|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 07:51 PM EDT |
| Yup this is what happened.
The
guys at EconoMonitor explain:
When we couldn’t make sense of
their results, Yeva wrote to them to get the data. After all, their book touted
their contribution to good research by proclaiming they were accumulating all
this data for the good of humanity. They ignored our request. I have heard from
several other researchers that Rogoff and Reinhart also ignored their repeated
requests for the data.
So, finally, someone was able to obtain the data. And
as we suspected, it did not add up. Rogoff and Reinhart committed the cardinal
sin of academics: while their purported results fit their theory, the data they
supposedly used does not. Either they fudged or they erred. It really doesn’t
matter. Their results were completely, utterly wrong. And their own data proves
it.
And here Tim Fernholz at Quartz lists the policy makers who listened to
this study and decided economic policy on this basis. Here is an excerpt. There
is much more at the link.
For an indicator, read the following
passage from a book on US debt by Republican Senator Tom Coburn. This is a scene
that takes place on April 5, 2011, when forty senators met the authors of the
study, Harvard economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, for a briefing. It
was just months before disagreements over America’s fiscal path lead to a
confrontation over the country’s borrowing limit and a
near-default.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: marcosdumay on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 09:40 PM EDT |
It souldn't matter. The fact that a single article had any measureable impact at
the real world is a bigger problem than such article being wrong.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: complex_number on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 12:31 AM EDT |
enough said....
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 08:18 AM EDT |
I do not know what the intention of the averaging was supposed to be, but it
strikes me as odd that in the column of twenty items to be averaged only 8
numbers are present and 12 are "n.a."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
Even without this, I get the impression some politicians are bit detached from
reality. In Canada, we currently have a "cut at all costs" government.
Recently the finance minister announced that because revenues were down (again)
he'd have to cut the buget (again). So, he's saying that since the economy is
isn't doing well, he has to throttle it some more!?!
The government sets the direction for the economy. If it cuts spending,
businesses and consumers will follow suit and slow the economy even more.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
| I just want to point out that it's not an Excel error per se.
But
rather a user error in a formula in an Excel spreadsheet.
The
exact same error could occur in Open Office or Google Docs. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- No, no, no - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- No, no, no - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 06:11 PM EDT
- Or even.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- Spreadsheets - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 05:58 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
