This reprint of a The worst statistical analysis I have seen this year is motivated by Mr. Bruce Hall’s tendency to provide any ol’ link as support for a given position (actually, I believe it’s the worst I’ve *ever* seen).
(And I have seen a lot of terrible analysis) [Update 8/14/2020: the author has taken down the post, but here is an archived 8/13/2020 version of the webpage]
Reader Bruce Hall recommends links to this article which asserts that 2020 is not anomalous in terms of deaths. In fact, it’s 20th out the last 21 years!
Now Ms. Colleen Huber, NMD*** comes to this conclusion thusly:
As of this writing, 32 weeks have elapsed in 2020. However, for each previous year, 52 weeks have already elapsed. How then can we compare deaths from all causes in 2020 to previous years?
I divided the total number of deaths for each year by the number of weeks. That is 52 weeks for all years, except for 2020, in which 32 weeks have elapsed as of this past Saturday, August 8, 2020, which is the most recently updated week in the CDC data cited. This gives us the average number of deaths per week for each of those years, and allows a meaningful comparison between 2020 and prior years.
She then generates the following table:
She concludes:
It seems that there is no pandemic in 2020 of COVID-19 or of anything else, at least not in the United States.
It’s great that Ms. Huber tells us there are 52 weeks in a year. She divides 2020 data by the 32 weeks that have elapsed and have been recorded by CDC (despite the fact that recent weeks are very incomplete in terms of reporting).
This would be a sensible approach — calculating a per/week fatality rate — if there were no seasonality in the data. However, deaths are seasonal in the US, as can easily discerned in the CDC data she was analyzing.
Figure 1: CDC data accessed 7 August 2020.
As we enter the latter part of the year, deaths typically rise (with flu, etc.). Hence, using 32 weeks for 2020, and all 52 weeks for previous years, will typically yield a nonsensical comparison. (There is a standard approach, used in many economics releases — year-to-date counts. I.e., Ms. Huber could’ve compared deaths in the first 32 weeks of each of the preceding 20 years against those in the first 32 weeks of this year.)
Once again, the most embarrasingly stupid data analysis I have seen this year (maybe this decade, although the competition is tough).
My investigation using CDC estimates of expected deaths, here.
*** “NMD” means “naturapathic medical doctor”
Addendum, 2/19/2023:
Ms. Huber has recent post up, but since I’d have to sign up for the Epoch Times to read it, I’m just going to put up the link and let others take the risk of having their information hijacked.
‘Mr. Bruce Hall’s tendency to provide any ol’ link as support for a given position'”
As in his “JohnH Hopkins” report which was actually a misleading POS written by some Cato clown but taken apart by the actual scientists at John Hopkins. And Brucie is now linking to Dilbert cartoons to claim he provides “reliable sources”? OK!
OMG, that last part is the truly funny part. (This is why I compare your writing to James Kwak sometimes Menzie, he was good at snagging this type semi-obscure but humorous fare). Why hasn’t BlueStatesResidentKopits been signed on to be a regular commentator for the Epoch Times?? Talk about fitting like a glove.
Epoch Times is carried at the gas station I used to regular pick up my gas at. And I loved that station, but it always made my face cringe up when I saw that damned Epoch Times on their newsstand. I confess to once or twice almost picking it up, purely as a lark, like you might pick up the National Enquirer up just for a couple chuckles and fun. But I never could quite make myself do it because of the lies and immorality of it and rewarding the publishers for misleading people.
One can begin with the facts and work toward a conclusion which grows out of the facts This is called “research”.
One can begin with a conclusion and accumulate facts, non-facts and truthiness in its various forms to support the conclusion. This is called “bullplop”*.
As Lincoln famously said, “you can plop all of the people some of the time” and this must be the motive for a great deal of the bullplopping we suffer. Anyhow, there is apparently some number of bullploppers for whom the habit is so ingrained that no other mode of thought is conceivable. They can’t conceive that those with an affection for research won’t be swayed by any old link they provide. The number of these ploppers must be large, given the ratings earned by faux news, Glenn Beck and “The Apprentice”.
Even among these “some of the people all of the time” ploppers, there is some vestigial knowledge of the form which research takes. I say this because they sometimes ape that form in their own plopping. To the discerning eye, this mimicry is ridiculous in the same way that piglets dressed in evening wear are ridiculous. But not as cute.
