Reader Steven Kopits asks me to “show us the math” for why the increase in multiple job holders cannot account for the majority of the discrepancy between net job creation from 2022M03 until 2022M11. Here it is:
Figure 1: Difference in net job creation from nonfarm payroll series minus civilian employment series, since 2022M03 (dark blue), increase in multiple job holders since 2022M03, assuming workers increase from one to two jobs (green), and from one to three jobs (sky blue), all in 000’s, seasonally adjusted. Multiple job holder series are BLS series LNU02026625, LNU02026631. Source: BLS via FRED, and author’s calculations. [correction 1/6 – MDC, adding in multiple job holders part time, part time]
In order for multiple job holders to account for the full discrepancy, each worker who had one job at 2022M03 would’ve had to take on an additional 13 10.5 [correction 1/6 – MDC] jobs by 2022M11. That seems unlikely. Just sayin’.
Personally, I put more credence in mismeasurement primarily — but not exclusively — in the household survey.
I realize that it is an extra burden for our host when we link to videos, and I apologize, but this is important.
I found the multiple job holders. It’s the Jamaicans! “You got twelve job? I got thirteen job, mon!” It’s all accounted for:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V6wtj04dJ_g
And by the way, the math of Stevie’s wrongness has been presented already. Twice, I think. His demand that you show the math is dishonest rhetorical camouflage. Stevie is pretending:
A) That you are obliged to show the math when it’s his claim being questioned.
2) That the wrongness of his claim hasn’t already been demonstrated – twice, I think.
Lastly) That Stevie somehow came up with a solution without even looking at the data which lots of intelligent, well-trained, kudo-seeking economists and market chit-chat people hadn’t already found. Monkeys are more likely to type Shakespeare’s plays.
Some breeds of consultant engage in a client-mating display which amounts to always having an answer and claims of infallibility. (This display does not involve math. Any display of math is ignored.) This client-mating behavior becomes so ingrained that, even in the absence of potential client-mates, the consultant engages in the display. Creatures who live in the same environment as these consultants tend to be repulsed by the display.
I consider myself to be very perceptive about people. That is to say I can get a gauge on people pretty quickly. That isn’t to say I always get it right. Regular readers will remember I was way wrong on Tulsi Gabbard and way wrong on JohnH. But the vast majority of the time I get it right, and it sounds arrogant to say, but I often see things about people others don’t see.
My take on StevenKopits?? Some people are just plain dumb. Some people are clever and pretend to be dumb—or “play coy”. What is our man Kopits?? I think he is a “cross-breed” of these two type peoples. He often is playing coy and playing dumb, and is fully aware what he is saying is wrong. But also he often times is not near as smart as he imagines himself, and misses large parts of the picture he is completely unaware he is missing. So Kopits is kind of like that stereotype FIFA world cup soccer player. He plays dumb so often (like the soccer player grabbing his knee or shin for the fifteenth time in a single game) that the time he really is being dumb (actually has an injury) we might tend to think he’s faking being dumb because he fakes stupidity so often we don’t realize that on that issue he is actually truly dumb.
Either this analogy makes sense to you by the 2nd time you run it through your mind, or it won’t—so don’t spend to much time wondering how Kopits’ brain works. I feel I’ve spent too much time on it in this comment alone.
Moses,
Ohhhhh, you “consider” yourself to be a big expert on people, eh? Well, I grant that you admit you were wrong about Tulsi Gabbard, but your record on women in general still looks bad to the point of notorious. I mean, you were calling Nancy Pelosi “senile” several years ago before she served very effctively for the last two years as one of the best Speakers of the House we have ever seen.
No wonder it appears that you have no wife and no girlfriend or other significant other (maybe you have a dog?). Only one we have ever heard of was one in China whose parents dinged you. Actually, I am sorry for you about all that really. But, please, telling us what a great judge of people you are has some credibility problems.
Here were my thoughts about Elvira Nabiullina back in April of 2018, 4 years and 8 months ago:
“As Menzie is obviously way more knowledgeable about currency and FX than I am—but the view from my bird perch says this woman [Elvira Nabiullina] is very sharp-minded and has pretty much managed to keep Russia’s ruble as stable as can be expected under the sanctions etc. How long can she perform near miracles keeping the ruble steady with smoke and mirrors?? My gut tells me longer than people think she [Nabiullina] can.”
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2018/04/trump-v-treasury#comment-207899
Does my gauging of Nabiullina now seem “on point” or even prescient 4 years and 8 months later?? That’s an open question for all readers of Econbrowser to silently answer for themselves.
Now……. my memory of it is, some senile old man in Harrisonburg VA continually claiming to be an “expert on Russia” told us very recently Nabiullina got fired from her job as head of Russia’s central bank. But that is far from the case. Fascinating.
For the record, 4 years and 8 months ago I also asked Menzie his thoughts on Nabiullina in that same exact comment. Menzie obviously was very busy, or bored with the question, as I never received an answer to that question from Menzie back in April of 2018.
