Comments on: Economic Cage Match: Mankiw vs. Krugman

By: Trend Stationarity/Difference Stationarity over the (Very) Long Run | 1800blogger

Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:40:37 +0000

[...] Mankiw-DeLong inspired debate over the time series characteristics of GDP continues. [1] [2] [3] Here is a very long run (1967-2008) extension of my 1967-2008 quarterly analysis covered in this [...]

By: Trend Stationarity/Difference Stationarity over the (Very) Long Run | Economist Blog

Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:40:16 +0000

By: M1EK

M1EK — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:44:03 +0000

I think this is even more true of people who don't take bets where previously they had staked out a position of near absolute certainty.

Far too many confounding variables.

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:19:56 +0000

Dollars to donuts the Obama administration is not "counting" on their public predictions, any more than the Bush administration (should have done).

Given (Odo mounts hobby-horse) that this is decision-making in the face of uncertainty, there is justification for choosing a V-shaped recovery as your best, but at the same time, low-confidence prediction.

You bet on it, but you don't go all-in. You choose a strategy that is not disastrous in a U or L shaped scenario.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:02:23 +0000

Depends on the taxonomy of the recession. It sounds like the Obama Administration is counting on a V-shaped recession. I find that pretty unlikely, based on what we've seen so far. A U-shaped recession would be likely to exhibit lower growth over the period in question than the Obama Administration's and, presumbly, Dr. Krugman's estimates. I suspect and, mind you, it's no more than a suspicion that we're in for an L-shaped recession with possible double dips. That would mean no to very slow growth starting sometime towards the end of this year and extending for the foreseeable future. One of the pieces of evidence I'd submit is that IMO for real growth we're going to need real investment and right now most seem to be holding on for dear life.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:43:27 +0000

So we are going to have....what? Zero growth? Negative growth till 2013? That is about all you're left with. I'm more doubtful of those two outcomes than high to moderate growth.

By: Steven Donegal

Steven Donegal — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:28:16 +0000

I'm willing to bet that they are both wrong. If there is anything we have learned in the last year or so, it is that macroeconomists are very smart people whose ability to make useful predictions approaches zero.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:24:55 +0000

It's worth noting, on the "how confident are you" metric, that Krugman accepts comments, while Mankiw hasn't for quite some time (after being, correctly in my opinion, often attacked for shill-like posts during the last administration).

I think this is even more true of people who don't take bets where previously they had staked out a position of near absolute certainty.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:06:26 +0000

It's worth noting, on the "how confident are you" metric, that Krugman accepts comments, while Mankiw hasn't for quite some time (after being, correctly in my opinion, often attacked for shill-like posts during the last administration).

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:38:44 +0000

(I believe Mankiw's administration put out some rosy forecasts itself, and to the degree that they they were within general consensus, that was fair.)

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:35:06 +0000

To make a surface-level comment:

1) Presidents always choose rosy predictions, of those available.

2) Anyone who don't want "talking down" the economy, you should buy into that.