Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Intellectual Dishonesty (Gasp!) from a Conservativ...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-09T08:47:21.660-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

Visit www.conservative.org for Live Streaming Comm...

2009-07-16T16:27:47.253-04:00

Visit www.conservative.org for Live Streaming Commentary of all Votes and Hearings on Capitol Hill as Well as the Day’s Conservative News. WWW.CONSERVATIVE.ORG

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇 ...

2009-03-28T05:12:00.000-04:00

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風成人論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區

Uh, Nate, most of the people who read you should r...

2009-01-21T21:20:00.000-05:00

Uh, Nate, most of the people who read you should rightly defer to your expertise in economics and statistics. I certainly do. However, you are not an expert in what's going on in Professor Mankiw's head when he writes. I don't see why anyone should give you any credibility when you make personal attacks like you just did. I think an apology on your part would be a good start to fixing this mess.

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-01-16T04:16:00.000-05:00

Big fan of yours Nate, but I'm afraid you may be i...

2009-01-13T10:17:00.000-05:00

Big fan of yours Nate, but I'm afraid you may be in a bit over your head on this one. "Intellectual dishonesty," "bluffing," "out of ideas," "taking one for the team, and touting the party line" are all very strong charges, which you make on one cutesy, undergraduate-type "gotcha" analysis of an economics paper. In the end, even your single point that the Romer and Romer paper only talks about exogenous tax changes may be irrelevant, since as Mankiw explains in his rebuttal, the point of the paper is not to specifically study the exogeneity of tax changes, instead, it uses exogenous tax changes as an experimental tool. The authors explain rather clearly in the conclusion that they extrapolate their finding to the larger picture, and argue that that tax changes in general are predicted to cause large changes in output due to their effect on investment.

[...]well-behaved respectful nonentity and Galbrai...

2009-01-12T20:26:00.000-05:00

[...]

well-behaved respectful nonentity and Galbraith, Solow, Krugman, or Robert C Merton, who oversaw my dissertation.

One of these things is not like the others! One of these things just does not belong!

It's pretty insulting to Krugman and Solow to place them in a group with ol' John Kenneth. I don't believe Krugman even considers Galbraith an actual economist.

It's akin to talking about "Mozart, Brahms, and Meat Loaf" or, more fitting in this group "Gandhi, Lincoln, and George W. Bush."

whoops, it's a little late to return to this post,...

2009-01-12T14:56:00.000-05:00

whoops, it's a little late to return to this post, but since some remarks were addressed to me here's some replies, in case anybody else looks.

@Mark A. Sadowski said...
"Romer carefully seperated the types of tax cuts in order to evaluate their effects. What error are you referring to? Why would large changes be expected unless your own intuition thinks that that would make them happen."

The Romers and apparently everyone else agrees that major GDP changes are underway whenever a countercyclical tax cut is instituted. Therefore no matter how carefully you record the subsequent GDP changes, you need some other line of evidence to try to separate tax effects from the background.
Mark, this is just a plain old instance of the catechism 'correlation does not imply causation'. Thinking that it does is an error.

@ John Lee- It's not quite true that major infrastructure projects are equally good policy at all times. Their real costs are lowered in periods of high unemployment. Carpe diem!
On the choices of Chevy Volt vs. biodiesel, I think the current answer is obvious: both. The very fact that there are such choices to pose shows that in fact the alleged absence of good projects on which to spend the stimulus is false. Many of these infrastructure projects will do an excellent job soaking up unemployed from the auto sector. We cannot soak up all the unemployed from the financial sector in the same way, because they were engaged in a deeply useless type of activity, at least at the scale that we had, so the funds should go instead to something our kids can use.

Mankiw's response seems plausible to me. Whether ...

2009-01-12T14:27:00.000-05:00

Mankiw's response seems plausible to me. Whether he's ultimately right or wrong, it appears he's genuinely expressing what he belives: I don't think there's a case to be made for "intellectual dishonesty" here. Would love to see an (at least partial) retraction from Nate here.