Moses,
I do not remember if I commented on your praise of Naibulliina, but I know that I have said she is highly competent here on numerous times here. I reported a rumor out of Russia that she was trying to leave her position, but it turned out that Putin pressured her into staying on.
Yes, as a matter of fact you may have actually once made an accurate statement about her, but you do not remotely know as much about her as I do.
@ Barkley Junior
You obviously must “know a lot” about Nabiullina or why go off prematurely saying Nabiullina had been fired?? And on your own dingbat blog no less. What you desperately desired was credit to be “the first” (and only) to report something, that no one but you fantasized of happening. And you were right, you were the first to report it in English, as you were the only person DUMB enough to believe she had been canned.
I feel sorrow for you I have to say. How much deep seated insecurity does one have to have, to have attained a PhD decades ago, but still feel the psychological need to make-believe things in a desperate attempt to convey deeper knowledge about a country you indeed don’t have?? I don’t know, but I wager a mental doctor specializing in self-esteem would have a blast just spending two hours sitting down with you.
I’m trying to imagine a journalist for Bloomberg reporting Yellen had been fired from her job as Secretary of Treasury Monday morning, shown to be embarrassingly wrong Monday afternoon, and then saying “Yeah, I was wrong about Yellen being fired, but I sure as heck know more about her than the rest of you do”. Do you even have the smallest inkling how asinine you look?? Just a granule of self-awareness at all??
Moses,
I think that I am providing a service by reporting on things being said in Russian language media that have not yet been reported in English. I usually include a caveat when i do so about those sources regularly essentially reporting rumors that have not been fully confirmed, but sometimes I forget to do so. Shame on me when I forget to include such a caveat. I am not going to dredging through all my past such reports on such things to double check exactly when I included such caveats and when I did not.
I find it hilarious that somehow my reporting on such sources of information, which I regularly note may be unreliable, if not every single time I do so, somehow shows to you that I am “dumb” in capital and boldened letters, when you do not even know how to access such sources. But, of course, you have demonstrated your brilliant knowledge of geography and geopolitics when you informed us about those Russian troops that were proparing to attack Ukraine from a NATO nation, Romania.
Moses,
Regarding Nabiullina, whom you somehow think you provided some great revelation four years ago that I did not get, let me note that she had been getting excellent press in the western media for several years prior to your great pronouncement. She became central bank head in 2013, after having previously served as Putin’s top economic adviser for some time, with me aware of her activities even before that. Anyway, she got a lot of praise for keeping the Russian economy afloat pretty well at the time of the 2014 sanctions when Putin invaded and annexed Crimea and then also into Donbas. Euromoney named her Central Banker of the Year in 2015, three years before you “predicted” she would do a good job, and way long after I was aware of her and her abilities.
It is a funny thing about expertise, and how you keep trying to prove I have none on Russia because I have made some inaccurate forecasts bases on Russian source information you cannot even begin to access. So, I am thinking about something I noted nearly a year ago when David Ignatius, whom you do not like, made a forecast for this year at New Yeae’s last year, I noted two things I diasagreed with him on, although viewing both of them as about 60-40, in short, close calls.
One was the Russian invasion, with Ignatius agreeing with you and the CIA that Putin would do a full blown invasion. I said 60-40 not. The other was an Iran nuclear peace deal. He said it would happen. I accuratly said not, although again a 60-40 call.
Here is the irony. I know more about Russia than Ignatius does, but he was right about Russia. He knows more about the MIddle East than I do, lived in Lebanon for years and has written several books, but I was right about Iran.
i caught him making a goof about Russia in WaPo quite recently. He referred to the Talking Head Nina Khrushcheva, whom I know, as the “granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev,” which she tells people she is all the time. But in fact she is his great-granddaughter. Oh well.
I wonder which of Tulsi’s positions Moses finds offensive…her opposition to NSA (National Security Agency) being allowed to collect basic metadata of citizen’s phone calls such as numbers, timestamps, and call durations?
Most of her positions seem pretty mainstream Democratic.
https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/tulsi-gabbard/policies
JohnH,
Um, not her praise of Purin. In that she is like you. No wonder you are defending her, a fellow Putin troll, utterly nauseating and immoral.
Praise of Putin? Who’s praising Putin? Rosser is a big fat liar. You will never find evidence that I praise Putin.
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. US criticism of others for war crimes and atrocities is tantamount to throwing stones from a glass house. Putin’s atrocities and war crimes are horrific…but so were the ones that the US committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference is that people like Rosser criticize one but silently condone the other.
When people like Rosser finally get around to demanding that the US atone for its war crimes and atrocities , then they have every right to criticize to criticize Putin and others for their human rights violations. Until then, they’re simply hypocrites, criticizing Russia for behaving like the US. did
So, Rosser, when are you going to demand that the US be held accountable for its atrocities and war crimes? Or are you going to continue to be a hypocrite?
