paine said in reply to paine...
if the recovery seems to be ...seems to be
unexpectedly accelerating
that speaks the uncertainty of forecasting
the spontaneous dynamics of a very complex system
his attack on the stimulus was btw
unstimulatingi hope the horse head williamson
did a better job
of pounding the applicability of the hicks model
to suggest that model overstates the power
of kahn's multipliers really seems a thin reed indeed
and incantations over sticky sticky sticky
ain't so sticky after all
is a comp dynamics argument that requires a far better determination of spontaneous dynamics then we have
--------------------------------
cohan's pointers:
"1. New Keynesianism has a more optimistic attitude toward mean reversion than does Old Keynesianism. Things are looking a bit better than expected half a year ago, so New Keynesianism gains in status over the Old. Q.E.D. That’s actually enough to establish the entire point."
the dynamics of old keynesian models are overly sluggish ?
the model isn't even dynamic
it merely suggests ..suggests
liquidity traps can cause protracted and deep recessions
have we not had one
and the hicks model in particular suggests
fiscal-monetary remedies
that might imply
comparatively bigger dosages will speed the recovery
is there more we ned here to guide us ??
"2. Brad DeLong suggested not long ago that the short-run model, rather than the long-run model, will apply for a minimum of five years, and possibly up to fifteen years. "
so old keynesianism hicks model
is a short rum model
a partial
suggestive
as if
model
no more and yet we need no more to set up the feed back
but brad's forecast hunch
reflects a calculation of closing speed no one claims is more then a hunch
cohan would like us to believe the new keynes modl suggests more robust spontaneous forces
the ocean will calm down faster then old hicksians predict
that is completely unfounded
i will say the attempt by new keynesians to strenghen the as if
representation
of the spontaneous forces as wel as weaken the as if of the intervention instruments
helped make a crisis like fall 08 look like an implausible nite mare...until it actually happened
"That claim is looking weaker these days and I am happy to admit that I am revising my own previous views on speed of adjustment. "
sky hool gibberish
where did anyone suggest hicks provide time paths ?
" It’s one thing to predict we won’t get to four percent unemployment for a long time, but I am now much more skeptical that the short-run model will apply for so many years."
what ???
it may take a long time for the job market to recover
but that is not the production system
it may recover long b4 job markets recover
the notion here is we just got socked with a sudden mass shed of sub employment wage marginal value product jobs
ie a dodge over to the supply side
well cohan
are you saying we have a higher NAIRU now ?
then say it
but of course that new keynesian notion
has already failed one test in the second clinton term
the point is to blast on down and seee what happens
not accept inadequate effective demand and protracted job market slack
which by definitions means missed output opportunities
" (Since the labor force is not a homogeneous aggregate, the long-run model still can be more relevant than the short-run model even when there is residual unemployment.) "
NAIRU maneuvering
"3. Krugman’s own writings show he is less worried about the particular perverse consequences of one version of the liquidity trap argument than say a year or six months ago. Remember all the talk of the upward-sloping aggregate demand curve? That would imply more output and the expectation of further output gains can make the liquidity trap worse. "
this is plain wrong
let us review
upward sloping AD
"Yet how does Krugman respond to the good job market report? He claims, correctly, that it is good news. Full stop. There is no response like “it’s great those people have jobs but I’m worried that the extra output will worsen the liquidity trap.” Common sense rules, as it should, though now it’s time to admit we have moved onto a different and better model."
the old keynes model implies
extra output deepens the liquidity trap ??
"3. Frankly, it is a bit of an embarrassment for many commentators that the (admittedly weak) recovery is coming right after the end of the fiscal stimulus. Of course this does not refute the standard account of fiscal policy, namely that it can work but is hard to pull off politically in a manner which contributes to sustainable growth. The correct answer for the timing of recovery, relative to the end of stimulus, is “confounding factors,” but that is exactly the point. The confounding factors are more important than we had thought, and the fiscal stimulus not quite as important as we had been led to believe. That is another point against the Old Keynesian view."
gibberish
"4. The Old Keynesian focus on the paradox of savings may have been relevant during the most dire points of the crisis, but it does not seem to be panning out in the recent data."
who said it was dynamically specified
wasn't the trap long enough to cause a huge slow up in credit flow
despite massive liquidity injections?
"5. Liquidity trap models of unemployment stand in tension with Mortensen-Pissarides search models, as Krugman himself has noted in the past. The notion that employer (and worker) expected profit influences search behavior and thus employment, seems to be showing up in the data. That’s a real business cycle mechanism."
search models are neutral on this
not RBC
just some fine structure job market dynamics
that tends to modify expected speeds of adjustment
where the crisis is massive deficits in macro demand
this is deck chair talk
"6. Corporate profits are strong. Quite possibly the prevalence of labor-saving innovations helps explain why labor market recovery has been slower. That too is a real business cycle mechanism. The persistence of long-term unemployment, even in light of an improving labor market, suggests those particular workers face structural unemployment. That too is a real business cycle mechanism."
this is nonesense the data shows fairly uniform job loss
and uniform wage rate change decceleration
evidence of aggregate demand deficiency
"7. A lot of people get upset when one praises “real business cycle” models, perhaps having in mind some overly simplified one-person contraption from the early 1980s. The reality is that most economic phenomena and mechanisms fall under this heading, and that the objectionable simple models have been left behind a long time ago in favor of synthetic treatments. I’m the one in the mainstream here (which doesn’t mean I am right), but it does make it odder to be pilloried and insulted for holding those views, as if it were some inexplicable tomfoolery not worthy of professional economists."
