Oh look, Reinhart and Rogoff have taken to the pages of the New York Times to explain why the fact that they were totally wrong with all their data about HIGH DEFICIT DOOOOOM does not actually mean that they were wrong about HIGH DEFICIT DOOOOOM. Reinhart and Rogoff, in case you are wondering, are two economists who wrote a very famous paper purporting to demonstrate that high public debt to GDP ratio leads to negative economic growth. This paper was then
They appear to be saying there&#039;s <em>no difference</em> between a rolloff from 2.9% to -0.1% and a rolloff from 3.2% to 2.2%.
What the holy flying fuck? That argument makes them look even worse than the fact they can&#039;t use Excel.
They also complain that when the UMass students highlighted their arbitrary and unexplained exclusion of data that contradicted their findings, they didn&#039;t also mention other data they&#039;d excluded that would have somewhat reinforced their findings further but <em>everybody</em> knew was shit. They still never explained why they excluded the data for Australia, Canada and New Zealand though, which <em>wasn&#039;t</em> shit.
They also blather on at extreme length that accusing them of using the bad bad mean was totally unfair because most of the time they talk about the median. This is utter horseshit because either way their data weighting methodology is weird and distorting (if successive years of data for a given country had broadly similar debt and growth, they counted the whole sequence as if it was just a single year).
Let&#039;s not forget that even though Paul Krugman is deeply dismissive of them, he has never once said that we should ignore the debt load long-term, only ever that the correct time to reduce debt is in times of growth, not times of depression.
This notion that human capital is not destroyed in wartime is... uhh, well, shall we say <em>highly</em> discrediting to anyone fucking moronic enough to spout it?
I read the op-ed, and the most obnoxious thing in it, to me, was their pleading that they didn&#039;t call for austerity-only. That was, you know, a political thing.
But of course, when they testified, they apparently didn&#039;t mention the &quot;slow growth for a long time&quot; part of the austerity &quot;tool&quot;.
<a href="http:\/\/www.rooseveltinstitute.org\/sites\/all\/files\/not_the_time_for_austerity.pdf" target="_blank">This paper</a> appears to be saying that of the 6 times studied when nations have cut during recessions or slowdowns, 4 times the growth rate declined after the cuts, and only twice did it improve.
These jokers remind me of the researcher who &quot;proved&quot; that homeopathic medicines were not merely a dilute soution of wishful thinking. (They are.) He threw out his &quot;bad&quot; data (because it was bad, obviously), and the &quot;good&quot; data that was left, on average, supported his conclusions. (And just went to show that the bad data really was bad, because obviously, doh.)
Someone finally pointed out that the distribution of his data was precisely the right-hand half of a normal curve centered on zero results.
Same thing here: include all the data, and the negative growth that we&#039;re all so worried about, the negative growth at 90% debt, the negative growth that was the whole big deal of their results, goes a-fucking-way. They should do the same, and take Ryan with them.
Yeah, but really many people paid off those houses in 10-15 years. Homes were about 75-150% of an annual salary back then, now they&#039;re 400-700% of an annual salary. The same for cars. College is about 10 times more expensive than it used to be. Most economists seem to think this as a good thing, but no one has been able to make me understand why. I think it&#039;s a fucking disaster.
Rogoff (v.) - to produce a false or misleading report by omitting evidence. example: <i>I&#039;m just </i>roggin&#039; off<i> some graphs and charts for the boss to present to the board.</i>
Growth, vs. negative growth? Yeah, just a small difference.
They appear to be saying there&#039;s <em>no difference</em> between a rolloff from 2.9% to -0.1% and a rolloff from 3.2% to 2.2%.
What the holy flying fuck? That argument makes them look even worse than the fact they can&#039;t use Excel.
They also complain that when the UMass students highlighted their arbitrary and unexplained exclusion of data that contradicted their findings, they didn&#039;t also mention other data they&#039;d excluded that would have somewhat reinforced their findings further but <em>everybody</em> knew was shit. They still never explained why they excluded the data for Australia, Canada and New Zealand though, which <em>wasn&#039;t</em> shit.
They also blather on at extreme length that accusing them of using the bad bad mean was totally unfair because most of the time they talk about the median. This is utter horseshit because either way their data weighting methodology is weird and distorting (if successive years of data for a given country had broadly similar debt and growth, they counted the whole sequence as if it was just a single year).
Did you <em>see</em> the bullshit chart on the left?
Let&#039;s not forget that even though Paul Krugman is deeply dismissive of them, he has never once said that we should ignore the debt load long-term, only ever that the correct time to reduce debt is in times of growth, not times of depression.
This notion that human capital is not destroyed in wartime is... uhh, well, shall we say <em>highly</em> discrediting to anyone fucking moronic enough to spout it?
Well, when you square them you get a negative number.
Wait, that&#039;s not what you meant, is it.
Only because the erroneous spreadsheet told them they should do what they already wanted to do.
I read the op-ed, and the most obnoxious thing in it, to me, was their pleading that they didn&#039;t call for austerity-only. That was, you know, a political thing.
But of course, when they testified, they apparently didn&#039;t mention the &quot;slow growth for a long time&quot; part of the austerity &quot;tool&quot;.
<a href="http:\/\/www.rooseveltinstitute.org\/sites\/all\/files\/not_the_time_for_austerity.pdf" target="_blank">This paper</a> appears to be saying that of the 6 times studied when nations have cut during recessions or slowdowns, 4 times the growth rate declined after the cuts, and only twice did it improve.
You destroy your economy with the erroneous spreadsheet you have, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Whoopsie!
These jokers remind me of the researcher who &quot;proved&quot; that homeopathic medicines were not merely a dilute soution of wishful thinking. (They are.) He threw out his &quot;bad&quot; data (because it was bad, obviously), and the &quot;good&quot; data that was left, on average, supported his conclusions. (And just went to show that the bad data really was bad, because obviously, doh.)
Someone finally pointed out that the distribution of his data was precisely the right-hand half of a normal curve centered on zero results.
Same thing here: include all the data, and the negative growth that we&#039;re all so worried about, the negative growth at 90% debt, the negative growth that was the whole big deal of their results, goes a-fucking-way. They should do the same, and take Ryan with them.
Yeah, but really many people paid off those houses in 10-15 years. Homes were about 75-150% of an annual salary back then, now they&#039;re 400-700% of an annual salary. The same for cars. College is about 10 times more expensive than it used to be. Most economists seem to think this as a good thing, but no one has been able to make me understand why. I think it&#039;s a fucking disaster.
New term coined:
Rogoff (v.) - to produce a false or misleading report by omitting evidence. example: <i>I&#039;m just </i>roggin&#039; off<i> some graphs and charts for the boss to present to the board.</i>
Render unto to Ceasar -- and let <i>him</i> worry about it.
Especially if you selectively include the correct grades, in an unconventionally weighted GPA.