Tulsi’s positions:
Should the U.S. and NATO use military forces to defend Ukraine from a Russian invasion? No
Should the U.S. provide military assistance to defend Ukraine from Russia? No, we should stay out of conflicts that do not directly threaten us
Should the U.S. sell military weapons to India in order to counter Chinese and Russian influence? No, this will start a global arms race
Should the U.S. prevent Russia from conducting airstrikes in Syria? No, we should coordinate with Russia to take out ISIS
Nothing there to suggest that she supports the Russian invasion or that she praises Putin.
Of course, Rosser likes to misrepresent other people’s perfectly reasonable positions and then smear them for not agreeing with his warmongering tendencies.
JohnH
December 16, 2022 at 4:54 am
Praise of Putin? Who’s praising Putin? Rosser is a big fat liar. You will never find evidence that I praise Putin.
Jonny Jonny Jonny. You are the master of deny, deny, deny. The problem for you is that everyone here knows you are Putin’s favorite pet poodle.
JohnH,
OK, so now you have finally said that Putin committing crimes and atrocities. Congratulation on finally saying something truthgul about Putin’s “special operation.”
“Stevie somehow came up with a solution without even looking at the data”
What do expect from a Know Nothing troll that still claims GDP/M2 is mean reverting to some unspecified constant?
And who looks at the decline in the government deficit during an enormous increase in real income and concludes we had fiscal restraint = 7% of GDP?
And yet, the Philly Fed appears to agree with me, and they did look at the data.
My take is that Menzie is suggesting that the HH survey is biased because the sample size has declined. I think that’s his argument. But if the sample were too small, we would ordinarily expect volatility month to month, not a cumulatively growing error. So then you have to think that the sampling methodology is all wrong, or somewhere went off the tracks. Possible, but then you need to explain the collapse of the system as a whole. A large piece of the pie has to be missing somewhere. We’re talking a gap of almost 3 million employed persons on a total non-farm pool of 159 million employed, so an error of about 1% of the total pool. That’s a pretty big error, I would think, and all in one direction. Doesn’t seem too plausible, but not impossible, I would suppose. But it needs a narrative, for example, that those millions of undocumented coming over the border are not being captured in the HH survey. That’s still not large enough to explain the entire discrepancy, but in any event, you would need some sort of causality along that order of magnitude.
Funny. Maybe Stevie was think of Steven A. Smith who seems to be on every ESPN show all day.
I don’t foresee a serious uprising happening anytime soon. But it’s an interesting conversation either way.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/did-chinas-street-protests-end-harsh-covid-policies
Stevie demands we show him the math as he must have flunked 1st grade arithmetic. I earlier asked him to consider numbers like you showed here but of course Stevie never bothered. He never does.
Steven, I think you are owing prof chinn an apology for having to waste his time correcting you on an item you were absolutely certain about. and it appears that certainty was rubbish. it is one thing to be wrong. it is another thing for demanding somebody else do your work for you. probably because you know if the work is done, you are not correct. you made a statement with absolutely no data to support your position, other than your expert “intuition”. poor form, mate.
baffling: No apologies necessary. Steven Kopits is providing many examples of bad statistical reasoning for my use in PA819 this coming semester.
See my comment below per ‘poor reasoning’.
“The Three Ideology Model is worth a Nobel Prize in Economics. It’s foundational.”
Yea – that comment of yours certainly exemplified poor reasoning.
It’s foundational. That’s my view. I use it every day, and it has great explanatory and predictive power. I consider an essential part of an economics toolkit.
Steven Kopits: “Foundational” for you doesn’t mean it’s foundational for anybody else.
Menzie, see my comment to Barkley below. If you want to take it out and debate it, link is below.
If I am wrong, it should be pretty easy to unravel the model. It is foundational, because it deals with the objective functions themselves. Economics tend to deal with the optimization of objective functions, but not too much with the functions themselves. These are treated as implicit. with the partial exception of a Rawlsian-type analysis, which was presented explicitly during my economics training. I have never seen any kind of exposition of conservative theory, certainly none consistent with neo-classical economics. So, yes, a discussion of objective functions is foundational for the subsequent exploration of the optimization of such functions. “Why?” precedes “How?”
Btw, the Three Ideology Model pretty much is behavioral economics.
So, yes, the Three Ideology Model is foundational and, yes, it changes how we think about economics as a whole, and therefore is in the class of theory which would rise to the Nobel Prize level, in my opinion.
https://www.princetonpolicy.com/ppa-blog/2022/12/18/three-ideology-model
Anything more you’d like to add here, Menzie? You understand now what I mean by ‘foundational’ and how much easier it is to teach economics if you handle the objective functions prior to optimization methodologies? You can handle the ideologies with a kind of portfolio approach.
Why don’t you put up the graphic on slide 4? You’ll never have a better opportunity to take a shot at me than that.
Steven Kopits: Life is too short to waste on the ramblings of a man who did not know what a confidence interval is.
I know what a confidence interval is. I also known when not to use it.
Steven Kopits: Please do not rewrite history – as of June 6, 2018 you did not understand what a confidence interval was. If you deny, I will repost this post.
