This is PerfctlyGoodInk's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following PerfctlyGoodInk's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
This is great, thanks! One reason I suspect they went with the bar chart is that it's easier to make all those eye-catching names have a much bigger font. With the scatter plot, you don't want the names to overwhelm the dots.
Toggle Commented May 13, 2015 on But or because more information at Junk Charts
NYT did have somewhat better coverage on April 4th, but not nearly as good as WSJ. It did not report U6 like WSJ did, but it did report the labor participation rate, as well as "Working part time, but want full-time work" and "People who currently want a job," albeit in a chart and not in the article. It also more heavily emphasizes U3 in both the words and graphics.
Yeah, they did better with their coverage on April 3rd. Funny, it's even the same author. I'm guessing the difference is on what new data has been released that they are reporting on. The BLS releases the full employment situation report with U3 and U6 near the beginning of the month.
Great post. Better media sources on the economy, like the WSJ, typically do report U6 as well as explain it. Also very useful to look at long-term unemployed, both the number as well as the rate. Thinking in terms of the number of actual people that have been stuck without a job for 6 months is pretty sobering.
"I have never heard a single macroeconomist recommend reducing Gdot(t), and saying that the New Keynesian model supports this policy recommendation." This seems to indicate that macroeconomics is overly politicized. But then again, so does the history of macro thought, which seems to be little more than schools of thought arguing with models whether there should be more or less government intervention in the economy. "And at least try to present the policy recommendations of our models without spin." I was not aware that there were any macroeconomic models that have achieved forecasting accuracy reliably enough to warrant making any policy recommendations. If I were considering launching a rocket, and the predictive reliability of physics models matched that of economic models, I would cancel the project and also tell engineers to stop trying to building bridges and skyscrapers. And I would do this regardless of how much complicated math the physicists were using, as that proves nothing. That economists still try and make policy recommendations anyway seems to indicate that macroeconomics is overly politicized. This happens on both sides of the aisle. RBC models were also highly unrealistic in voluntary unemployment and relying upon negative technology shocks. I don't think that stopped them from making policy recommendations either, and for some reason, they didn't make recommendations like public awareness campaigns to reduce the public's overly high preference for leisure.
1 reply
"we had the tools and models to explain what happened, but we didn't understand that this particular combination of models -- standard DSGE augmented by financial frictions -- was the important model to use....Ex-post, it's easy to look back and say aha -- this was the model that would have worked. Ex-ante, the problem is much harder." This disturbingly reminds me of how few actively managed mutual funds outperform the market benchmarks. It's easy to pick the top-performers after the fact, but virtually impossible to do so beforehand. I wonder how it would look if the WSJ ran competitions between macroeconomic models and a dartboard?
1 reply
We're going house shopping too. Also, you don't need to ditch the D40 to shoot in low light. Just get a prime lens for it.
Toggle Commented Jul 7, 2012 on Question of the Day: Weekend Plans at Apt. 11D
I think macro needs to recognize that both adaptive and rational expectations fare poorly when there's an asset bubble, and it needs to use more methods of modeling that can handle socially influenced expectations.
1 reply
PerfctlyGoodInk is now following The Typepad Team
Jun 23, 2012