RBC is being redefined out of its own essence a neoclassical wolf morphing
into a new keynesian sheep
by way of complications in the micro specifications
synthetic threatments i presume is opposed to analytic magic tricks
ie real real business cycle modeling
of course
on the level of the war of words
--cohan's feild of choice it seems--
all non monetized models are real business cycle models
"8. The old Keynesian view really does have trouble explaining turning points, unless there is a major fiscal or monetary policy action to account for the change. This was well-known as long ago as the 1930s."
what ?
i'll not venture into the meanings that might intend
" Brad DeLong cites a passage from Keynes about the depreciation of capital (see my previous coverage here, I am very familiar with this argument), but of course Keynes thought that mechanism was too weak and unreliable and thus he favored a mix of planning and nationalized investment. In any case that mechanism explains only one chunk of the current recovery and furthermore I call a rising MPK a real factor too.'
tea for two tap steps
a stall an interlude
a wind blow signifying
a shameless plutonic agent of an idiot's at the megaphone
"9. Krugman sometimes writes as if new and old Keynesian approaches are simply more and less rigorous versions of the same thing, but they clash on a number of important issues, a few of which I’ve mentioned above."
clash ??
some vague waving at relative adjustment speeds and multiplier sizes ??
how high is "up " here
is that a defineable question mr cohan ?
then define it
show how a hicks modl as a short run model can't be joggered to act like a new keynes model present period wise
"Stephen Williamson There’s a lot of very smart stuff in there, "
.
10. Finally, it’s worth going through Krugman’s citations of his own successful predictions:
using what model the one that predicts austerity works ?
is it working in europe ??
unexpectedly accelerating
that speaks the uncertainty of forecasting
the spontaneous dynamics of a very complex system
his attack on the stimulus was btw
unstimulatingi hope the horse head williamson
did a better job
of pounding the applicability of the hicks model
to suggest that model overstates the power
of kahn's multipliers really seems a thin reed indeed
and incantations over sticky sticky sticky
ain't so sticky after all
is a comp dynamics argument that requires a far better determination of spontaneous dynamics then we have
--------------------------------
cohan's pointers:
"1. New Keynesianism has a more optimistic attitude toward mean reversion than does Old Keynesianism. Things are looking a bit better than expected half a year ago, so New Keynesianism gains in status over the Old. Q.E.D. That’s actually enough to establish the entire point."
the dynamics of old keynesian models are overly sluggish ?
the model isn't even dynamic
it merely suggests ..suggests
liquidity traps can cause protracted and deep recessions
have we not had one
and the hicks model in particular suggests
fiscal-monetary remedies
that might imply
comparatively bigger dosages will speed the recovery
is there more we ned here to guide us ??
"2. Brad DeLong suggested not long ago that the short-run model, rather than the long-run model, will apply for a minimum of five years, and possibly up to fifteen years. "
so old keynesianism hicks model
is a short rum model
a partial
suggestive
as if
model
no more and yet we need no more to set up the feed back
but brad's forecast hunch
reflects a calculation of closing speed no one claims is more then a hunch
cohan would like us to believe the new keynes modl suggests more robust spontaneous forces
the ocean will calm down faster then old hicksians predict
that is completely unfounded
i will say the attempt by new keynesians to strenghen the as if
representation
of the spontaneous forces as wel as weaken the as if of the intervention instruments
helped make a crisis like fall 08 look like an implausible nite mare...until it actually happened
"That claim is looking weaker these days and I am happy to admit that I am revising my own previous views on speed of adjustment. "
sky hool gibberish
where did anyone suggest hicks provide time paths ?
" It’s one thing to predict we won’t get to four percent unemployment for a long time, but I am now much more skeptical that the short-run model will apply for so many years."
what ???
it may take a long time for the job market to recover
but that is not the production system
it may recover long b4 job markets recover
the notion here is we just got socked with a sudden mass shed of sub employment wage marginal value product jobs
ie a dodge over to the supply side
well cohan
are you saying we have a higher NAIRU now ?
then say it
but of course that new keynesian notion
has already failed one test in the second clinton term
the point is to blast on down and seee what happens
not accept inadequate effective demand and protracted job market slack
which by definitions means missed output opportunities
" (Since the labor force is not a homogeneous aggregate, the long-run model still can be more relevant than the short-run model even when there is residual unemployment.) "
NAIRU maneuvering
"3. Krugman’s own writings show he is less worried about the particular perverse consequences of one version of the liquidity trap argument than say a year or six months ago. Remember all the talk of the upward-sloping aggregate demand curve? That would imply more output and the expectation of further output gains can make the liquidity trap worse. "
this is plain wrong
let us review
upward sloping AD
"Yet how does Krugman respond to the good job market report? He claims, correctly, that it is good news. Full stop. There is no response like “it’s great those people have jobs but I’m worried that the extra output will worsen the liquidity trap.” Common sense rules, as it should, though now it’s time to admit we have moved onto a different and better model."
the old keynes model implies
extra output deepens the liquidity trap ??
