Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The study by Harvard Professors Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff that has been used as the basis for global austerity policies and Paul Ryans budget recommendations has been found "flawed" due to what can only be charitably called exclusion of contradictory data, and questionable weighting of the data.
Even worse, if that is possible, neither Reinhart ofr Rogoff hadn't published their data until very recently which is the reason why it has taken so long for other researches like those at the University of Mass to find the flaws in their study.
That is the problem with purely empirical arguments which often slide into post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacies even when they are good. The logic behind it was even worse.
That's why everyone who really has worked with studies like these pretty well dismisses the ones when people won't publish their data. Giving people the data and methodology only strengthens your position overall, because it’s hard to argue with it. People may have differences of opinion, but not differences of fact in that fashion.
When the data is hidden like this, it’s usually because it is from intentional manipulation…or plain lazy modeling. This study had a bit of both, from the amateurish Excel error and simply refusing to include data that didn’t go along with what they wanted to say. People who can actually evaluate this found the errors right away, which is exactly why they wanted to keep it hidden.
Not that it will matter one iota to true believers anyways. They already found what they want to believe and look for any evidence to support it. The exact opposite way a rational mind works. It doesn’t matter if the evidence has been debunked, was a fraud, or I have even seen people take parodies from The Onion making fun of their position in order to justify it.
I would put money on people continuing to quote this study for a long time. If that fact didn’t make me disgusted at how some people delude themselves so thoroughly.
I would put money on people continuing to quote this study for a long time. If that fact didn’t make me disgusted at how some people delude themselves so thoroughly.
I never quoted it.
The study is irrelevant with respect to Austerity.
Austerity works; it's worked already for a number of States.
Austerity is a lot like antibiotics ---- used correctly, it works, but used incorrectly it causes harm.
Perhaps when enough people on C-D are able to identify...
1] States with local non-global currency
2] States with local global currency
3] States with quasi-universal currency
....and understand the distinctions, implications and ramifications of each, an intelligent discussion can be held.
Until then, dead tree stumps will continue to display extraordinary intellect over a lot of posters.
Austerity works; it's worked already for a number of States.
Austerity is a lot like antibiotics ---- used correctly, it works, but used incorrectly it causes harm.
Perhaps when enough people on C-D are able to identify...
1] States with local non-global currency
2] States with local global currency
3] States with quasi-universal currency
....and understand the distinctions, implications and ramifications of each, an intelligent discussion can be held.
Mircea
Since I lack a technical knowledge of economics, I am forced to ask some questions in order to understand your post more fully. I assume by "quasi-universal currency" you mean the U.S. dollar and the euro? Or are there additional currencies which would qualify as quasi-universal?
At first glance, the phrase "local global currency" seems a contradiction in terms, but perhaps it means a local currency which is readily, easily, and widely accepted for conversion into other similar currencies? If so, then a "local non-global currency" would be a currency of a smaller nation which would be convertible only locally? If you could give a few examples, it would help.
But it minor as other studies without the flaw has shown from what I saw discussed the other night.There are other studies that show the same just nopt as much adfvanatge. real life as seen in mnay economy how facing ti show what the opposite brings anyway.
Austerity is a bad policy when the economy is contracting. The great Depression was partially because the Fed was using depressive policies.
If America had a policy of paying down it's debts in good years, it would have been in a much better position to spend our way out of this downturn, but that is not the case we borrow and spend like drunken fools in good times and bad thus leaving us in the positition were in right now.
bill
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
