Slashdot Mirror
Excel Error Contributes To Problems With Austerity Study
quarterbuck writes "Many politicians, especially in Europe, have used the idea that economic growth is impeded by debt levels above 90% of GDP to justify austerity measures. The academic justification came from a paper and a book by Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart. Now researchers at U Mass at Amherst have refuted the study — they find that not only was the data tainted by bad statistics, it also had an Excel error. Apparently when averaging a few GDP numbers in an excel sheet, they did not drag down the cell ranges down properly, excluding Belgium. The supporting website for the book, 'This time it is different,' has lots of financial information if a reader might want to replicate some of the results."
The Excel error is making the rounds as the cause of the problems with the study, but it's actually a minor component. The study also ignores some post-WWII data for countries that had a high debt load and high growth, and there's some fishy weighting going on: "The U.K. has 19 years (1946-1964) above 90 percent debt-to-GDP with an average 2.4 percent growth rate. New Zealand has one year in their sample above 90 percent debt-to-GDP with a growth rate of -7.6. These two numbers, 2.4 and -7.6 percent, are given equal weight in the final calculation, as they average the countries equally. Even though there are 19 times as many data points for the U.K."
No, finite resources do.
When I read the title, I expected a calculation or rounding issue, or an internal range issue from built in components and not "dumb ass user didn't set the range correctly when averaging". That's not an Excel error, that's a user error - Excel did exactly what it was told to do.
Anyone who prefers debt is a fucking idiot and shouldn't be trusted.
That statement is plain daft. It's much too broad. Sometimes debt can be good. For example, getting a mortgage for a home might not be bad. Sure, it would be better to buy with cash and avoid paying all the interest, but if you don't have a pile of cash lying around, you are limited to saving while paying rent. It might actually work out better to get the mortgage.
Also, getting a loan to start a company might be a great way to have enough capital to get to the market quickly and by doing so make a huge profit.
Not all debt is bad. Debt without any plan to pay it off and without evaluating whether the costs of managing the debt outweigh the benefits is bad. The problem is that most political parties these days seem to have a horizon of the next election when it comes to balancing the books. The problem with this sort of debt is that they spend up big and have no real plan to pay it back.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
It's about what you spend it on.
If you spend it on capital goods that allow you to produce more, that's investment.
If you spend it on final use goods, that's consumption
Simple concepts: consumption is not production and not all spending is investment. And yet, look at how Gross Domestic Product is calculated.
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports)
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Attempting to justify more theft of the public and increased government spending.
It's simple to answer this question, do you want to incur debt or spend money that you have? Anyone who prefers debt is a fucking idiot and shouldn't be trusted.
Wow this brings stupidity to new levels. A report is widely used to justify government cut backs. The report proves to have mistakes in it that would have given a different result - so pointing out the error is "Statist Bullshit"? There would be some justification in arguing that the report does not matter, though for people who previously used it to argue their case this would be hypocritical. But to argue that we should continue to use the incorrect report because correcting it is statist is just dumb.
" a dutch boy sticking his arm up a cow. And jerking of a bull."
The red light district has changed since I was last there..
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Carmen Reinhart: (Chief Economist) Bear Stearns -> IMF -> Harvard
\-> married with Vincent Reinhart: FED -> (Chief US Economist) Morgan Stanley.
famous quote: "Secretary Paulson Makes the Right Call" The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 16, 2008:
"In other words, some government aid might ultimately have to be directed toward financial firms whose failure would otherwise threaten the financial system.
The politicians now running for office should also appreciate that their grand ambitions for new spending programs or tax cuts may have to be tempered by the need to rescue financial firms."
Kenneth Rogoff: IMF -> Harvard
Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth?
No, finite resources do.
High public debt drains away valuable resources faster than low public debt
Given the same amount of initial resource, a country with high public debt will have smaller chances for recovery
But then again, most economies (other than that of North Korea) are dynamic, and the amount of resource fluctuates
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
It's "affect" Mr Highly Educated.
