This whole mess is a supply-side, productivity shock.
What has convinced me? Twitter.
Apparently they went from 400,000 tweets a quarter in 2007 to 100 million in 2008. Coincidence? I think not.
My apologies to Kydland and Prescott for how long it took me to come to this realization.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
ok, i don't get it
ReplyDeleteAwww it's not funny if I have to explain it!
DeleteRBC says downturns are just productivity shocks. I have recently jumped into Twitter. I have been surprised at what a negative productivity shock it provides. I am struck by the correlation of its growth with the onset of the crisis. I am thus convinced of RBC.
It's all a bit tongue in cheek, of course.
I thought you were joking, and I'm glad that you were!
DeleteJCE - I suspect that you are not a native English speaker. The expression "Coincidence? I think not." gives away that the writer is implying a causal connection they know is almost certainly false.
Deletehahahahah ok, i see. that *is* funny. i agree completeley, it definately kills productivity
ReplyDeleteWaddaya mean? The production of tweets increased by 25,000%! That's one helluva productivity increase.
DeleteThe Great Stagnation hypothesis is looking better.
Delete