Menzie, the man who can make predictions without confidence levels, says: ” Life is too short to waste on the ramblings of a man who did not know what a confidence interval is.”, but he and his minions get bent all out of shape when said prediction is noted as being NOT perfect.
CoRev: I believe when I made predictions using futures (e.g. for soybeans), I provided RMSFEs which implicitly provide prediction intervals.
Man, you are dumb.
No, Menzie, in your blog post prediction you provided a SPECIFIC price in $s. No on or about fudge, nor confidence level. We had to wait an entire year for the actual price for comparison.
CoRev: Let me remind you of my post on my forecast vs. yours. Note also I cite Chinn and Coibion (2014) (and entire paper). I note you were WRONG by quoting from your comment a year earlier:
As for confidence interval, there are several tables that present relative to RW RMSFEs. Futures have a relative to RW RMSFE of 0.9 in out of sample period 2003-12. Since the RMSFE for a random walk is 0.275, then the RMSFE for a 12 month future is 0.25. Hence the 95% prediction interval is (529,1482).
Menzie, 2 points, 1) why did it take nearly a week to post my comment? 2) Why have you not actually linked to your comment where you actually predicted the $8.72 price? (No confidence bounds, no RMSFEs) just a single price?
Only someone with a YUGE EGO does that, then chastises others for not providing confidence levels.
I’m using examples like yours in my book how Wrong Are Liberal Policies and How many Have Died?
Steven Kopits
December 17, 2022 at 11:10 am
It’s foundational. That’s my view.
I actually went to the link of that really dumb set of cartoon pictures and bullet points. It was Stevie’s usual utter gibberish. In other words, his usual complete waste of time.
Stevie – you need to stop blogging and seek professional help. I get your consulting business is failing so here is my Christmas gift. If you cease wasting our time with your incredibly worthless comments, I will pay for your therapy sessions.
There are two illustrations in the ppt.
The first is Eugene Delacroix’s iconic Liberty Leading the People (1830) I always keep thinking that it pertains to the French Revolution, but it actually depicts the July Revolution of 1830.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Liberty-Leading-the-People
The poster is Shepard FAIREY (Obey Giant, called) (USA, 1970) Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité)
You can buy a print on Etsy. https://www.etsy.com/listing/685763988/shepard-fairey-obey-giant-liberte
The French Revolution is pertinent here, because we know what liberté and egalité are, and those can be modeled out with standard economics tools. But what about fraternité? What is that? How do we model it? Clearly, it was sufficiently important that it represented a central tenet of the French Revolution, but what is it, exactly? That’s what the Three Ideology model addresses.
You wanted lower inflation?
You’re getting lower inflation.
After 89 straight weeks of YoY decline (averaging -59%), weekly new unemployment claims finally rose (revised) in the first week of December.
Oh, and inflation fell by 0.65 percentage points in November, to 7.1%.
They fell the second week. Jobless claims are a mess because of the 4 main waves. I suspect a drop then pop again next year.
We have seen inflation come down. But if you are a MAGA hatter – you were hoping for higher inflation in order to bash Biden. And how does get higher inflation – let Bruce Hall just make up numbers Kelly Anne Conway style. She taught him well.
We aren’t the only ones to realize that inflation has cooled dramatically:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-12-13/u-s-inflation-political-pressure-federal-reserve
The FOMC has not yet acknowledged that fact:
“Inflation remains elevated, reflecting supply and demand imbalances related to the pandemic, higher food and energy prices, and broader price pressures.”
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20221214a.htm
They really don’t matter except for bank interlending. Consumer interest rates are already dropping. Inflation is reported with a lag.
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RI_CausesofandResponsestoTodaysInflation_Report_202212.pdf
December, 2022
The Causes of and Responses to Today’s Inflation
By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Ira Regmi
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. Today’s inflation comes mostly from sectoral supply side disruptions, largely the result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequent disturbances to supply chains; and disruptions to energy and food markets originating from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Demand patterns too have undergone significant changes, again largely induced by the pandemic. In some sectors, these effects have been amplified as a result of the exercise of market power. But today’s inflation, for the most part, is not the result of significant excesses of aggregate demand such as might have arisen from excessive US pandemic spending.
2. While we welcome the return of interest rates to more normal levels, which reduces a number of distortions associated with persistent, abnormally low interest rates, increasing interest rates too far and too quickly risks a painful slowdown to the economy with minimal benefits to inflation short of a significant downturn. This would have particular adverse distributional consequences, especially for marginalized groups in the country.
3. There are fiscal and other measures that can and should be taken to alleviate particular sectoral inflationary pressures, and that are likely to be more effective than broad-based interest rate increases.
4. Recent data shows significant moderation of inflationary pressures, with nominal wage increases in particular being only a little over pre-pandemic levels. This, together with other indicators such as tempered inflationary expectations, goes a long way in alleviating worries about an incipient wage-price spiral.
