Arindrajit Dube has a study out indicating that the causality is the reverse;
yes, it is obvious that liberal researchers can come to any conclusion they like, that liberals never want to reduce debt no matter what, and that it is silly to quibble about the Rogoff numbers when basic principles can't be agreed upon by economists.
This comports with the experience of the last five years.
a lie from a senile old liberal fart!!!
Simeon Dijankov:The evidence is to the contrary. The European Union economies that have experienced the highest growth in the past three years—Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden—all take austerity seriously. The European Commission's Winter 2013 forecast shows a similar trend. The five fastest-growing economies in Europe are projected to be Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania—all fiscal hawks.
And remember that just about every other researcher who has looked at Rogoff's data and methodology believes that when appropriate corrections for his methodological errors are made (not just the "coding error" he has admitted to), his results about a 90% threshold disappear. Just throwing all the data for Australia, New Zealand, and Canada in that he inexplicably omitted makes a big difference. So I respectlully suggest that Rogoff has been caught cooking the data, has not responded to his critics, and that his protestations about still being right are factually wrong and self-serving.
dear, even the Umass economists who found the errors agree that the more debt the less growth!!!!! What planet are you on??
I'm not sure what you are driving at here. I don't want to rehash the whole Say's Law--"crowding-out effect" debate which is obviously not applicable to situations with high levels of underutilized resources such as we have now.
it very very very applicable!! if a libturd housing bubble created too many carpenters we need to let the free market figure out where they belong, and not let another libturd bubble misplace them again!!
Lets never forget that a recession is the time it takes for the free market to correct the effects of liberal distortions of the free market!!
Perhaps you can write that down 100 times so you won't forget it??
I also think what government spends money on (or private business for that matter) makes a difference. Waste is economically detrimental whether it is public or private; it distorts markets. Good investment projects promote long term growth, whether they are public or private.
as a liberal you portray perfect ignorance! When private money is wasted there is huge pain and suffering. When someone has lost his hard earned money he won't do it again! When a bureaucrat loses someone else's money there is little pain and a tendency to repeat the error! Do you ever wonder why no one ever washes a rented car? If its your car you care a lot more about it!!
Good statistical analysis can separate out the effects of various variables on a given dependent variable. Most people's eyes glaze over when they see the regression equations, but that's where the action is in econometrics!
dear, there is no action in that sphere, none!!!! They've had 100 years to make economics a hard science and they are no where near close as you indicated above where cause and effect can't even be agreed upon!!
what is science though is that when countries switch to capitalism they do better!!East/West Germany, Cuba,Fla., North/South Korea, Israel before/after 1999, Ghana/Ivory coast, Red China before and after communism, Hong Kong/Red China, Taiwan/Red China, El Salvadore before and after Funes . The list is endless. The more capitalism the better. Liberals lack the IQ to grasp what is simple for conservatives to grasp.