* Also horse droppings, codswallop, balderdash, malarkey, free fertilizer, coolaid and some less family-friendly terms.
On the topic of links and reliability, I make no claim for this one, other than it’s worth a look:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EastPalestineTrain/comments/115ds0b/palestine_ohio_particle_map/
It’s a particle dispersion map for the East Palestine vinyl chloride leak.
i think the east palestine incident is going to go down in infamy as far as community pollution is concerned. seems there may be some serious contamination issues that went on during the fire and release of chemicals. we are still gathering information, but so far it appears problematic. the folks of east palestine are good people. small town folks. big business and big government seems to have taken advantage of that.
There isn’t going to be sh*t done about it, because if there is, the railroads will have to pay for it along with the PR fallout. And the railroads ain’t paying squat. You’d have a better chance getting your money back on “Advantage Medicare” which. BTW, is NOT Medicare. It’s a scam made by HMOs and insurance companies to rob seniors of their life savings
“This would be a sensible approach — calculating a per/week fatality rate — if there were no seasonality in the data. However, deaths are seasonal in the US, as can easily discerned in the CDC data she was analyzing.”
And there was Brucie relying on some high schooler website rather than BLS for CPI data as he calculated the January 2021 to June 2022 change in CPI NOT seasonally adjusted to calculate the inflation rate. Bad source, NSA data, and stupid arithmetic all in one. Bruce hit the trifecta!
Never let it be said, that Uncle Moses isn’t always happy to provide you with free access to the nearest sewage dump, because, damn it, Uncle Moses is “that kinda guy”:
https://colleenhuber.substack.com/p/africa-is-starkly-unvaccinated
I’m pretty sure it’s word for word the same one they put behind the paywall. If a black screen comes up, just scroll down a little way and click “continue reading” and you’ll be reading the same thing Epoch Times morons payed for.
Other humorous Colleen Huber fare:
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/27/appeals-court-tosses-stupid-lawsuit-filed-by-anti-vaxxer-claiming-federal-government-made-twitter-ban-her-account/
Am I the only jaded/morbid sicko here who ‘sorta kinda” wishes Huber would get cancer, so she can show us all how “easily” cancer is cured?? You know “physician heal thyself” kinda thing?? Perhaps Glioblastoma would be very poetic justice brand for Miss Huber.
“Colleen Huber M.D. thinks she can cure cancer by altering patients’ sugar intake. She also believes baking soda is better than chemotherapy when it comes to fighting this disease. Rational people think she’s endangering people’s lives and have said as much. Repeatedly. In response, Colleen Huber has filed lawsuits. Repeatedly. She feels she speaks from a position of expertise. But her expertise has only been lauded by others operating in the same shady medical field.”
She reminds me a bit of CoRev. Bruce Hall on the other hand just ordered a lot of baking soda.
Ole Bark, bark exemplifies this claim: “She feels she speaks from a position of expertise. But her expertise has only been lauded by others operating in the same shady medical field.” No expertise, no history, just useless vitriolic opinion.
Remember all his, and other liberal claims, of how the vaccine was so beneficial? [edited – MDC – wilfull disinformation regarding covid vaccine efficacy will be deleted; if you persist in spreading this disinformation, you will be banned by me]
Gee CoRev – your vile comments have been deleted. If only you would disappear entirely.
b>Menzie and Ole Bark, bark, speaking of Covid vaccine efficacy, this Lancet article is ey opening: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02465-5/fulltext
This article well synopsises the Lancet article: https://joannenova.com.au/2023/02/18-months-too-late-natural-immunity-is-almost-as-good-as-vaccination-except-when-its-better/
In it we find this comment re. the vaccines’ efficacy, especially for preventing infection/re-infection: ” The new meta-review in the Lancet says nothing at all about side effects of vaccines or new variants, but people-who-believe-experts and people who think they are “good journalists” need to say their medical Hail-Marys, otherwise they have to admit to themselves that they were wrong and sometimes obnoxiously, insufferably, stupidly so.”
Of course, many mostly liberal, can continue to deny the actual data, but due to the more recent scientific studies will see those ole inevitable court cases are starting to arise.
