Study finds Paul Krugman is least bad: suck on that oxy

[RobinFinderson]

A study where a prof had students comb through more than a year of misc. pundit predictions to see if any of these people actually have a clue about what they are talking about led to some unsurprising findings: first, flipping a coin is about as successful an approach to predicting outcomes as punditry. Second, Paul Krugman is the least bad pundit in terms of having a personal model of how the world works that actually results in successful predictions. Oxy, tell your drinking buddies that if their eyes roll too far back into their heads they might get stuck that way.

[byu71]

A study where a prof had students comb through more than a year of misc. pundit predictions to see if any of these people actually have a clue about what they are talking about led to some unsurprising findings: first, flipping a coin is about as successful an approach to predicting outcomes as punditry. Second, Paul Krugman is the least bad pundit in terms of having a personal model of how the world works that actually results in successful predictions. Oxy, tell your drinking buddies that if their eyes roll too far back into their heads they might get stuck that way.

Well then he ought to have at least 3 correct predicitions since '08. Could you list what you would consider his best 3.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

A study where a prof had students comb through more than a year of misc. pundit predictions to see if any of these people actually have a clue about what they are talking about led to some unsurprising findings: first, flipping a coin is about as successful an approach to predicting outcomes as punditry. Second, Paul Krugman is the least bad pundit in terms of having a personal model of how the world works that actually results in successful predictions. Oxy, tell your drinking buddies that if their eyes roll too far back into their heads they might get stuck that way.

Krugman was talking about the funny business on Wall Street before the crash in 2008 happened. There were quite a few people talking about this but I doubt Noriel Roubini and Peter Schiff were included in the pundits under consideration. The thing is, Roubini's et al.'s predictions fit right into Krugman's wheelhouse of pining for the good ol' days of the 1970s.

[Jacob]

Well then he ought to have at least 3 correct predicitions since '08. Could you list what you would consider his best 3.

Well, this was back in 2002, but he nailed it...or screwed the pooch. Certainly one or the other.

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

[Jacob]

More evidence of Krugman's brilliance...or lack thereof. From my favorite democrat, Mickey Kaus.

Paul Krugman now says that some kinds of Keynesian stimulus spending just aren’t as effective as other kinds. Specifically, he suggests, aid to state and local governments (to enable them to keep government workers in their jobs) is a sort of second-class stimulus:

So what happened to the stimulus? Much of it consisted of tax cuts, not spending. Most of the rest consisted either of aid to distressed families or aid to hard-pressed state and local governments. This aid may have mitigated the slump, but it wasn’t the kind of job-creation program we could and should have had. [E.A.]

Hmm. That’s not what I remember him saying back in 2009. In 2009, if I remember right, job-preserving aid to state and local governments was almost the most important thing in the world. Let’s see … searching … searching … Sorry I’m a little rusty … searching … whoops, hit the Times paywall … searching … ah, yes:

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. [E.A.]

I can’t find the part where he says “but in two years if it doesn’t work I’ll say it just wasn’t the right kind.” …

[Jacob]

I just heard Krugman claim that none of the stimulus spending--none of it--and other deficit spending in the current recession has lasted. It is all gone, according to him.

He made this spurious claim in a debate where he was attempting to argue that governments can spend and spend in time of recession and then cut and cut in good times, and that governments might indeed to that, as opposed to just spending more, and then never cutting back to pre-emergency levels. Here is the US Spending since the recession started:

07 - 2.7t
08 - 3.0t
09 - 3.5t
10 - 3.5t
11 - 3.6t
12 - 3.8t

How does he make this definitive statement--that all the stimulus spending is gone..."all of it"? The numbers show a 41% increase in federal spending this year over the year the recession began..

This was an interesting debate and conversation among economists in Spain:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ultimate-krugman-take-down

Most of it it in english, but I was actually surprised that I was able to understand the discussion in spanish. I supposed that I didn't have the vocabulary to keep up with a discussion on economics.

[Uncle Ted]

Why are we still posting on sites like this if most of us don't have anything to say to each other?


1998 wasn't Paul's best year.

[UVACoug]

A study where a prof had students comb through more than a year of misc. pundit predictions to see if any of these people actually have a clue about what they are talking about led to some unsurprising findings: first, flipping a coin is about as successful an approach to predicting outcomes as punditry. Second, Paul Krugman is the least bad pundit in terms of having a personal model of how the world works that actually results in successful predictions. Oxy, tell your drinking buddies that if their eyes roll too far back into their heads they might get stuck that way.

LOL ... surprise, surprise. Liberal college STUDENTS conducted a "study" that found that liberal pundits have a more accurate view of the world than conservatives. Thank goodness we have HuffPo to share this groundbreaking scientific news with us.

[Lost Student]

LOL ... surprise, surprise. Liberal college STUDENTS conducted a "study" that found that liberal pundits have a more accurate view of the world than conservatives. Thank goodness we have HuffPo to share this groundbreaking scientific news with us.

Robin's lack of response speaks volumes.

[Northwestcoug]

Robin's lack of response speaks volumes.

Still waiting...

[frank ryan]

LOL ... surprise, surprise. Liberal college STUDENTS conducted a "study" that found that liberal pundits have a more accurate view of the world than conservatives. Thank goodness we have HuffPo to share this groundbreaking scientific news with us.

Crickets

[VirginiaCougar]

Expect better from a fellow wahoo.

LOL ... surprise, surprise. Liberal college STUDENTS conducted a "study" that found that liberal pundits have a more accurate view of the world than conservatives. Thank goodness we have HuffPo to share this groundbreaking scientific news with us.

You should probably have gone to the actual study and read its actual findings. You were right to not trust HuffPo or anything similar on the right. However....

While only a public policy class project, having its methodological issues, it wasn't a bad effort. If you had taken the ideological lenses off long enough to avoid giving the knee jerk reaction to anything that didn't fit a certain dogma, you would have seen that there was a fair amount of ideological/partisan diversity in each of their categories. It's findings, while just a single class project, seems like an honest effort at objectivity. They are willing to put anyone into their "ugly" category regardless of ideology.

[byu71]

You should probably have gone to the actual study and read its actual findings. You were right to not trust HuffPo or anything similar on the right. However....

While only a public policy class project, having its methodological issues, it wasn't a bad effort. If you had taken the ideological lenses off long enough to avoid giving the knee jerk reaction to anything that didn't fit a certain dogma, you would have seen that there was a fair amount of ideological/partisan diversity in each of their categories. It's findings, while just a single class project, seems like an honest effort at objectivity. They are willing to put anyone into their "ugly" category regardless of ideology.

To be fair. I would like to see a similar study done by Bob Jones, Liberty or BYU.

I wonder if they would come to the same conclusions?

[VirginiaCougar]

To be fair. I would like to see a similar study done by Bob Jones, Liberty or BYU.

I wonder if they would come to the same conclusions?

A key element of social scientific research is replicability. It would be interesting to see BYU rerun the study. Having worked with a number of those guys before, I'd love to see BYU do it. It would likely be done right. Jones or Liberty are not the same type of universities. They aren't about objective analysis where outcomes aren't ideologically predetermined.

Reading a bit about the professor who guided the project, I am very interested in reading this book of his:

http://www.amazon.com/Policy-Evidenc.../dp/0877667497

Another one to add to the summer reading list.