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RI_CausesofandResponsestoTodaysInflation_Report_202212.pdf
December, 2022
The Causes of and Responses to Today’s Inflation
By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Ira Regmi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Right Policy Response
This analysis provides a different perspective from conventional economics on the appropriate policy responses to current inflation. Conventional wisdom, partly based on a wealth of experience in which demand shocks have given rise to inflation, holds that interest rates should be increased when there is inflation, whatever the cause. Interest rates worldwide have been abnormally low, partly because of the excessive reliance on monetary policy in response to the 2008 financial crisis. But the cost of capital should not be zero (or worse, negative). Restoring interest rates to more normal levels has distinct advantages. Going beyond that—raising them too far and too quickly—is problematic, especially given the buildup of debt in the era of near-zero interest rates.
Most importantly, such increases in interest rates will not substantially lower inflation unless they induce a major contraction in the economy, which is a cure worse than the disease. An economic downturn like that is likely to have long-lasting adverse effects, and the most marginalized in society will bear the brunt. Volatile energy and food prices are largely internationally driven and not under the control of the Federal Reserve. The recent aggressive hikes have not remedied these price increases and are unlikely to do so in the future. Inflation induced by these price fluctuations may come down (as it has recently in some months in the United States), but not because of Fed action. To the contrary, the paper explains several reasons why large and rapid increases in interest rates, beyond normalizing them, may be counterproductive. For instance, they could impede investments that might alleviate some of the supply shortages.
By contrast, well-designed fiscal and other policies can help to ameliorate the supply shortages, tame inflation, and protect the vulnerable, providing long-term benefits even if it should turn out that inflationary pressures are transient.
Significantly, Stiglitz and Regmi note that “ Corporate Profit Markups Increased during the Pandemic and Are Driving Up Inflation
Increased costs and shortages explain some of the increased inflation. In some sectors, the shifts in demand discussed earlier are creating shortages that would result in higher prices even in competitive markets. But something else is happening. Companies are doing more than just passing on cost increases.
The US economy has been characterized more and more by increasing market power (Stiglitz 2019; Gutiérrez and Philippon 2019), and when there is market power, firms increase price more than increases in costs. Prices are a markup over (marginal) costs. Thus, if only energy prices were the original source of inflation, firms with market power would not just pass on their increased costs in the form of higher prices but would raise prices by even more, generating higher profits for themselves.
But matters are even worse. Firms have increased the amounts by which they mark up costs. Between 1960 and 1980, markups averaged 26 percent above marginal costs and have been on a slow and consistent rise ever since. The average markup charged in 2021 was 72 percent above the marginal cost. Moreover, 81 percent of the average increase in markups from 1980 to 2019 came from increases within industries, pointing to a generalized increase in market power.
The pandemic has given rise to an even starker increase in markups (Konczal and Lusiani 2022), as firms with the most market power drove the sharp increase in aggregate markups in 2021 (see Figure 2.3).” https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/the-causes-of-and-responses-to-todays-inflation/
This puts Stiglitz and Regmi at odds with the vast majority of economists who reject the idea that Corporate America was a significant factor in driving inflation!!! I mean, it’s not like corporations set the prices for most everything we buy, is it? But most economists seem intent on deflecting blame from corporations…for some mysterious reasons…
“This puts Stiglitz and Regmi at odds with the vast majority of economists”
Gee I hear Larry Summers making this argument yesterday. Paul Krugman has noted this factor as well. Gee – I have seen a lot of economists who you routinely criticize making this argument.
Look Jonny boy – simply because you can grossly misrepresent what economists say does not make you smart. No – you are actually incredibly dumb. As in how you read Krugman’s account of the effects of deflation during the Great Depression and thought he was talking about the UK under Cameron. Yep – you are really really dumb. But do keep reminding us of this sad little fact.
Johnny is the master of the strawman. Often, the strawman involves mind reading; without knowing anything about economics, Johnny claims to know what “the vast majority of economists” think. Johnny frequently tells us several of us what we think; a cheap debating trick in which you try to make the other guy defend himself so that he appears to be on the defensive.
There’s an example of another one of Johnny’s tricks in this string of comments. Johnny never says anything about Putin directly, but is always on Putin’s side – Johnny has maintained deniability. What surprises me is that it has taken months for Johnny to get around to making a denial. Kinda like he was waiting for permission, or instruction? This is, of course, how fifth column operations operate. Ya don’t admit to working for the other side while working for the other side.
“Johnny has maintained deniability.”
Exactly. Jonny boy is a lot like Marjorie Taylor Greene in this respect.