Can't agree with you on this one. In their conclus...

2009-01-12T13:09:00.000-05:00

Can't agree with you on this one. In their conclusion, the Romers say that countercyclical tax changes probably haven't worked in the past because they "are rarely taken before output growth has already returned to normal." The current recession is expected to last into Q4, but most people think that tax changes would be legislated by end of Q1, so the current situation is different from the ones the Romers studied. Combining that with 1) the fact that the sample of countercyclical tax changes is small and that 2) their results for endogenous tax changes were not significant means that there is little we can say about the effects of tax changes in the current climate. Or as Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein say here about the size of a tax-cut multiplier:

We confess to considerable uncertainty about our choice of multipliers for this element of the package.

now nate is the who is is PWNDhttp://www.sabernomi...

2009-01-12T12:53:00.000-05:00

now nate is the who is is PWND

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2009/01/be-careful-when-you-criticize-experts/

But the larger issue becomes what an earlier post ...

2009-01-12T11:26:00.000-05:00

But the larger issue becomes what an earlier post mentioned in passing; it being repeatedly cited in the news media as "proof" of agreement in principle between the outgoing Bush Administration and the incoming Obama Administration.
Already on "Morning Joe" this morning, Erin Burnett incorrectly cited the "similarity" between Mankiw's and the Romer's position on how much tax cuts multiply economic growth. Why conservatives continue to slavishly adhere to their broken fiscal ideology defies logic or explanation.

Mankiw is the blandest, vapidest economics profess...

2009-01-12T11:09:00.000-05:00

Mankiw is the blandest, vapidest economics professor you can think of. In several years as a graduate student of his, I never heard him utter a single seriously interesting thought. There is an abyss between this personable, well-behaved respectful nonentity and Galbraith, Solow, Krugman, or Robert C Merton, who oversaw my dissertation. Note that the man has not produced in his career even ONE research paper that made any impact in his chosen field of economics.

This conversation really has had my head spinning....

2009-01-12T05:04:00.000-05:00

This conversation really has had my head spinning. Thanks for challenging Mankiw on this, I will be far more skeptical of anything he says in the future than I have so far.

It's nice to see that Mark Thoma, and the Economist's Free Exchange blog have your back on this.

It seems like I love your blog more and more with every passing day!

When Greg Mankiw starts telling the whole truth, i...

2009-01-12T01:39:00.000-05:00

When Greg Mankiw starts telling the whole truth, it might do the world's economy a world of good. Until then we'll always be in doubt and in depression.

Conservatives always talk about tax cuts in terms ...

2009-01-12T01:21:00.000-05:00

Conservatives always talk about tax cuts in terms of how they will effect the economy (and they can never tell the truth about that!) rather than the simple reality of funding government goods and services.

So, all these arguments are beside the point. We gave HUGE tax breaks to the rich in 2001. Now we have a huge deficit and they want more?

If the middle-class get a pittance after they've been feasting for 8 years they must have another slice?

Try the importance of being truthful.

2009-01-12T00:46:00.000-05:00

Try the importance of being truthful.

When all is said and done these arguments about mu...

2009-01-12T00:43:00.000-05:00

When all is said and done these arguments about multipliers will seem academic. We'll get significant spending increases and tax cuts. Given the uncertainty about what the optimal mix is, it is probably best to have quite a bit of both. I'd even favor adding some prozak to the water supply in the hopes it will cheer people up and get them to spend.

@MichaelWhat error? Romer never intended for this ...

2009-01-12T00:37:00.000-05:00

@Michael

What error? Romer never intended for this paper to be a study on the effects of a countercyclical tax change on the economy. The real question is why are people trying to make it one?

Mankiw's Response to this Post:http://gregmankiw.b...

2009-01-12T00:34:00.000-05:00

Mankiw's Response to this Post:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/01/importance-of-being-exogenous.html

Michael:I'm not so sure about that. I mean, it's o...