Denial is not a defense.
Dr. Chinn – check out how CoRev is citing Joanne Nova (someone who is a climate change denier that has been caught many times flat out lying) as CoRev’s new guru on COVID-19. I can only imagine how many hours CoRev spends on the dark web coming up with this trash.
Ole Bark, bark, I see that you again made another unsubstantiated and unrelated comment without actually reading a reference.
I provided this quote, especially for4 you and the others denying the data: “… they have to admit to themselves that they were wrong and sometimes obnoxiously, insufferably, stupidly so.” I’ll even highlight t5he portion I think directly applies. Do you actually deny the contents of the Lancet article?
Please show us your rationale. I’ll wait.
I call out CoRev’s new guru as being a lying hack and how does this worthless troll respond? Check this out:
CoRev
February 23, 2023 at 12:16 pm
Like we claimed Trump doubles down on dishonesty but no – CoRev is the master at this.
Ole Bark, bark is continuously obnoxiously, insufferably, stupidly lying.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-heavily-unvaccinated-africa-has-so-far-avoided-a-covid-disaster-health-officials-are-optimistic-and-wary-01637309085
Fewer than 6% of people in Africa are vaccinated. For months, the WHO has described Africa as “one of the least affected regions in the world” in its weekly pandemic reports. Some researchers say the continent’s younger population — the average age is 20 versus about 43 in Western Europe — in addition to their lower rates of urbanization and tendency to spend time outdoors, may have spared it the more lethal effects of the virus so far. Several studies are probing whether there might be other explanations, including genetic reasons or exposure to other diseases. Christian Happi, director of the African Center of Excellence for Genomics of Infectious Diseases at Redeemer’s University in Nigeria, said authorities are used to curbing outbreaks even without vaccines and credited the extensive networks of community health workers. “It’s not always about how much money you have or how sophisticated your hospitals are,” he said. Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, said African leaders haven’t gotten the credit they deserve for acting quickly, citing Mali’s decision to close its borders before COVID-19 even arrived. “I think there’s a different cultural approach in Africa, where these countries have approached COVID with a sense of humility because they’ve experienced things like Ebola, polio and malaria,” Sridhar said.
Simply put – the people of Africa were a lot smarter than those MAGA hat types such as Bruce Hall.
Ole Bark bark failed to note this in his reference: ” “I think there’s a different cultural approach in Africa, where these countries have approached COVID with a sense of humility because they’ve experienced things like Ebola, polio and malaria,” Sridhar said.” What is used to treat malaria? Cause and effect?
Dunno, just wondering.
CoRev acts like the retarded monkeys trying to type Shakespeare again. More and more words and absolutely no meaning.
?Meaning? or value from one of your comments? Now that would be unique.
“CoRev
February 23, 2023 at 4:41 am
?Meaning? or value from one of your comments?”
Talking to yourself again we see.
Menzie Chinn,
Could you enlighten your readers on the meaning of the following terms used in this post?
Mr.
Ms.
CDC
COVID
US
etc.
I.e.
I find it strange you’ve decided to go out of your way to inform your readers on the meaning of “NMD” (even though your meaning is about as accurate as Colleen Huber’s analysis. It must be laughably embarrassing that multiple econbrowser links are among the top 5 Google search results for your meaning bwahahaha) and no other acronyms or abbreviations used in this post.
Econned: I didn’t know what a “NMD” was before I looked it up. I thought others might not know. Did you know beforehand? If so, I apologize to you for presuming.
And I thought NMD was a new line of shoes from Adidas!
Econned announced that his Wossamotta University has replaced the Ph.D. with the TwD – troll worthless degree!
bMenzie Chinn (aka Menzie Chinn???),
Ah yes, ever the educator you portray yourself to be. So why no addendum to your not quite accurate meaning?
given econned’s level of sophistication, he is upset because by not defining Mr., Mrs., COVID, etc he could not understand your article. in the future, please use short monosyllabic words and no shorthand when posting something econned might read.
prof. chinn, i give you credit for tolerating fools such as econned. i would have placed an idiot ban on him long ago. even his mother is embarrassed by how he turned out.
baffling,
You left out CDC, US, etc., and I.e.