What is really amusing is how Jonny boy is saying that Barkley has mispresented his positions, that you are misrepresenting his positions, and of course, I misrepresent his positions. YEA – the three of us have this nasty habit of reminding Jonny boy of what he has said in the past. We are such the liars for doing so.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ERCj
January 30, 2018
Consumer Prices for China, Germany, India, Japan and United States, 2017-2022
(Percent change)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=NO7X
January 30, 2018
Consumer Prices for China, Germany, India, Japan and United States, 2017-2022
(Indexed to 2017)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=RmmO
January 30, 2018
Consumer Prices for China, Brazil, France, Indonesia and United Kingdom, 2017-2022
(Percent change)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=UZWi
January 30, 2018
Consumer Prices for China, Brazil, France, Indonesia and United Kingdom, 2017-2022
(Indexed to 2017)
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
December 14, 2022
Coronavirus
United States
Cases ( 101,589,374)
Deaths ( 1,111,664)
Deaths per million ( 3,320)
China
Cases ( 371,917)
Deaths ( 5,235)
Deaths per million ( 3.6)
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
December 14, 2022
Coronavirus
Mississippi
Cases ( 946,657)
Deaths ( 13,063)
Deaths per million ( 4,389)
China
Cases ( 371,917)
Deaths ( 5,235)
Deaths per million ( 3.6)
Steven is knowledgeable about certain topics. The problem is that he is not on some others, especially macroeconomics, where he not only engages in bungled analysis of data as Dr. Chinn has shown, but trying to impose his own verbiage on people, aka “suppression.” He should stick to talking about areas where his knowledge is better.
The problem is that Stevie thinks he deserves a Nobel Prize for his contributions to bungled analysis.
The Three Ideology Model is worth a Nobel Prize in Economics. It’s foundational. To propose conservative theory that 1) defines conservatism for the very first time and 2) puts it into a model consistent with neo-classical economics, well, that’s a very big deal indeed.
And if we managed to bring in market-based visas, that would be huge. Not worth any prize in economics, because it is nothing more than a variation of the rent control model used in every intro econ textbook. It’s not even interesting as problems go in terms of theory. If you consider its impact, it would be worth a Nobel Peace Prize, but I doubt it would get it. May be a worth statue in a dusty corner of Laredo. It would be a huge political, social and humanitarian achievement, though. Tens of millions of people would have better lives, and our country would be happier overall.
I’d add that the Prohibitions and Institutional Racism piece would make good reading in an intro micro econ course. It explains how you get drug cartels and why US drug policy is killing 25,000 Mexicans and 100,000 Americans every year. Things that look like inexplicable acts of nature are in fact the direct results of US legislation and policy. If you read that piece, you can watch Narcos and Narcos Mexico as applied microeconomics.
So many BIG words – none of which amount to nothing. Come on dude – you could have stopped with that suppression BS.
Tell you what big mouth – take anyone of your high sounding pieces of intellectual garbage and write an actual paper and then submit it to the American Economic Review. I bet the editor laughs til his sides hurt.
Steven,
Holy cow, you actually are claiming to have come up with something worth a Nobel Prize. This is the most delusional thing you have said here evcer, by a long shot. Wos.
Heck, my Wikipedia entry lists several ideas that i can be credited with having come up with first, some of which have gotten quite a few google scholar citations. But I sure as heck know enough not to make claims that any of them deserve a Nobel Prize. I know enough Nobel Prize winners to know better.
Really. You keep saying I’m wrong, Barkley, and yet time and again the numbers say I have it right.
Here’s how you argue, Barkley:
1. I don’t like what you’re saying
2. I can’t tell you why I don’t like what you’re saying, but it’s wrong
3. I have nothing to add of substance to the debate, no alternative model
4. The only models which could possible pertain are those already in circulating and generally accepted by the professional community; nothing else could, should or must be considered.
5. Therefore, what you’re saying is wrong.
You can tell that you worked in academia. If you were an analyst in the private sector, that kind of reasoning would have be punished and eliminated in the first two months of your career. It is weak-minded, sloppy and self-indulgent. You can get away with it the academia, but in the private sector, when the clients asks you, “Well, should we make the investment or not, based on your analysis?”, who’d better have something more than “I have no idea, but I don’t like what you’re suggesting.”
So, if you’d like to be a little less lazy, self-indulgent and closed-minded, why don’t you take a look at the model and critique point by point. Here it is, 17 easy-to-digest slides. Same goes for Menzie.
https://www.princetonpolicy.com/ppa-blog/2022/12/18/three-ideology-model
Is it worth a Nobel Prize in economics. In my opinion, yes, because it solves a lot of outstanding issues in the profession.
Catch this utter gibberish:
In this analysis, we seek to
• Articulate a coherent and defensible definition of conservatism
• Put the three ideologies into a common framework using principal-agent theory
• Construct the bridge representing the ‘missing link’ between political economy and economics
• Expand the vocabulary of mathematical economics to encompass not only liberal and egalitarian, but
also conservative, concepts as part of the standard lexicon
• Create an approach to ideology that functions as a technology
• Bring a portfolio management mindset to governance using all three ideological approaches to achieve
better societal outcomes
Now his little document has a lot more gibberish that this troll really thinks changes economic theory in fundamental ways. It is as if we gave a thousand monkeys typewriters and expected them to write Shakespearean caliber plays.
Come on Barkley – it should be obvious to you that Princeton Steve has serious emotional and mental issues. Otherwise – who would write so much gibberish?
