Centralized v. Local Finance How does the government finance education? Local finance  Taxes collected from a certain district  Used to finance local public good  Tax rate determined by the district’s median voter Centralized finance  Taxes imposed on statewide or nationwide tax base  Redistribution across states: A district gets a share of the tax money, not necessarily equal to money collected from that district  Tax rate determined by the state’s median voter  A district has little control over tax rates or provision of public good
View full slide show




C1 01TBM Three blind mice 3 SO1 35SSS Sing a song of sixpence .18 .14 02TLP This little pig went to market DO1 03DDD Diddle diddle dumpling my son John 07OMH Old Mother Hubbard 04LMM Little Miss Muffet 30HDD Hey diddle diddle 06SPP See a pin and pick it up 08JSC Jack Sprat could eat no fat C2 ffa=39LCS 09HBD Hush baby. Daddy is near 10JAJ Jack and Jill went up the hill 05HDS Humpty Dumpty C11 12OWF There came an old woman from France 11OMM One misty moisty morning 01TBM Three blind mice 13RRS A robin and a robins son 15PCD Great A. little a 02TLP This little pig went to market 14ASO If all the seas were one sea 21LAU The Lion and the Unicorn 03DDD Diddle diddle dumpling my son John 16PPG Flour of England 22HLH I had a little husband 04LMM Little Miss Muffet 17FEC Here sits the Lord Mayor 28BBB Baa baa black sheep 06SPP See a pin and pick it up 18HTP I had two pigeons bright and gay 36LTT Little Tommy Tittlemouse 10JAJ Jack and Jill went up the hill 23MTB How many miles is it to Babylon 37MBB Here we go round mulberry bush 13RRS A robin and a robins son 25WOW There was an old woman 38YLS If I had as much money as I could tell 14ASO If all the seas were one sea 26SBS Sleep baby sleep 39LCS A little cock sparrow 16PPG Flour of England 27CBC Cry baby cry 41OKC Old King Cole 17FEC Here sits the Lord Mayor C21 ffa=21LAU 29LFW When little Fred went to bed 42BBC Bat bat, come under my hat 18HTP I had two pigeons bright and gay 32JGF Jack, come give me your fiddle 48OTB One two, buckle my shoe 05HDS Humpty Dumpty 23MTB How many miles is it to Babylon 33BFP Buttons, a farthing a pair 50LJH Little Jack Horner 11OMM One misty moisty morning 25WOW There was an old woman 43HHD Hark hark, the dogs do bark .26 15PCD Great A. little a 32JGF Jack, come give me your fiddle 44HLH The hart he loves the high wood DO4 .46 21LAU The Lion and the Unicorn 33BFP Buttons, a farthing a pair 45BBB Bye baby bunting .19 22HLH I had a little husband 28BBB Baa baa black sheep 43HHD Hark hark, the dogs do bark 46TTP Tom Tom the pipers son 36LTT Little Tommy Tittlemouse 44HLH The hart he loves the high wood 47CCM Cocks crow in the morn SO8 41OKC Old King Cole 37MBB Here we go round mulberry 46TTP Tom Tom the pipers son 49WLG There was a little girl 50LJH Little Jack Horner 38YLS If I had as much money SO9 47CCM Cocks crow in the morn .28 2.2 SO2 08JSC Jack Sprat 42BBC Bat bat, come under my hat 49WLG There was a little girl 39LCS A little cock sparrow C12 48OTB One two, buckle my shoe .42 C111 09HBD Hush baby. Daddy is near C211 ffa=37 03DDD Diddle diddle dumpling my son John .41 12OWF There came old woman France 06SPP See a pin and pick it up 26SBS Sleep baby sleep 05HDS Humpty Dumpty 2 10JAJ Jack and Jill went up the hill 27CBC Cry baby cry 11OMM One misty moisty morning 13RRS A robin and a robins son .31 1.3 29LFW When little Fred went to bed 15PCD Great A. little a 14ASO If all the seas were one sea 45BBB Bye baby bunting 22HLH I had a little husband 16PPG Flour of England SO15 36LTT Little Tommy Tittlemouse 1.53 18HTP I had two pigeons bright and gay 37MBB Here we go round mulberry .42 29LFW When little Fred went bed 23MTB How many miles is it to Babylon SO3 38YLS If I had as much money 25WOW There was an old woman 48OTB One two, buckle my shoe C121 ffa=29 46TTP Tom Tom pipers DO3 32JGF Jack, come give me your fiddle SO10 33BFP Buttons, a farthing a pair 09HBD Hush baby. Daddy is near 01TBM Three blind mice SO11 42BBC Bat bat, come undert 43HHD Hark hark, the dogs do bark 26SBS Sleep baby sleep DO2 17FEC Here sits the Lord Mayor 21LAU The Lion and the Unicorn 44HLH The hart he loves the high wood 27CBC Cry baby cry .38 47CCM Cocks crow in the morn 45BBB Bye baby bunting 02TLP This little pig C2111 ffa=15 SO14 49WLG There was a little girl .1.6 04LMM Little Miss Muffet .36 05HDS Humpty Dumpty C1111 12OWF The came ol woman France 15PCD Great A. little a 1.8 03DDD Diddle diddle dumpling my son John 22HLH I had a little husband 06SPP See a pin and pick it up 36LTT Little Tommy Tittlemouse SO4 13RRS A robin and a robins son 38YLS If I had as much money 16PPG Flour of England 10JAJ Jack and Jill went up the hill 48OTB One two, buckle my shoe 18HTP I had two pigeons bright and gay TO1 23MTB How many miles is it to Babylon SO12 32JGF Jack, come give me your fiddle 14ASO If all the seas 33BFP Buttons, a farthing a pair 11OMM One misty moisty SO13 25WOW There was an old woman 43HHD Hark hark, the dogs do bark 44HLH The hart he loves 37MBB Here we go rnd mulberry 47CCM Cocks crow in the morn 49WLG There was a little