Grad student accidentally exposes major errors in a key paper used to argue for austerity cuts - Polidicks

[t]http://imgkk.com/i/rkut.png[/t] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223190[/url] [quote]This week, economists have been astonished to find that a famous academic paper often used to make the case for austerity cuts contains major errors. Another surprise is that the mistakes, by two eminent Harvard professors, were spotted by a student doing his homework. It's 4 January 2010, the Marriott Hotel in Atlanta. At the annual meeting of the American Economic Association, Professor Carmen Reinhart and the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Ken Rogoff, are presenting a research paper called Growth in a Time of Debt. At a time of economic crisis, their finding resonates - economic growth slows dramatically when the size of a country's debt rises above 90% of Gross Domestic Product, the overall size of the economy. EU commissioner Olli Rehn and influential US Republican politician Paul Ryan have both quoted a 90% debt-to-GDP limit to support their austerity strategies.[/quote] Hard to cut out the key parts of this, because it's told like a story. You'll just have to read the article.

'accidentally'

Next time on mythbusters, we will see if the US economy is plausible, or a myth.

[QUOTE=Solomon;40357017]'accidentally'[/QUOTE] "My heart sank," he says. "I thought I had likely made a gross error. Because I'm a student the odds were I'd made the mistake, not the well-known Harvard professors."

Watch as people ignore this as they did when the IMF admitted their calculations were wrong!

It's not about the numbers, they're just there as a ruse :)

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;40358309]It's not about the numbers, they're just there as a ruse :)[/QUOTE] It actually isn't about the numbers. Those studies are cited by people who have already decided they want austerity, and are looking for credible-sounding justification. It's not about the economy, it's about gutting the social services and safety nets that conservative ideology says the government shouldn't be paying for. It's all rooted in ideology, because actual data shows that government spending is necessary when the private sector is not providing sufficient jobs, pay, and benefits for the population.

Awesome that this one kid was able to identify a mistake that the Havard professors did not even realize, either way good on him and may he do well for the rest of his days.

The difference between science and math vs religion. Religion if you think someone is wrong with a key belief, you get stoned, prosecuted, and worse. Science and math, hey you guys are wrong and heres why. "Oh thanks we missed that, good work. We won't do it again." Embarrassing yes, but you can't argue against it.

I wonder if this is one of those cases where the two writing the paper were so famous nobody questioned what they did. I remember in Feynman talking about the famous Neils Bohr arriving to work on the Manhattan project to assist them, but when he arrived everyone just instantly agreed with what he proposed because of his status. He actually ended up just taking Feynman aside because he was the only person who could set aside his status and call his ideas ridiculous :v:

[QUOTE=Phaselancer;40358988]The difference between science and math vs religion. Religion if you think someone is wrong with a key belief, you get stoned, prosecuted, and worse. Science and math, hey you guys are wrong and heres why. "Oh thanks we missed that, good work. We won't do it again." Embarrassing yes, but you can't argue against it.[/QUOTE] Don't you even fucking bring religion up.

[QUOTE=Phaselancer;40358988]The difference between science and math vs religion. Religion if you think someone is wrong with a key belief, you get stoned, prosecuted, and worse. Science and math, hey you guys are wrong and heres why. "Oh thanks we missed that, good work. We won't do it again." Embarrassing yes, but you can't argue against it.[/QUOTE] you turned this into a religion debate only 8 posts in, good job

[QUOTE=Phaselancer;40358988]The difference between science and math vs [B]religion[/B]. [B]Religion[/B] if you think someone is wrong with a key belief, you get stoned, prosecuted, and worse. Science and math, hey you guys are wrong and heres why. "Oh thanks we missed that, good work. We won't do it again." Embarrassing yes, but you can't argue against it.[/QUOTE] STOP. Stop right there. Nuh uh. No. Nope. We're not having this discussion.

Before anyone says anything, I would like to remind people that Europe is spending more than what they earn....is that austerity?

Can I use this as an excuse for me failing my statistics course?

who thinks the error was deliberate?

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;40359298]Before anyone says anything, I would like to remind people that Europe is spending more than what they earn....is that austerity?[/QUOTE] no but many european countries have been practicing austerity which has had disastrous effects

What I find most frustrating about all these economists is that they seem to think that growth is just a combination of numbers; debt, interest, inflation etc. there's a lot to be said of the psychological affects on the public when they hear the words 'austerity' and 'cuts' for years on end.

“If history shows anything, it is that there's no better way to justify relations founded on violence, to make such relations seem moral, than by reframing them in the language of debt — above all, because it immediately makes it seem that it's the victim who's doing something wrong.” ― David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years

[QUOTE=Solomon;40357017]'accidentally'[/QUOTE] Economics Professors HATE HIM! Student writes better papers than professors using this one weird tip

[quote]Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada and Denmark were missing. Oops.[/quote] oops

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;40358355]It actually isn't about the numbers. Those studies are cited by people who have already decided they want austerity, and are looking for credible-sounding justification. It's not about the economy, it's about gutting the social services and safety nets that conservative ideology says the government shouldn't be paying for. It's all rooted in ideology, because actual data shows that government spending is necessary when the private sector is not providing sufficient jobs, pay, and benefits for the population.[/QUOTE] Politics cares not for facts.

[QUOTE=Nystical;40357054]Next time on mythbusters, we will see if the US economy is plausible, or a myth.[/QUOTE] No what are you talking about dumping tons of money on rich people works just fine.

It's funny that one guy brought up religion, because that's basically what modern economic conservatism is. They don't give a shit about science or facts, it's all about defending their ideology based on faith and they'll pick and choose whatever "science" fits their world view, the same way fundamentalists try to disprove Evolution by cherry picking scientific facts.

Have you read anything about economics? It isn't just economic conservatism that doesn't give a shit about science or facts - most schools of economics don't.

Late, bro: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1261802&highlight=excel[/url]

Wouldn't it be cool if there was an autoban for people who post the word "religion" in the sensationalist headlines section?

I always wondered if there have been times where even highly esteemed professionals will write something and publishers just say "eh this is too technical, must be legitimate if he sat down and wrote all this". I mean if something as significant as this specific work has that significant of errors, someone didn't get their shit peer reviewed.

[QUOTE=mysteryman;40365937]I always wondered if there have been times where even highly esteemed professionals will write something and publishers just say "eh this is too technical, must be legitimate if he sat down and wrote all this". I mean if something as significant as this specific work has that significant of errors, someone didn't get their shit peer reviewed.[/QUOTE] I think this happens all the time though. It's how people commit investment fraud etc.. [editline]21st April 2013[/editline] It also why people become cynical about professionals. The number of times I have had friends claim that certain government policies "aren't possible" despite all the professional evidence to the contrary. When I ask them about it they just say "well of course the professionals would say that, they are being paid to."

[QUOTE=RandommanXD;40365784]Wouldn't it be cool if there was an autoban for people who post the word "religion" in the sensationalist headlines section?[/QUOTE]No? That's stupid.