You must love being the king of pointless drivel. Find another blog to pollute.
national missile defense (nmd) was star wars before the agency became missile defense agency (mda)……..
Econned prefers the more technical terminology, such as quack or swindler. Of course if you hadn’t used the title Huber prefers then Econned would have feigned that upset him as well. He tends to be abnormally sensitive about these things.
Econned,
I find it strange you’ve decided to go out of your way to embarrass yourself.
Macroduck,
I’m not embarrassed.
I find it strange you’ve decided to go out of your way to make an erroneous assumption with respect to something that doesn’t impact you.
Of course you are not embarrassed because your standards are zero. Now your mommy and daddy are so embarrassed – they have disowned you.
baffling,
My comment was explicitly directed to someone and it wasn’t you. How do you not see the difference?
a comment was posted on a public blog. I would suggest that if one does not want others to respond, they should not post on a public blog site. they should carry out that conversation in private.
baffling,
Baffling is baffled. Again. Per usual, you’re distorting my words. I made no suggestion about both wanting others to respond. I replied to your snarky comment in a snarky manner. My finding it strange that you decided to go out of your way to make an erroneous assumption with respect to something that doesn’t impact you doesn’t mean I don’t – or do – want others to respond.
econned, nowhere in my last comment did I direct a question to you. and yet you felt obliged to make a comment. and hypocritically, if somebody else does the exact same thing, you whine and complain. you are just a spoiled childish brat who comes on here to dump on prof chinn anonymously. what a sad little boy you are. your momma did a poor job of raising you.
“I find it strange you’ve decided to go out of your way to make an erroneous assumption with respect to something that doesn’t impact you.”
one could make the exact same statement about your original comment, econned. i simply see your professional jealousy of prof. chinn.
baffling,
One could but it wouldn’t be accurate – I was responding to an open blog post directed towards its readers. You responded to a comment directed to a specific individual not named “baffling”. See the difference?
no econned, i do not see the difference. please explain how the blog impacted you any more than myself. or are you the only one who can make comments on something that has no direct impact on yourself. and i responded to a comment that was publicly posted on a blog. you think you get to dictate who can respond to blog comments? what a naive little turd you are, zanfino.
Embarrassing yourself and being embarrassed, are two completely different things – look it up.
Ivan,
At your suggestion, I looked up “embarrassed” – not because I’m unaware but rather to embarrass you. I clearly stated “I’m not embarrassed” i.e.: I am not that adjective which Merriam-Webster defines as “ feeling or showing a state of self-conscious confusion and distress”. Nothing about the definition qualifies it being due to one embarrassing themselves or being embarrassed by another. As anyone being honest about the term would know, my usage of the word can apply to either and doesn’t require qualification. Your snarky attempt at semantics failed and you should feel…. embarrassed.
the correct usage would be: econned is an embarrassment to humanity.
LOL! So, there were never any posts or discussions about how we were having “transient inflation” in early 2021? Come on, man!
Sure, I made a comment linked to a study that turned out to be wrong and the author admitted it. I guess I’ll have to confess to imperfection. But I have to presume this is regarding this exchange:
Bruce Hall
February 19, 2023 at 9:32 am
Got a good laugh today. pgl reminds me of Dilbert’s boss.
https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-02-19?creator
Nothing like an ad hominem response to prove your point, eh?
Bruce Hall
February 16, 2023 at 1:41 pm
I know this about the PPI (just to forestall a snarky comment from the usual suspect), but I thought this was a good way of looking at the CPI and inflation.
https://www.statista.com/chart/29328/consumer-price-index/?utm_source=Statista+Newsletters&utm_campaign=6e2b348ae8-All_InfographTicker_daily_COM_PM_KW7_2023_Thu&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_662f7ed75e-6e2b348ae8-339775394
Reply ↓
pgl
February 16, 2023 at 2:29 pm
There was some magical point to a link that told us we do not have negative inflation? Come on Brucie – no interpretation? Oh yea – Kelly Anne is still emailing to you what you are supposed to say. Got it!h
So, was the chart (which was the only salient part of the linked article) really wrong? You may recall that it relates back to the much earlier exchange where I pointed out that the change in CPI from 1/21 through 6/22 was “around” 13% (pgl likes it to 3 or 4 decimal places) and that between 6/22 and 12/22 was “around” 1%. I referred to those as differing inflation, but you were uncomfortable with that and wanted “change in price levels”. Regardless, the purpose of the recent link was to show that my effort to have a different perspective of inflation over the past two years is not necessarily that unusual. I’m still not sure what set off pgl’s snarky little rant. He must believe that there is only one way to view the universe.