But then again, most economies (other than that of North Korea) are dynamic, and the amount of resource fluctuates
That depends on what you mean by "resources." An MBA Romney-style corporate raider considers "resources" to mean "cash and credit" while someone who isn't a rent-seeking parasite considers things like timber, ore, fuel, and available labor to be resources. The only real resources that fluctuate are labor and renewables.
Free Martian Whores!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
The researchers got the result they wanted, so they didn't bother to check if they were actually correct.
And actually, that's being kind.
These two numbers, 2.4 and -7.6 percent, are given equal weight in the final calculation, as they average the countries equally. Even though there are 19 times as many data points for the U.K."
Why should the UK be given more weight? There's only one such country, not 19 such countries. And the UK data in question is highly correlated (it all comes from the same debt over the same span of time, not 19 different points in the UK's history).
In addition, the rebuttal ignores two stretches of data:
RR examines three data samples: 20 advanced economies over 1946{2009; the same 20 economies over roughly 200 years; and 20 emerging market economies 1970{2009. We repli- cate the results only from the first sample as these are the most relevant to current U.S. and European policy debates, and they require the least splicing of data from multiple sources. We focus exclusively on their results regarding means because these have generated the most widespread attention. On their website, Reinhart and Rogo provide public access to coun- try historical data for public debt and GDP growth in spreadsheets with complete source documentation.3 However, the spreadsheets do not include guidance on the exact data series, years, and methods used in RR.
It's worth noting here that the rebuttal is willing to take data from the period just after the Second World War where a number of countries had high debt and were transitioning from a total war economy (that is, an economy totally focused on winning a particular war to exclusion of everything else, including economic growth) to a normal one - including the 19 year series of the UK mentioned above, and periods of excluded (excluded that is from the original study for unknown reasons) data from Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. All of these incidentally show high economic growth combined with high debt.
If we're excluding data series due to their irrelevance to current economies, why should these be counted? The US and Europe haven't been in a total war economy since the end of the Second World War. So it is to be expected that one would not see the economic gain (whether or not the debt is present) that one saw in the immediate post-war period.
The original research seems weak for a number of reasons, but I'm not willing to call it "fishy" on the basis of a rebuttal which makes its own "fishy" assumptions.
As a historical note, christianity used to have nearly identical rules concerning usury; and the deep suspicion of interest-bearing loans is a least as old as Aristotle(who was Not A Fan).
As time went on, though, a number of... increasingly creative... legalisms were hacked together to allow contractual arrangements that were loans at interest in everything but name. In the case of christianity, the charade was so transparent, and the amount of obviously-loan-backed economic activity so significant, by the early modern period, if not earlier, that almost everyone bowed to the inevitable and "usury" stopped meaning 'charging interest' and started meaning 'charging lots and lots of interest'(and even 'lots and lots' has proven to be pretty flexible).
Islam has not (yet) reached the 'eh, fuck it, sure we charge interest' stage; but let's just say that they are doing some downright jesuitical work at the 'So, what sophistry can we spin to make interest not look like interest?' stage. The range of products dubbed 'islamic finance' won't say 'interest'; but it will look like a duck and quack like one.
The only real resources that fluctuate are labor and renewables
I guess you are not in the high tech field
As one in the tech field since the 1970's, one very real resource that I count on is BRAIN-POWER, aka, ideas
Timber can cut into wood for burning, or could be turned into tables and chair by carpenters, or could be used for building a dormitory, or, in the hands of master crafter like Stradivarius, becomes his world famous violins
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
You know that Germany has relatively low unemployment compared to the rest of Europe because many youth learn trades instead of being jobless? Same for Austria and Switzerland.
Austerity affects everyone. It kill opportunities, it stifles social mobility, it removes funds from research and long term investments. There are no good aspects to austerity, except that at the top you fall less than those at the bottom so you are comparatively better off. But to rejoice in that makes you a horrible person.
You are entitled opinions, but not facts.
Not much I can add, except that maybe people who use the term, "Libertards" seem universally to be idiots. But that's just an entitled opinion of mine.
"The US government for example is spending about 50k per US household. The median income of US households is about 49k."