girl C2111 seems to be lullabys? no gaps C2111 seems to focus on .3 1.3 SO5 C11111 extremes? (big and small) 03DDD Diddle diddle dumpling my son John 13RRS A robin and TO2 06SPP See a pin and pick it up 16PPG Flour of England 23MTB How many miles to Babylon 18HTP I had two pigeons bright and gay 33BFP Buttons, a farthing a pair Notes: 32JGF Jack, come give me your fiddle 43HHD Hark hark, the dogs do bark 47CCM Cocks crow in the morn In text mining, just about any document is eventually going to be an 49WLG There was a little girl C111111 SO6 outlier due to the fact that we are projecting high dimension (44 here) onto 06SPP See a pin and pick it up 16PPG Flour of England SO7 03DDD Diddle diddle dumpling dimension=1. Thus the ffa will almost always be an outlier in LAvgffa. 18HTP I had two pigeons bright and gay 47CCM Cocks crow in the morn 32JGF Jack, come give me your fiddle MG44d60w A-FFA dendogram
View full slide show




} << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << << "Stacks: #1 (" << s1 << ") #2(" << s2 << "Queues: #1 (" << q1 << ") #2(" << q2 << "Are Stack 1 and Stack 1 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Stack 2 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Stack 3 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Stack 4 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Queue 1 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Queue 2 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 1 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((s1 "Are Stack 2 and Stack 2 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 2 and Stack 3 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 2 and Stack 4 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 2 and Queue 1 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 2 and Queue 2 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 2 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 2 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((s2 "Are Stack 3 and Stack 3 equal? " << ((s3 "Are Stack 3 and Stack 4 equal? " << ((s3 "Are Stack 3 and Queue 1 equal? " << ((s3 "Are Stack 3 and Queue 2 equal? " << ((s3 "Are Stack 3 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((s3 "Are Stack 3 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((s3 "Are Stack 4 and Stack 4 equal? " << ((s4 "Are Stack 4 and Queue 1 equal? " << ((s4 "Are Stack 4 and Queue 2 equal? " << ((s4 "Are Stack 4 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((s4 "Are Stack 4 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((s4 "Are Queue 1 and Queue 1 equal? " << ((q1 "Are Queue 1 and Queue 2 equal? " << ((q1 "Are Queue 1 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((q1 "Are Queue 1 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((q1 "Are Queue 2 and Queue 2 equal? " << ((q2 "Are Queue 2 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((q2 "Are Queue 2 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((q2 "Are Queue 3 and Queue 3 equal? " << ((q3 "Are Queue 3 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((q3 "Are Queue 4 and Queue 4 equal? " << ((q4 ") ") == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == #3 #3 s1) s2) s3) s4) q1) q2) q3) q4) s2) s3) s4) q1) q2) q3) q4) s3) s4) q1) q2) q3) q4) s4) q1) q2) q3) q4) q1) q2) q3) q4) q2) q3) q4) q3) q4) q4) (" << s3 (" << q3 ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" ? "YES!" << ") #4 (" << s4 << << ") #4 (" << q4 << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl; : "NO! ") << endl << : "NO! ") << endl << ")\n"; ")\n\n"; endl; endl; endl; endl; endl; endl; endl; endl; Chapter 5 – Page 8 cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout cout
View full slide show




Entrepreneurship: is it good enough to be social? John F. McVea and Michael J. Naughton Introduction • The term Social Entrepreneurship has experienced a huge growth in influence over that last decade. The literature proposes a number of advantages to social entrepreneurship as a frame of reference: • Promoting innovation within non-profits • Leveraging and focusing scarce philanthropic resources • Faster response to strategic challenges • Infusion of business skills to non-business world • Involvement of non government assets in social problems • Creation of hybrid (blurred) organizations between for profit and non profit worlds. It is widely observed that practice has outpaced theoretical development leading to little agreement on definitions or frameworks for social entrepreneurship. We believe that widespread and unchallenged acceptance of the term Social Entrepreneurship masks some dangers and has contributed to confusion in the field. We believe that if we apply some insights from Catholic Social Teaching to the issue of social entrepreneurship we can move beyond the false dichotomy of Entrepreneurship/ Social Entrepreneurship and identify three specific entrepreneurial strategies which support a more robust discussion of the nature of the work that is entrepreneurship. We believe that the field would benefit from spending less time discussing social