2009-01-12T00:32:00.000-05:00

Michael:

I'm not so sure about that. I mean, it's obvious that yes, we do need to do something about failing infrastructure and environmental externalities - but as Mankiw and Tyler Cowen have been arguing on their blogs, these are good policies which ought to be just as valid in good economic times as they are in bad. The real issue is the stimulus package - how should it be configured?

The problem is that we don't really have much experience here. Cowen's argued that we haven't seen evidence of stimulus packages working in normal recessions; progressives like Matt Yglesias counter that this is obviously not a normal recession, not if the Fed has slashed interest rates to zero. A plurality if not majority of economists don't think the New Deal really directly helped w.r.t. the Great Depression, and the economies which recovered fastest often had central banks which responded appropriately to the financial crisis.

The biggest enemy of the stimulus package, assuming it is the best way we have to fight the economic downturn and help the economy get to where it wants to go (i.e. less jobs in the finance, real estate and auto manufacturing sectors, more in...some as of yet unidentified industries), is time. As PaulK says, we will inescapably have a lot of pork in the stimulus package because we need to get it out the door as soon as possible, which implies we'll hardly have any time to vet spending proposals. And it's by no means clear what proposals for "green jobs" are worthy of public funding; are the Chevy Volt or the Tesla more deserving of funds than biodiesel? A lot of infrastructure projects will have huge time lags because of planning and safety regulations, and the jobs they create are not likely to soak up those freshly laid off from financial firms or the auto sector.

The strongest argument tax cuts have is that they may be the fastest to get out the door, and least likely to involve pork. But again, we don't have much data on whether people will spend or save their newfound cash, or whether the banks will be able to find ventures to invest that money in. It seems that the Obama administration's numbers indicate tax cuts are inferior to government spending, but I am still worried that the government will:

1. Not be able to wisely spend much of the money;
2. Not be able to get the stimulus package into action in time.

@MichaelRomer carefully seperated the types of tax...

2009-01-12T00:19:00.000-05:00

@Michael
Romer carefully seperated the types of tax cuts in order to evaluate their effects. What error are you referring to? Why would large changes be expected unless your own intuition thinks that that would make them happen.

While I understand your cholesterol analogy, I hav...

2009-01-11T23:14:00.000-05:00

While I understand your cholesterol analogy, I have to point out that dietary cholesterol only accounts for maybe 15% of the blood cholesterol of meat eaters, the rest is endogenous, manufactured primarily by the liver. It is quite possible for someone with a vegan diet devoid of cholesterol to still have high blood cholesterol levels.

A better reason to avoid the super-sized Tripple Whopper meal, if only considering health, would be to avoid the trans-fatty acids contained in dairy products, ruminant meats and the hydrogenated vegetable oils they're likely cooked in, as, relative to mono unsaturated cis-fatty acids, trans-fatty acids have been shown to increase LDL levels while simultaneously depressing HDL production. This is a worse situation than consuming saturated (12-16 carbon chain) fatty acids, which, while increasing LDL levels, do not depress HDL production.

As for the stimulus, does not a tax cut make a worker feel better when they get their wage packet? A more optimistic outlook on life may cause more spending. Also, a very low wage individual living close to the line will spend every extra dollar they get. Finally, someone close to the edge on their mortgage may avoid foreclosures if their wage increases by just enough that they can continue to make the payments.

@Zosima- Hey, thanks. What you wrote is exactly wh...

2009-01-11T22:54:00.000-05:00

@Zosima- Hey, thanks. What you wrote is exactly what those of us who aren't experts and just skimmed the paper needed. Mankiw really screwed up.
End of discussion?

Nate,I absolutely agree that Mankiw either doesn't...

2009-01-11T22:36:00.000-05:00

Nate,
I absolutely agree that Mankiw either doesn't understand this study or is being intellectually dishonest, but I think you are right for the wrong reasons.