Oh, just for a brief walk down memory lane. I noticed a few links in these posts:
• https://econbrowser.com/archives/2021/08/inflation-deceleration-multiple-measures
• https://econbrowser.com/archives/2021/07/inflation
• https://econbrowser.com/archives/2021/06/kevin-hassett-prediction-7-y-y-inflation-by-december-2021 (Was he that wrong? Some snarky comments about National Review and the stupid economists there. You can do the calculation here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL)
• https://econbrowser.com/archives/2021/03/a-bunch-of-year-ahead-inflation-forecasts
But, hey, some of my links turned out to have “misinformation”. Good thing that doesn’t happen in real economics where the analyses and forecasts are always correct, but reality is wrong.
Do you know how to even read? The idea that you are Dilbert citing seven reliable sources has to be the most absurd notion ever.
Look Brucie – you have this weird habit of reminding us all dumb and dishonest you are when both were well established years ago.
“where I pointed out that the change in CPI from 1/21 through 6/22 was “around” 13%”
Why do you keep lying. You specifically said 13.3% when it was really 12.6%. Yea – that NSA v. SA thing you never even got until we all pointed it out to you. And BTW – an annual period is not 17 months.
Hey Brucie – if you insist on reminding us of your utter dishonesty and stupidity, we will all keep laughing .. AT YOU!
pgl,
[sigh] you really are OCD. Yes, for the ?teenth time, I used not seasonally adjusted CPI data the first time I wrote about the 1/21-6/22 inflation or CPI price level changes as Menzie prefers (back in December) for the 13.3% and you came up with 12.6% with seasonally adjusted data. Of course, we know that seasonality factors do change as more recent data is added, but I’ll agree with “about” 13%… not about 12% and not about 14%. And subsequently, just to get past your OCD, I used seasonally adjusted CPI data which you would have noticed if you were not so fixated.
And BTW, I specifically wrote that it was based on 18 data points (months of data, not 17 months of data) beginning 1/21 and ending 6/22 (count ’em)… so the “annual” rate is irrelevant as it was in the article to which you, again, didn’t actually respond but simply made another blathering comment.
https://www.statista.com/chart/29328/consumer-price-index/?utm_source=Statista+Newsletters&utm_campaign=6e2b348ae8-All_InfographTicker_daily_COM_PM_KW7_2023_Thu&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_662f7ed75e-6e2b348ae8-339775394
Regardless, the increase was “about 13%”. When you put your height and weight on a form, do you write 5′ 6.3″ and 227.6 lbs.?
But I understand why the Dilbert cartoon hit home with you so hard.
Now go back and recount your trading cards for the 6,207th time.
You are still chirping about this? And still gloating over making your own stupid mistakes? The June 2022 report came out 17 months after the Jan.2021 report came out but little Brucie is stomping his little feet in the sand box saying it was 18? Good Lord little child – do you not know why all the other kiddies are laughing at you?
BTW – Dilbert claimed he relied on reliable sources so that cartoon character could not be you. Although you are nothing more than a dumb cartoon.
” I specifically wrote that it was based on 18 data points (months of data, not 17 months of data) beginning 1/21 and ending 6/22 (count ’em)… so the “annual” rate is irrelevant”
Don’t you just love how Brucie goes from one dumb statement to an even dumber statement. Yea there were 18 observartions of the price LEVEL but Brucie began about talking about the rate of CHANGE of the price level. Of course this troll declares rates are irrelevant when the discussion he began was about the rate of change. Oh that’s right – Brucie boy is irrelevant but hey.
This troll is so confused that he might fall for the following little experiment. Take the one month observation for the June 2021 CPI (a price level) and compare it to itself. Brucie might conclude that inflation then was zero. He is that incredibly STUPID.
pgl: Yes, I noted this error regarding duration in my comment, but Bruce Hall did not seem to undersand then, and still apparently does not understand now.