entrepreneurship and more time discussion the nature of the good entrepreneur. • • • • • The dangers of naïve acceptance of Social Entrepreneurship • • • The rhetorical risk: • Narrow definition: if S.E. is simply used to rebrand non-profits then much of the value of the new activities, hybrid design, stimulation of new resources and innovation is lost. • Implied dichotomy: if “good” ventures are termed “social” it can imply that other forms of entrepreneurship are “asocial” or “anti social” • Boundarylessness: In contrast, if all business activities are deemed “social”, to some degree or other, then the term loses all meaning focus on the distinctive phenomenon that is S.E. Despite these risks we are more concerned with a risk beyond rhetoric; the risk of undermining the meaning of work, particularly from the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching. While this perspective is drawn from the Catholic tradition, accepting the content of CST does not require acceptance of Catholic faith (Guitan, 2009). The three goods of social entrepreneurship • We are concerned by the side-effects of a concentration thesis that suggests that the moral responsibilities of entrepreneurship can be concentrated in a subset of businesses called social enterprises, presumably leaving other enterprise to simply concentrate on serving themselves. • We are concerned by the impact such a concentration thesis could have on the conception of the meaning of work beyond the world of social enterprise. • We are concerned with how such an approach can focus attention solely on the altruistic contributions of entrepreneurial ventures as the sole measure of their contribution to the Common Good • Instead we propose that, rather than trying to determine the difference between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship, it would be more productive to focus on the questions “What is Good Entrepreneurship? What action and activities define that goodness?” • We further propose that, by apply the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching, we can identify three specific strategies through which entrepreneurial ventures may contribute to the Common Good thus suggesting that good entrepreneurship requires a focus on: 1. Good Goods. The primary way an entrepreneurial venture can contribute to the Common Good is by bringing into existence new products and services which are inherently good and which enrich lives and minimize any unintended harms. This can include what we call the “entrepreneurship of the mundane”, that is, the manufacture of the nuts and bolts and basic necessities of life as well as the creation of life saving treatments. However, inclusion of good goods as a primary moral contribution of entrepreneurship must also require of the entrepreneur analysis of what goods are not good, and what aspects of even good goods should be redesigned or rethought in order to minimize unintended consequences. We find, in our discussions, that this is a much under appreciated dimension of the good of entrepreneurship. 2. Good Work. The second way an entrepreneurial venture can contribute to the Common Good is through the nature of the work that is carried out by the venture. This dimension has several aspects both internal and external to the entrepreneur: • The development of good character in the entrepreneur. This aspect of the good is derived from the subjective dimension of work, that is, just as how-we-work ends up changing the world, so working-on-the-world changes us. Most professionals spend the majority of their waking hours at work. As habits, character and wisdom are developed through experience and activity, for the entrepreneur, doing good work is an important opportunity to develop character. Society as a whole is better off for having good, successful entrepreneurial leaders who, through that calling, can become leaders of character. This dimension of the entrepreneurial good is widely unappreciated even by entrepreneurs themselves • Good relations with employees, customers and other stakeholders. Value creation and trade creates opportunities for the building of social relationships. The central question is “Are you in good relation with those with whom you create value?’ Do your employees have opportunity to develop as people? 3. Good Wealth. The third way the good entrepreneur can contribute to the Common Good is through the creation of good wealth. Good wealth requires a balance of reward for labor/ creativity with the provision of a living wage to all. Good wealth is often captured by individual action but has social strings attached. From the CST perspective the creation of good wealth implies a particular solidarity with the poor. One way to contribute to the common good is to donate altruistically to those in need. But even here, altruism is only one of a number of possible strategies. Good entrepreneurs may also contribute by donating their time or their particular skills. Indeed, since the donation of time and work often requires physical interaction with those in need, it often generates a solidarity of far greater integrity. Finally, it must be emphasized that altruism, for the entrepreneur, is always dependent, indeed subsequent to the creation of good wealth in the first place. Literature cited Alvord, Sarah, David L. Brown, and Christine W. Letts, 2004. “Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation: An Exploratory Study,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 40:260. Benedict XVI, Caritas et veritate,   Boschee, Jerr. 1998 “What does it take to be a social entrepreneur?” National Centre for Social Entrepreneurs (www.socialentrepreneurs.org/whatdoes/html), 5pp.   