Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (859466)	5/23/2015 3:55:32 PM
From: gronieel2	Respond to of 1575421

"Of course, the outlook for the economy, as always, is highly uncertain. I am describing the outlook that I see as most likely, but based on many years of making economic projections, I can assure you that any specific projection I write down will turn out to be wrong, perhaps markedly so." Janet Yellen, May, 2015

To: combjelly who wrote (859466)	5/23/2015 4:54:09 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By locogringo Respond to of 1575421

To: combjelly who wrote (859466)	5/23/2015 4:57:05 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575421

Well, according to the law of probabilities - and as we educated people all know - any monkey playing around on a typewriter keyboard will, given time, eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare - or better :) /Taro

To: combjelly who wrote (859466)	5/23/2015 5:37:45 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By one_less Taro Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575421

>> I dunno. Krugman has made a lot of accurate calls. Blew a couple, but that is better than blowing all of them. Yeah, I remember when he said the sequester would cause a slowdown. He nailed that one. But he'll always be remembered for claiming the growth of the Internet would "slow drastically" and that the impact on the economy would be no bigger than that of the fax machine. For this comment, taken alone, he should be banned from ever commenting on economics again. For life.

To: combjelly who wrote (859466)	5/23/2015 5:41:10 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB one_less Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575421

To: combjelly who wrote (859466)	5/24/2015 10:55:58 AM
From: locogringo	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1575421

Krugman has made a lot of accurate calls. Does "accurate" include fudging the charts and info? Krugman Leaves Out Data That Doesn't Fit Argument Krugman Proves He’s Super Smart By Doctoring A Chart (So It Agrees With Him) Liberal economist Paul Krugman appears to have cherry-picked data to support his belief in the Federal Reserve’s ability to stabilize the economy. In a recent column responding to another economist, Krugman included a chart purporting to show that central bank interest rates have a significant effect on long-term investments. Yet in a post for the Pragmatic Capitalism blog, entrepreneur and financial expert Cullen Roche asserts that Krugman “decided to remove 20 years worth of data because it fit his argument better.” And it appears to check out. According to Roche, Krugman’s chart differs significantly from the version that would have showed up when he pulled the data from the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) website, which extends from 1954 to 2015: “When you add those years back in you get a result that shows a very weak correlation,” Roche writes, speculating that Krugman “[removed] almost 40 percent of an entire data set just because the data didn’t fit the narrative.” (RELATED: Paul Krugman’s Proof by Repeated Assertion) “This is why people often complain about economics,” Roche concludes. “When economists take a data set and just blatantly alter it to fit their argument it doesn’t do much to help build credibility for their work.” Krugman’s chart appears to support his conclusions with data points plotted over a 35-year period, but would have been much less conclusive had Krugman included the full range of available data, which covers a span of 55 years. Krugman took issue with a recent white paper in which economist James Montier of GMO Capital accuses Krugman, Fed Chair Janet Yellen, and other Keynesians of “groupthink” in their adherence to the concept of a “natural” rate of interest. (RELATED: Krugman and the ‘Sneer Gap’) Proponents of the theory assert that there is a constantly fluctuating equilibrium interest rate consistent with full employment of both labor and capital (i.e., high growth and low unemployment), and argue that the Fed should set monetary policy with reference to this rate. Montier counters that empirical evidence does not support that conclusion, saying, “The natural rate of interest is simply assumed to exist.” (RELATED: Paul Ryan Takes on Chief Critic Paul Krugman) Krugman undertook to defend himself against that charge in his column by suggesting that Montier “seems to have forgotten about housing” and other long-term investments, which Krugman says are much more responsive to interest rates. To demonstrate this, Krugman provides the chart tracking the Federal Funds Rate (“the” interest rate in monetary policy) and new housing starts between 1965 and 2000. The inverse relationship between the two statistics, he says, shows that “monetary policy can matter a lot,” even to the extent of causing and ending recessions. dailycaller.com