Steven,
Uh oh, are you trying to imitate Moses Herzog and JohnH and just completely losing it? You are puffing yourself up way too much.
Your analysis of my reaction to you pathetically idiotic claim that your three ideology model is worthy of a Nobel Prize, a claim actually worthy of having you put in an insane asylum, is not that I dislike it or even think it is wrong. I think it is not important, a very different and frankly more humiliating kettle of fish for you. Sorry about that. It is not all that interesting or useful, not the profound breakthrough you fantasize it is.
You are not critiquing the thesis, Barkley. You seem to have plenty of time to write comments. Why don’t you take 20 minutes to go through the Three Ideology Model and then provide your critique or ask me questions. At least pgl took the time to look. Don’t be paralyzed with fear. Menzie certainly is. He is taking shots at me just about every week, and that’s his prerogative. I have no problem with that. That’s what playing smartest guy in the room is all about.
So: It is certainly boastful to claim one has a model of Nobel Prize quality. So publish it and let’s debate it. What’s there to fear? You’re not going to get easier softball pitches than this, if it’s as easy to refute as all that.
Thank you for the summary points there, pgl. Those are big claims indeed, and well worth discussing.
Steven,
If you want to get some serious consideration of your idea than publish it, or try to. I will consider it, not just desk reject i, if you submit it to my journal, the Review of Behavioral Economics. I am serious. Will send it out for review and take them seriously, not play some dumb game like so many here do.
Let me be clear. An idea may be publishable, but that does not mean it is worthy of a Nobel Prize. Got it?
Steven,
BTW, your whine about how I supposedly treat you is just rank bs. I treat you and have treated you with far more respect than a whole lot of people here. You are really making me rethink that.
Below, Barkley.
Steven,
What is this about? I know that somewhere above you said something about something being around “Below, Barkley,” but this makes no sense at all.
Regarding your three ideology model, I am not going to critique it myself because I have better things to do. It is not wrong in my view, just not all that important, certainly not as important as you think it is, sure as heck not Nobel Prize worthy.
I am not the one who needs to publish on it. You are, if you want anybody to take it seriously beyond sucker clients you bamboozle. I repeat my offer to consider a paper by you attempting to explain why it is so bloody important that I shall not desk reject and will send out to real, actual, substantive referees whose opinions I shall consider seriously.
Got it? This is for real. Put up or shut up. Run it up a real flagpole and see if anybody serious really salutes.
Steven et al,
Just in case anybody is wondering why the heck would Rosser publish something he does not think is all that important, or might even publish something he thinks might be wrong or actively disagrees with? I have done so on numerous occasions. It is part of being an open-minded editor, indeed one who has had plenty of major disagreements and disputes with various people in various disciplines, some of them pretty well known. So I have felt it almost my duty to allow them to express their sides of things in my outlets on various occasions.
My “disagreement” with Steven is far less severe than has been the case in some of these past matters I am referring to, and, no, I am not going to bore you all with examples, but there are quite a few. Again, my issue with Steven is not that he is wrong, just that I think he is exaggerating the importance of his idea. But I am fine with providing him an outlet to make his case more seriously, although it will have to pass editorial review beyond just my judgment. That is indeed how this game is played, whether he wants to play it or not.
Philadelphia Fed sheds some light on CES data: “ In the aggregate, 10,500 net new jobs were added during the period rather than the 1,121,500 jobs estimated by the sum of the states; the U.S. CES estimated net growth of 1,047,000 jobs for the period.” Ooops.
https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/surveys-and-data/benchmark-revisions/early-benchmark-2022-q2-report.pdf
Makes you wonder if the “average hourly wage” got overstated, too.
JohnH: Reasonable people can disagree. I get QCEW data (depending on seasonal adjustment method) to imply between 286 thousand to 1.5 mn vs. 1 mn from CES. See my entire post on the subject, here (presumably you read it, since you commented — although your comments have to do with Taibbi and LNG, etc.)
Speaking of seasonal adjustment methods, Bruce Hall has figured out how to overstate inflation by relying on second hand sources who cannot be bothered to tell us whether or not their CPI data was seasonally adjusted. JohnH might want to work with Brucie as misrepresentation is their game.
Praise of Putin? Who’s praising Putin? Rosser is a big fat liar. You will never find evidence that I praise Putin.
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. US criticism of others for war crimes and atrocities is tantamount to throwing stones from a glass house. Putin’s atrocities and war crimes are horrific…but so were the ones that the US committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference is that people like Rosser criticize one but silently condone the other.
When people like Rosser finally get around to demanding that the US atone for its war crimes and atrocities , then they have every right to criticize to criticize Putin and others for their human rights violations. Until then, they’re simply hypocrites, criticizing Russia for behaving like the US. did
So, Rosser, when are you going to demand that the US be held accountable for its atrocities and war crimes? Or are you going to continue to be a hypocrite?