Cannon, Carl. 2000. “Charity for profit: how the new social entrepreneurs are creating good by sharing wealth” National Journal, June 16: 1898-1904.   Christie, Michael and Benson Honig. 2006. “Social entrepreneurship: New research findings.” Journal of World Business. 41: 1-5.   Dees, Gregory, J., 1998. “The Meaning of ‘Social Entrepreneurship,’” Original Draft: 10/3.   Drucker, P.F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.   Fowler, Alan. “NGDOs as a moment in history: beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or civic innovation?” Third World Quarterly, 21(4): 637-654.   Gregg, S. and G. Preece: 1999, Christianity and Entrepreneurship (The Centre for Independent Studies Limited, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia).   Hibbert, Sally A., Gillian Hogg and Theresa Quinn. “Consumer response to social entrepreneurship: The case of the Big Issue in Scotland.” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 7(3): 288-301.   Johnson, Sherrill, 2000. “Literature Review on Social Entrepreneurship,” Canadian Center for social Entrepreneurship. (http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/ccse/Publications/).   John Paul II, Pope.: 1992 Laborem Exercens (On Human Work): 1981, in D. J. O’Brien and T. A. Shannon, (eds.), Catholic Social Thought (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY).   John Paul II, Pope.: 1992 Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concern): 1987 in D. J. O’Brien and T. A. Shannon, (eds.), Catholic Social Thought (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY).   Kennedy, R., G, Atkinson, and M. Naughton, (eds.): 1994, Dignity of Work: John Paul II Speaks To Managers and Workers (University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland).   Mair, Johanna and Ernesto Noboa, 2003. “Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social Enterprise get Formed,” IESE Business School.   Mair, Johanna and Ignasi Marti, 2006. “Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight,” Journal of World Business. 41: 36-44.   Melé, D.:2001, ‘A Challenge for Business Enterprises: Introducing the Primacy of the Subjective Meaning of Work in Work Organization’, (http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/cst/mgmt/le/papers/mele.htm) Conclusions We have argued that, while there is great promise in the contemporary social entrepreneurship movement, there are also a number of important dangers. We propose that, if we confront rather than acquiesce to these dangers, we can use the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching to broaden the scope of entrepreneurial ventures that we study, to enrich the moral dimension of entrepreneurial strategy and to deepen the teaching of entrepreneurship as a whole. We recommend the following to move toward these contributions: • Incorporate social entrepreneurship into entrepreneurship in a way that enhances the three goods of entrepreneurship. Specifically we propose replacing the questions “What is social entrepreneurship?” with the questions “What does it mean to be a Good entrepreneur?” From this perspective we can then apply what we have called the three goods of entrepreneurship as a means of supplying critical challenge and inspiration to all forms of entrepreneurship such that the true moral dimension of this critical force in our lives comes into fruition. • Encourage research within the entrepreneurship discipline that addresses traditional social entrepreneurial issues such as micro lending, fair trade products, etc. • Develop bridge courses such as Theo/Cath 306 which help students understand and experience the meaning of the good entrepreneur as well as connect students to the spiritual and moral principles of a good entrepreneur. • Expose entrepreneurship students to so-called social entrepreneurs as well so-called conventional good entrepreneurs so they can see the spectrum of entrepreneurial activities. © File copyright Colin Purrington. You may use for making your poster, of course, but please do not plagiarize, adapt, or put on your own site. Also, do not upload this file, even if modified, to third-party file-sharing sites such as doctoc.com. If you have insatiable need to post a template onto your own site, search the internet for a different template to steal. File downloaded from http://colinpurrington.com/tips/ academic/posterdesign. Acknowledgments I am indebted to Michael Naughton and Laura Dunham for their reflections and thoughts on this paper.
