tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post7114696061706726254..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Much as I like fiscal stimulus, this is not evidence of its effectivenessEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-72223905726052519792011-07-25T23:46:35.145-04:002011-07-25T23:46:35.145-04:00"So simply saying that doesn't make this ..."So simply saying that doesn't make this statement true."<br /><br />Yes, Daniel, it does, in 100 percent of all cases. Solving the problem of unemployment (no sexual activity) can be solved instantly if you're willing to pay for it. Bernstein was just showing us that DC is a Brothel. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-4146103995090801942011-07-25T06:03:53.564-04:002011-07-25T06:03:53.564-04:00Ed -
re: "If you're willing to pay someon...Ed -<br />re: <i>"If you're willing to pay someone to, say, cash a government check and call them "employed", then you've solved the unemployment problem!"</i><br /><br />You and I may agree it is true, but if this is why you think it is true then we disagree on WHY it is true. You're presuming that cashing that check doesn't have general equilibrium effects that put someone out of a job somewhere else in the economy. That is a presumption I think you can make under certain circumstances, but not under others. So simply saying that doesn't make this statement true.<br /><br />Gene -<br />Thanks!<br /><br />Andrew -<br />The interstate comparison technique simply ignores major biases in the estimate. It seems to me you can privelege some techniques over that. Why should we give biased estimators any creedance? Now - since properly identified models are hard to come by I'd definitely agree we should try multiple strategies, but I do think we can discriminate between them.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-87270312112029270212011-07-24T23:13:04.490-04:002011-07-24T23:13:04.490-04:00"The sentence you cite is one that I think is..."The sentence you cite is one that I think is true." Of course it's true, that's my whole point. It's undeniably true! If you're willing to pay someone to, say, cash a government check and call them "employed", then you've solved the unemployment problem! You've minimized job losses! Perhaps Berstein will send a check to everyone in Delaware, call them Federal employees, and then show how he "solved" the unemployment crisis. Has he solved some riddle? Yes, Daniel, we can buy, buy, buy all the "jobs" we want. You don't need a theory or empirical evidence to know that. Just hand a homeless man a dollar and "pay" him to stand on one leg. Boom! Job creation and Keynesian job-loss minimization. His graph is ridiculous.<br />-EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-61236059957504353322011-07-24T22:20:33.787-04:002011-07-24T22:20:33.787-04:00Daniel, you have given a great example of intellec...Daniel, you have given a great example of intellectual honesty in this post.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-10517307485637025662011-07-24T15:29:41.225-04:002011-07-24T15:29:41.225-04:00I don't think it's right to privileged one...I don't think it's right to privileged one technique over another, they are all equally prone to giving biased estimates. Its not like identifying a time series model is particularly "scientific" or mechanical.Andrew Bossiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00353842153288646125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-36902314857329534972011-07-24T14:54:29.433-04:002011-07-24T14:54:29.433-04:00Ed -
I'm not sure it's quite that easy to...Ed - <br />I'm not sure it's quite that easy to dismiss, even if he does a bad job providing empirical evidence.<br /><br />The sentence you cite is one that I think is true, personally, but it's not exactly tautological. After all, if there is crowding out the statement is wrong. The statement in and of itself is not obvious, although with <i>the right kind</i> of theoretical justification and the <i>the right kind</i> of empirical justification it makes sense. Unfortunately, Bernstein doesn't provide that here.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-81171560487437753122011-07-24T13:55:17.343-04:002011-07-24T13:55:17.343-04:00"if you actually apply some serious Keynesian..."if you actually apply some serious Keynesian stimulus, you can minimize job losses."<br /><br />How is this different than prostitution? Sure, if you're willing to pay for sex, you can minimize slumps in activity. Government jobs are expenses, and, of course, if you're willing to pay for it, you'll have them. Is this fascinating to anyone? Perhaps Mr Berstein can show us a graph of sexual activity in Nevada compared to the rest of the country.<br /><br />"if you actually pay people to pretend to like you (nonproductive jobs), you can give the illusion of minimizing real friendship (productive jobs) losses." <br /><br />Not a good week for him, considering the blatant deception of his "The country wants Balance" post.<br /><br />-EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com