"3. Frankly, it is a bit of an embarrassment for many commentators that the (admittedly weak) recovery is coming right after the end of the fiscal stimulus. Of course this does not refute the standard account of fiscal policy, namely that it can work but is hard to pull off politically in a manner which contributes to sustainable growth. The correct answer for the timing of recovery, relative to the end of stimulus, is “confounding factors,” but that is exactly the point. The confounding factors are more important than we had thought, and the fiscal stimulus not quite as important as we had been led to believe. That is another point against the Old Keynesian view."
gibberish
"4. The Old Keynesian focus on the paradox of savings may have been relevant during the most dire points of the crisis, but it does not seem to be panning out in the recent data."
who said it was dynamically specified
wasn't the trap long enough to cause a huge slow up in credit flow
despite massive liquidity injections?
"5. Liquidity trap models of unemployment stand in tension with Mortensen-Pissarides search models, as Krugman himself has noted in the past. The notion that employer (and worker) expected profit influences search behavior and thus employment, seems to be showing up in the data. That’s a real business cycle mechanism."
search models are neutral on this
not RBC
just some fine structure job market dynamics
that tends to modify expected speeds of adjustment
where the crisis is massive deficits in macro demand
this is deck chair talk
"6. Corporate profits are strong. Quite possibly the prevalence of labor-saving innovations helps explain why labor market recovery has been slower. That too is a real business cycle mechanism. The persistence of long-term unemployment, even in light of an improving labor market, suggests those particular workers face structural unemployment. That too is a real business cycle mechanism."
this is nonesense the data shows fairly uniform job loss
and uniform wage rate change decceleration
evidence of aggregate demand deficiency
"7. A lot of people get upset when one praises “real business cycle” models, perhaps having in mind some overly simplified one-person contraption from the early 1980s. The reality is that most economic phenomena and mechanisms fall under this heading, and that the objectionable simple models have been left behind a long time ago in favor of synthetic treatments. I’m the one in the mainstream here (which doesn’t mean I am right), but it does make it odder to be pilloried and insulted for holding those views, as if it were some inexplicable tomfoolery not worthy of professional economists."
RBC is being redefined out of its own essence a neoclassical wolf morphing
into a new keynesian sheep
by way of complications in the micro specifications
synthetic threatments i presume is opposed to analytic magic tricks
ie real real business cycle modeling
of course
on the level of the war of words
--cohan's feild of choice it seems--
all non monetized models are real business cycle models
"8. The old Keynesian view really does have trouble explaining turning points, unless there is a major fiscal or monetary policy action to account for the change. This was well-known as long ago as the 1930s."
what ?
i'll not venture into the meanings that might intend
" Brad DeLong cites a passage from Keynes about the depreciation of capital (see my previous coverage here, I am very familiar with this argument), but of course Keynes thought that mechanism was too weak and unreliable and thus he favored a mix of planning and nationalized investment. In any case that mechanism explains only one chunk of the current recovery and furthermore I call a rising MPK a real factor too.'
tea for two tap steps
a stall an interlude
a wind blow signifying
a shameless plutonic agent of an idiot's at the megaphone
"9. Krugman sometimes writes as if new and old Keynesian approaches are simply more and less rigorous versions of the same thing, but they clash on a number of important issues, a few of which I’ve mentioned above."
clash ??
some vague waving at relative adjustment speeds and multiplier sizes ??
how high is "up " here
is that a defineable question mr cohan ?
then define it
show how a hicks modl as a short run model can't be joggered to act like a new keynes model present period wise
"Stephen Williamson There’s a lot of very smart stuff in there, "
.
10. Finally, it’s worth going through Krugman’s citations of his own successful predictions:
We said that as long as the economy remained deeply depressed, even a huge rise in the monetary base would not be inflationary, and that even huge budget deficits would not send interest rates soaring. And we said that fiscal austerity would be contractionary, not expansionary.10. Finally, it’s worth going through Krugman’s citations of his own successful predictions:
We said that as long as the economy remained deeply depressed, even a huge rise in the monetary base would not be inflationary, and that even huge budget deficits would not send interest rates soaring. And we said that fiscal austerity would be contractionary, not expansionary.Funny enough, I also got those first two predictions right too, and on the third I have argued we haven’t seen real austerity yet."
using what model the one that predicts austerity works ?
is it working in europe ??
the rbc points aren't rbc points
and the anti old keynes pro new keynes points
are so weasil worded
they amount to
indictment by ambiguous gesture and
pusilanimous innuendo