View full slide show




24 Functions are not Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods F are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods Methods are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions Functions
View full slide show




State and Local Public Finance Lecture 3: Voting Identifying the Median Voter  But voters do not line up, so the median voter is not identified!  The median voter model shows how to identify the median voter assuming preferences are driven by demand factors. o The median voter has the median income and the median tax price. o This model places certain restrictions on preferences. o This model assumes political institutions are neutral.
View full slide show




VOMmean w F=(DPP-MN)/4 Concrete4150(C, W, FA, Ag) 0 1 1 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 4 med=14 9 1 10 1 11 2 12 1 13 5 14 1 15 3 med=18 16 3 17 4 18 1 19 3 20 9 21 4 22 3 23 7 24 2 med=40 25 4 26 8 27 7 28 7 med=56 29 10 30 3 31 1 32 3 33 6 med=61 34 4 35 5 37 2 38 2 40 1 42 3 43 1 44 1 45 1 46 4 ______ CLUS 4 gap=7 49 1 56 1 [52,74) 0L 7M 0H CLUS_3 58 1 61 1 65 1 66 1 69 1 ______ gap=6 71 1 77 1 [74,90) 0L 4M 0H CLUS_2 80 1 83 1 ________ gap=14 86 1[0.90) 43L 46 M 55H 100 1 [90,113) 0L 6M 0H CLUS_1 103 1 105 1 108 2 112 1 _____________At this level, FinalClus1={17M} 0 errors C1 C2 C3 C4 med=10 med=9 med=17 med=21 med=23 med=34 med=33 med=57 med=62 med=71 med=71 med=86 CLUS 4 (F=(DPP-MN)/2, Fgap2 _______ 0L 0M 3H CLUS 4.4.1 gap=7 0 3 =0 0L 0M 4H CLUS 4.4.2 gap=2 7 4 =7 9 1 [8,14] 1L 5M 22H CLUS 4.4.3 1L+5M err H 10 12 11 8 gap=3 12 7 ______ 0L 0M 4H CLUS 4.3.1 gap=3 15 4 =15 18 10 0L 0M 10H CLUS 4.3.2 gap=3 21 3 =18 22 7 ______ 23 2 [20,24) 0L 10M 2H CLUS 4.7.2 gap=2 25 2 [24,30) 10L 0M 0H CLUS_4.7.1 26 3 27 1 28 2 gap=2 29 1 31 3 CLUS 4.2.1 gap=2 32 1 [30,33] 0L 4M 0H Avg=32.3 34 2 0L 2M 0H CLUS 4.2.2 gap=6 40 4 =34 ______ 0L 4M 0H CLUS_4.2.3 gap=7 47 3 =40 52 1 0L 3M 0H CLUS_4.2.4 gap=5 53 3 =47 54 3 55 4 56 2 57 3 ______ gap=2 58 1 [50,59) 12L 1M 4H CLUS 4.8.1 L60 2 8L 0M 0H CLUS_4.8.2 61 2 [59,63) gap=2 62 4 ______ =64 2L 0M 2H CLUS 4.6.1 gap=3 64 4 [66,70) 10L 0M 0H CLUS 4.6.2 67 2 gap=3 68 1 71 7 ______ gap=7 72 3 [70,79) 10L 0M 0H CLUS_4.5 79 5 5L 0M 0H CLUS_4.1.1 gap=6 85 1 =79 87 2 [74,90) 2L 0M 1H CLUS_4.1 1 Merr in L Median=0 Avg=0 Median=7 Avg=7 Median=11 Avg=10.7 Median=15 Avg=15 Median=18 Avg=18 Median=22 Avg=22 2H errs in L Median=26 Avg=26 Median=31 Median=34 Avg=34 Median=40 Avg=40 Median=47 Avt=47 Accuracy=90% Median=55 Avg=55 1M+4H errs in Median=61.5 Avg=61.3 Median=64 Avg=64 2 H errs in L Median=67 Avg=67.3 Median=71 Avg=71.7 Median=79 Avg=79 Median=87 Avg=86.3 Suppose we know (or want) 3 clusters, Low, Medium and High Strength. Then we find Suppose we know that we want 3 strength clusters, Low, Medium and High. We can use an antichain that gives us exactly 3 subclusters two ways, one show in brown and the other in purple Which would we choose? The brown seems to give slightly more uniform subcluster sizes. Brown error count: Low (bottom) 11, Medium (middle) 0, High (top) 26, so 96/133=72% accurate. The Purple error count: Low 2, Medium 22, High 35, so 74/133=56% accurate. What about agglomerating using single link agglomeration (minimum pairwise distance? Agglomerate (build dendogram) by iteratively gluing together clusters with min Median separation. Should I have normalize the rounds? Should I have used the same Fdivisor and made sure the range of values was the same in 2nd round as it was in the 1st round (on CLUS 4)? Can I normalize after the fact, I by multiplying 1st round values by 100/88=1.76? Agglomerate the 1st round clusters and then independently agglomerate 2nd round clusters? CONCRETE
View full slide show