The Romers are absolutely trying to estimate the stimulative effect of ALL TAX CUTS by looking at exogenous tax cuts. Mankiw's mistake is citing the coefficient for the calculated effect of real gdp,(3 percent) rather than the effect of cyclically adjusted gdp(1.1 percent, introduced several paragraphs later in the result analysis). There is good reason to believe that the effect on real gdp will overestimate the coefficient of tax efficacy because the Romers' narrative method introduces a systematic Selection Bias.

You are wrong in claiming that Mankiw is wrong because he is citing the coefficient associated with exogenous tax cuts, rather than endogenous cuts. Mankiw is wrong for a much more basic reason. IMO it makes him look more incompetent than dishonest.

Here are the details:
The Romers start with the goal of modeling the effect of tax changes on GDP. Their implicit model for GDP is a linear one. Namely:
dGDP/dt= f(dTax/dt) + g(dEverythingElse/dt)

Where f is something like:
f(x) = m*x/n
where m is the coefficient of efficacy and n is some normalizing factor. g(x) is a function of similar form with different coefficients.

Previous studies have looked at dGDP/dt(change in GDP, cyclically adjusted) rather than f(dTax/dt) change in GDP due to taxes. This means that estimates of the efficacy of tax cuts could be skewed by g(dEverythingElse/dt). So the Romers look at tax changes when there is not some strong cyclical current(exogenous changes, ie when g(dEverythingElse/dt) is small). This means we can get a less skewed estimate of the correlation between changes in tax cuts and changes in GDP.

The problem with this method(a problem that the Romers are well aware of) is that it introduces a Selection Bias. Tax Changes introduced that are not counter-cyclical are likely to be introduced when the economy is doing well. Politicians rarely introduce taxes with the expressed purpose of making the economy less productive(even though Keynesian Theory predicts that they should).
Thus the change in GDP will be conflated with normal growth if one looks at the correlation between changes in Exogenous Taxes and changes in Real GDP. To remove this Selection Bias, you must perform a cyclical correction to the GDP, which basically corrects the GDP down when it is growing and corrects it up when it is down. This way your results won't be skewed if you have more samples from times when the economy is booming. Mankiw should know this.

When they do this, their estimate of 1.1 percent is very close to the .99 that is used in the statistics produced on Obama.

So the long and short of the story, Mankiw either deliberately or accidentally missed a very basic issue in statistical methods. But he was not wrong whether exogenous or endogenous taxes were meant to be the estimator of the true efficacy tax changes in modifying GDP. To say that exogenous taxes cannot be used as an estimator of the efficacy of exogenous AND endogenous taxes would be more of a criticism of the Romers' experiment method that Mankiw's understanding of it.

Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Intellectual Dishonesty (Gasp!) from a Conservativ...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

Visit www.conservative.org for Live Streaming Comm...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 ...

Uh, Nate, most of the people who read you should r...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

Big fan of yours Nate, but I'm afraid you may be i...

[...]well-behaved respectful nonentity and Galbrai...

whoops, it's a little late to return to this post,...

Mankiw's response seems plausible to me. Whether ...

Can't agree with you on this one. In their conclus...

now nate is the who is is PWNDhttp://www.sabernomi...

But the larger issue becomes what an earlier post ...

Mankiw is the blandest, vapidest economics profess...

This conversation really has had my head spinning....

When Greg Mankiw starts telling the whole truth, i...

Conservatives always talk about tax cuts in terms ...

Try the importance of being truthful.

When all is said and done these arguments about mu...

@MichaelWhat error? Romer never intended for this ...

Mankiw's Response to this Post:http://gregmankiw.b...

Michael:I'm not so sure about that. I mean, it's o...

@MichaelRomer carefully seperated the types of tax...

While I understand your cholesterol analogy, I hav...

@Zosima- Hey, thanks. What you wrote is exactly wh...

Nate,I absolutely agree that Mankiw either doesn't...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇 ...