the show, they arent likely spending money on extra stuff like drum corps. If consumer spending is down, then that will be reflected in drum corps ticket purchases.

Im not an economist by any means though.

Edited October 6, 2010 by AlexL

[garfield]

Joe Average Fan isn't concerned with GDP. It's just some big number that's difficult to comprehend. The average person isn't going to think "oh, GDP is down .3% for the first quarter, so I should cut back on things." They're going to look at do I have a job? How secure is it? Can I afford to travel all over with the gas prices pushing $4? How much higher are other prices--food, hotels, flights? Sure, they are all part of GDP, but most people are only aware of their circumstances and how much things cost and where the money is coming from.

I think you don't understand GDP, Frank, but don't feel bad because most people don't. Revised GDP figures include all of these feelings expressed by Joe Average Fans. If GDP is down it's likely an indication that Joe (or his neighbor) is out of work and would reflect his hesitance to spend on drum corps or other entertainment.

The fact that most people aren't aware of the components of GDP doesn't negate it's accuracy in reflecting consumer sentiment.

[garfield]

Now who wants to do a plot of the entertainment value of shows from '95 to '07?

There's a great poll in there somewhere, Hrothgar...

[garfield]

According to the DCP status quo, entertainment value has been steadily decreasing exponentially

in the past ten years. Therefore, we can deduce that there is a negative correlation between

entertainment value and attendance and corps should make there shows as esoteric as possible

to maximize revenue.

The best, most scientific post of the thread.

There you go, using logic to ruin a perfectly arguable discussion.

[FrankBeMe]

I think you don't understand GDP, Frank, but don't feel bad because most people don't. Revised GDP figures include all of these feelings expressed by Joe Average Fans. If GDP is down it's likely an indication that Joe (or his neighbor) is out of work and would reflect his hesitance to spend on drum corps or other entertainment.

The fact that most people aren't aware of the components of GDP doesn't negate it's accuracy in reflecting consumer sentiment.

No, I understand it...and I know that the debt to GDP ratio is pushing 95% right now. Once it gets over 100%, things won't be good, as if they are now.

[garfield]

No, I understand it...and I know that the debt to GDP ratio is pushing 95% right now. Once it gets over 100%, things won't be good, as if they are now.

My favorite economic topic. Debt/GDP is now 101.3% when all of the country's obligations are included.

Many studies show (and I've read most of them) that for every 1% that D/GDP rises over 90%, that GDP is reduced by .1%. So a 100% D/GDP removes 1 full percentage point from GDP.

A Bank for Int'l Settlements study commissioned last fall by India projects that the current trajectory of US D/GDP shows we will reach 140% by the end of the decade.

You can do the math.

[FrankBeMe]

My favorite economic topic. Debt/GDP is now 101.3% when all of the country's obligations are included.

Many studies show (and I've read most of them) that for every 1% that D/GDP rises over 90%, that GDP is reduced by .1%. So a 100% D/GDP removes 1 full percentage point from GDP.

A Bank for Int'l Settlements study commissioned last fall by India projects that the current trajectory of US D/GDP shows we will reach 140% by the end of the decade.

You can do the math.

Yep...it means we're toast! And India and China with their multi-trillion GDP's and their <$10,000 per capita will rule.

[HockeyDad]

One could do a comparison of location effects on attendance, and while it might be clear from this chart that Orlando was increasingly less-popular and Pasadena and Denver were, location was not the point of the comparison in THIS exercise.

My point was.... location was the biggest factor in attendance. So, this comparison looks pretty meaningless to me, in that it ignores the biggest factor driving attendance, location. IMO.