^ Interesting link. Here it is again:
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/content_images/dube_rr_2_v2.png
Rogoff/Reinhart coding error -- ouch!!
-
Wow, this thread is absolutely infested with proxy trolls.
I'll just leave this here; a review of the debacle by a better economist and econometrician than any of these proxy-humpers:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2013/04/reinhartrogoff.html
"In any case ... whichever number you used, you would still conclude that higher debt loads are associated with slower growth in the postwar advanced economy data set, just as they were in the postwar emerging economy data set, just as they were in the centuries-long individual country data sets, and as also was found to be the case in separate analyses of yet other data sets by Cecchetti, Mohanty and Zampolli (2011), Checherita and Rother (2010), and the IMF (2012), among others."
Now can we please grow up and start acting like actual economists?
-
most of the posters here are arrogant undergrads or first-years, they think economics research is that easy and they're giddy about finding some mistake by a famous economist in a non-peer reviewed paper. most of you will never get a job in a top 100 university. face it.
-
^ As an actual economist, I can say with confidence that the R&R paper is complete trash and that they deserve a professional beating for touting their 90% thresh-hold to Congress and the public as a causal mechanism (while taking refuge in a mere "association" to academics). Of course, this in no way implies debt causes slow growth, it implies nothing at all, because the paper is pure garbage in every respect (for reasons far beyond an Excel error). If you are also an actual economist, I would hope that you could grow up, stipulate that, and move on while others deliver a well-deserved beating.
-
shut up undergrad
^ As an actual economist, I can say with confidence that the R&R paper is complete trash and that they deserve a professional beating for touting their 90% thresh-hold to Congress and the public as a causal mechanism (while taking refuge in a mere "association" to academics). Of course, this in no way implies debt causes slow growth, it implies nothing at all, because the paper is pure garbage in every respect (for reasons far beyond an Excel error). If you are also an actual economist, I would hope that you could grow up, stipulate that, and move on while others deliver a well-deserved beating.
-
Oh look, UMass proxies out in force today.
Some lunatic from UMass has been proxying like crazy on this forum since a year ago, downvoting anything that's remotely critical of the program and upvoting their self-promotion.hey harvard/mit jerks - stop annoying me before i randomly chose another one of your high falutin papers to replicate.
-UVLRM
-
R&R in FT today walking back their previous positions even further. They are getting embarrassing.
Do you have access to their piece? Would be great if you can bring it here.
Any, here's part of it:
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/05/austerity-is-not-only-answer-to-debt.html?showComment=1367502876659They also said this: "No one should be arguing to stabilize debt, much less bring it down, until growth is more solidly entrenched - if there remains a choice, that is."
Embarrassing. The more they write about this issue, the more they embarrasse themselves.
-
R&R in FT today walking back their previous positions even further. They are getting embarrassing.
Do you have access to their piece? Would be great if you can bring it here.
Any, here's part of it:
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/05/austerity-is-not-only-answer-to-debt.html?showComment=1367502876659
They also said this: "No one should be arguing to stabilize debt, much less bring it down, until growth is more solidly entrenched - if there remains a choice, that is."
Embarrassing. The more they write about this issue, the more they embarrasse themselves.That website is a whole bunch of crazy.
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.