These statements do a great job of conflating median and mean. If you're comparing per household spending to per household income, you don't want median because a small proportion of American households take home a huge amount of income.
The mean per capita income in 2012 was $42,693 [1]. Per capita spending by the federal government was $11,260 [2]. Total spending including state and local government spending was $19,015.7 [2]. This means that the federal government would be fully fundable with only revenue increases, even with lower taxes than much of western europe.
The US has a long-term health care problem. In the short term, the US has a small revenue problem and a very large austerity problem (which is actually causing long term harm to the economy). The US, currently, does not have a spending problem from an economic point of view.
If you want to argue that the US has a moral spending problem like many austerity/deficit hawks, feel free, but don't conflate that with an actual economic argument.
[1] http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm
[2] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2012USdn_14ds1n_F0#usgs302
At some point the country with more debt has had more money than the other one. What matters is what the country is doing with that extra-resource. As a example, in June 1999, Google was 25 millions in debt, a considerably worst shape than my local kebab place.
Debt is just an indicator. That's what's wrong with the current austerity measure in Europe. It does not matter what a Country is doing with its money, Europe only cares about the yearly balance sheet and does not give a damn about the future of the country.
The creation of the USA also had it's problems, because the states were so different. e.g. A civil war due to differences in economies in the south and the north, one symptom of which was the positive and negative views of slavery.
But would you be better off now if you'd remained independent states?
And what of the people who thought the collapse of the US was inevitable?
The UK has had much higher debt ratios in the past. It equalled 30 years of tax revenue after the war with France and Spain in the early 19th century. It took most of the century to pay it off
So? That was the UK's greatest period of growth and relative prosperity. It's often cited as an example of debt not impeding growth. Similarly the US had federal debt of 125%/GDP after WWII, and post-WWII was our greatest growth period. It helped that the debt was mostly internal (i.e. War Bonds were held by Americans, so paying off the debt meant paying Americans). AFAIK the same was true of the UK after the Napoleonic wars.
However, I'm not saying debt isn't important, just that it's not the only or the ultimate evil. Other things can be worse, and can justify increasing the debt.
You're not going to get hate mail. But you will be told you are wrong, because using the simplistic idea that "debt is bad" to plan an economy is ridiculous How would you explain how startups are successful? When they start, their income to debt levels are completely off the mark, but with investment of capital to improve efficiency and drive sales, eventually they can be profitable regardless of how much their debt to income ratio was.
With large economies, the principles are the same. If you borrow money to fight wars, there's very little chance of receiving a return on the initial investment, as the Iraq War has proved: over three trillion dollars spent, and nothing but one million veterans with a lifetime of expensive treatments to care for it. If America had instead spent that money on infrastructure improvements, like renewable energy, fiber-to-the-home, or even an improved commuter rail network and efforts to modernize the government itself, we would all be doing very well just as we did during the Space Race. Even making common sense changes, like decriminalizing harmless drugs and ending our for-profit prison system and replacing it with a reasonable mental health infrastructure would not only save us money through simple budget changes, but it would also have extensive monetary effects by reducing recidivism, which frees up police to focus on actual crimes instead of trying to continue functioning as a moral goon squad.
If you want to understand why America is in such deep trouble financially, all you have to understand is that we lowered taxes for everyone, especially the super wealthy, at a time when we also spent three trillion dollars we did not have on unnecessary wars.
That's why it's so frustrating to see rambling nonsense like yours modded as insightful. Debt it not scary. It's a concept that we have invented and one that we can redefine or simply do away with using a debt jubilee, or a national reorganization as done by Iceland. Paper money only causes anarchic collapse when people go hungry. And even when there is a massive economic collapse, like the Great Depression, America did not devolve into cruelty. FDR told the rich to pay back the money they swallowed up, and they did, and our economy was further assisted by a massive government spending program, including complete takeovers of private industry for a brief period of time. And that's fine because private enterprises are usually massively inefficient hierarchies controlled by internal politics rather than innovation (see: Microsoft).
Nowhere in your diatribe against debt do you make any coherent points with supporting evidence from reality. But that's just libertarian economics in a nutshell, I guess.