Table 7.3–1 (continued) randn Generates a single normally distributed random number having a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. randn(n) Generates an n n matrix containing normally distributed random numbers having a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. randn(m,n) Generates an m n matrix containing normally distributed random numbers having a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Like rand(’state’) but for the normally distributed generator. Like rand(’state’,s) but for the normally distributed generator. Like rand(’state’,0) but for the normally distributed generator. Like rand(’state’,j) but for the normally distributed generator. Like rand(’state’,sum(100*clock)) but for the normally distributed generator. Generates a random permutation of the integers from 1 to n. s = randn(’state’) randn(’state’,s) randn(’state’,0) randn(’state’,j) randn(’state’,sum(100*clock)) randperm(n) 7-23
View full slide show




Public Goods Private goods are produced through the market because they are divisible and come in units small enough to be afforded by individual buyers. Private goods are subject to the exclusion principle, the idea that those unable and unwilling to pay are excluded from the benefits of the product. Public goods would not be produced through the market, because they are indivisible and are not subject to the exclusion principle. National defense is a public good that is there for all of the U.S. people. Government paid for that through tax revenue. Those who receive benefits without paying are part of the so-called free-rider problem. Private producers would not be able to find enough paying buyers for public goods because of the free-rider problem. Therefore, public goods are not produced voluntarily through the market but must be provided by the public sector and financed by compulsory taxes. Quasi-public goods are those that have large positive externalities, so government will sponsor their provision. Otherwise, they would be underproduced. Medical care, education, and public housing are examples. Public and quasi-public goods are purchased through government, by group, or collective, choice. In a representative democracy that means voting for the candidate whose priorities for spending most closely match your own. According to the survey result, Americans rate education as their number one priority during the last presidential campaign in 2000. Therefore, candidates tried to emphasize their education policies to get more votes. Resources are reallocated from private to public use by levying taxes on households and businesses, thus reducing their purchasing power and using the proceeds to purchase public and quasi-public goods. This can bring about a significant change in the composition of the economy’s total output. Benefit – cost analysis is a technique in decision making process of the public sector. The concept involves comparing the marginal benefit (MB) of extra public goods with the marginal cost (MC) of providing the additional public goods. The rule to follow is that marginal benefit should equal or exceed the marginal cost. If the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit, that project should not be selected. When several projects whose MB exceeds or equal to MC are available, the project with the highest total benefit will be selected.
View full slide show




  Deductions for certain taxes are allowed Taxes are deductible, fees are not ◦ Taxes are imposed by a government to raise revenue for general public purposes ◦ Fees are charges with a direct benefit to person paying  Examples of deductible taxes ◦ State and local income taxes (deductible in year paid) ◦ Sales/use tax (may use actual sales tax or from IRSprovided tables) ◦ Real property taxes ◦ Personal property taxes  Example of nondeductible taxes include estate taxes, gift taxes and excise taxes 2010 Cengage Learning
View full slide show