That’s an interesting moral position: The lives and welfare of Ukranians are of concern today ifand only if a particular person – Barkley Rosser – makes comments critical of some historic event.
How about this? Guatamalan immigrants today only deserve decent treatment is Moses Herzog speaks in favor of better treatment of Moravian immigrants in the 19th century. Or Andrew Yang’s basic income proposals can only be discussed if Katie Ledecky criticizes an ient Rome’s bread distribution program.
Johnny, Ukrainians, civilians and soldiers, are dying today. Russian soldiers are dying today. We aren’t allowed to speak out against that until your demands are met? Johnny, you’re nobody. You don’t get to tell us what we’re allowed to think or say or write. Doesn’t matter what your bosses want.
JohnH,
I am more interested in criticizing current actions or policies that are happening rather than running around demanding some sort of “atonement” whatever that would amount to for past actions now over, of which there is an endless number that could be atoned for almost everybody on the bloody planet. I criticized the Vietnam Wae when it was happening, and I criticized the US invasion of Iraq and the subsequent conduct of that war when it was happening. I have seen claims here that you did not do so yourself at the time, although I do not know if that is true or not, but given your track record of repeated blatant lying and hypocrisy it would not at all surprise me if that was correct with you now demanding people here now demand “atonement” for this now largely over war before they dare to criticize Santi Vladimir Putin.
Now I note that you have finally briefly said something negative about him. It may be that you have not actually literally praised Putin. But you have spent enormous effort criticizing lots of us for criticizing him, over and over and over and over again, without a whisper nearly all those times of any criticism by you except reminders of all these past bad historical events that we are supposed to invoke before we criticize what is clearly the worst violation of human rights and morality going happening on the planet right now, with it so one sided that criticizing those who criticize it effectively amounts to supporting what Saint Vladimir is doing.
Got it?
From the Philadelphia Fed:
Early Benchmarks for All 50 States and the District of Columbia
Estimates by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia indicate that the employment changes from March through June 2022 were significantly different in 33 states and the District of Columbia compared with current state estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Current Employment Statistics (CES). Early benchmark estimates indicated higher changes in four states, lower changes in 29 states and the District of Columbia, and lesser changes in the remaining 17 states.
Our estimates incorporate more comprehensive, accurate job estimates released by the BLS as part of its Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program to augment the sample data from the BLS’s CES that are issued monthly on a timely basis. All percentage change calculations are expressed as annualized rates.
In the aggregate, 10,500 net new jobs were added during the period rather than the 1,121,500 jobs estimated by the sum of the states; the U.S. CES estimated net growth of 1,047,000 jobs for the period.
So, for March through June 2022, the CES estimated 1.1 m new jobs. The Fed’s revision took that down to 10,500.
Looks like the Philly Fed is supportive of my suppositions.
https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/surveys-and-data/benchmark-revisions/early-benchmark-2022-q2-report.pdf
What the Philly Fed wrote has nothing to do with your latest bozo theory. Now if you think this information does somehow support your latest nonsense – SHOW US YOUR MATH.
I have just showed you the Fed’s math. If you have better than theirs, let’s see it.
Let me repeat for the dumbest consultant ever. What the Philly FED wrote does not have a damn thing with your rantings on this issue. Whatever their “math” shows does not justify your intellectual garbage in the least.
Now your preK teacher is still trying to get you to understand 2 plus 2. So do get back to your remedial arithmetic classes.
Maybe you failed to notice Dr. Chinn’s comment to JohnH:
Reasonable people can disagree. I get QCEW data (depending on seasonal adjustment method) to imply between 286 thousand to 1.5 mn vs. 1 mn from CES.
Heck he wrote an entire blog post on this. Of course Stevie boy was too busy with his bloviating to have noticed. Come on Stevie – you really do need to seek professional help.
If the difference is 10,500 vs 1,121,500 jobs, no, reasonable people cannot disagree. Someone is wrong by a mile. Either it’s Menzie or the Fed. Thank you, I will take the Fed.
Steven Kopits: Fed (technically Philly Fed) could be right, and that doing seasonal adjustment on subcomponents could be better than doing seasonal adjustment on aggregate — that is my point regarding the Philly Fed comment. But the point of the post is that you (specifically, Steven Kopits), are wrong to assert that the discrepancy between the two series can be explained by the increase in number of multiple job holders. That was the point of the entire post — or do you think that the multiple job holders were taking on up to 16 jobs?
I’m fine with the latter point, Menzie. You did the math and I acknowledge that it shows that the increase in multiple job holders is insufficient to account for the material part of increased jobs per the Establishment Survey.
To the larger point, however, it would appear that the Establishment Survey was wrong by about a million miles — or at least a million jobs — if I understand the Fed’s analysis correctly.
Steven Kopits: I am glad you have acknowledged that your multiple jobholder hypothesis. To my knowledge, this is the first time you have.
A PHILLY Fed report which the PHILLY Fed even notes its numbers should be taken with a grain of salt? But no – Princeton Stevie boy reports a single statistic from all of us as gospel? Like DAMN!