“When you put your height and weight on a form, do you write 5′ 6.3″ and 227.6 lbs.?”
5’6 inches weighing in at 145 pounds. But yea I bench 225 pounds. Now we know little Brucie has trouble lifting 10 pound dumb bells. Which is why all the little girls laugh at him in the gym.
“pgl likes it to 3 or 4 decimal places”
There used to be a troll over at Mark Thoma’s place that kept telling us that pi and the natural exponent were equal as both rounded to 3. I do not remember this troll’s name but maybe just maybe it was Bruce Hall.
The value of π, unlike seasonal factors, does not change.
Because pi is irrational (not equal to the ratio of any two whole numbers), its digits do not repeat, and an approximation such as 3.14 or 22/7 is often used for everyday calculations. To 39 decimal places, pi is 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197.
https://www.britannica.com/science/pi-mathematics
How exact does your OCD require? And do you object to irrational numbers?
My comment was clearly about approximations not seasonal adjustments. Come on Brucie – we get you are dumber than a rock. Relax.
some of my links turned out to have “misinformation”
Some? Try 99%. OK Brucie – one in a blue moon you might get one thing right. Give the boy a Nobel Prize!
Your hyperbole (and snark factor) approaches 100%.
Gee Brucie is quite sensitive these days. Did your preK teacher suspect your sand box time?
“I guess I’ll have to confess to imperfection.”
if it were only occasional, then your comment would be accurate. unfortunately bruce, you have a tendency to post willfully inaccurate commentary very frequently, because you are promoting an agenda. it is not imperfection. it is intentional misconduct.
Brucie boy has decided to defend the forecasting record of Kevin DOW 36000 Hassett. My favorite post from Dr. Chinn on this dude:
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2017/10/a-curiously-non-quantitative-assessment-of-deregulation-effects-on-economic-growth
Hassett’s CEA made this claim:
Excessive regulation is a tax on the economy, costing the U.S. an average of 0.8 percent of GDP growth per year since 1980. This taxation by regulation has increased sharply in recent years, with approximately 500 new economically significant regulations created over the last eight years alone. Through a thorough review of the literature, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) finds that deregulation will stimulate U.S. GDP growth.
Dr. Chinn dug up the one paper that Hassett relied on:
The figure is from Coffey, Bentley, et al. “The Cumulative Costs of Regulation.” Mercatus Working Paper, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA (2016).
In other words, the one quoted definitive number regarding output growth is drawn from an unpublished working paper. Now, endogenous growth models are not my specialty, but my impression is that the empirical evidence in favor of endogenous growth models is not overwhelming. The estimation approach is Bayesian, involving a nonlinear equation (as far as I can tell). My experience with estimating nonlinear equations is that they are sensitive to assumptions and starting points. It is interesting to note the several industries where under the counterfactual of no regulation, investment is lower than actual. Perhaps more interesting is the fact that only in 2008 does the actual level of GDP fall below the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval. In other words, 28 years after the simulation begins, output is significantly below predicted under the counterfactual. It’s troubling that the fall occurs in the year in which the economy suffers a major recession. This suggests that the deviation is due to model misspecification (i.e., the model cannot capture the dynamics of the recession) rather than necessarily regulation induces a deviation from predicted.
Yea – some George Mason dude whose paper was not published and was very suspect. Bruce Hall’s kind of evidence.
No, I provide links for examination. There is a difference between that and simply making statements without any support. If the links go to something that is not correct, then providing alternate information that is correct should be the proper response.
And then there is this whole ad hominem nonsense that if someone postulates something that turns out to be wrong once, then that person can never be right… Kevin Hassett, for example. That’s the reason I took the walk down memory lane with links to Menzie’s posts. Sure, he may not have been the sources of really wrong forecasts, but he certainly used them with either/both links and graphs… and there were plenty of comments mocking those who disagreed.
If you are looking for perfection, you’re visiting the wrong forum.
Bruce Hall: There is a difference between linking to an analysis that makes assumptions that fail to hold (e.g., no invasion of Russia, or supply chain issues are quickly resolved) vs. linking to analyses that do mathematically wrong things (take an average death rate for year-to-date and compare against an average death rate for an entire year, when there is seasonality). Do you not see that?
By the way, if you go to the post on Hassett’s 7% prediction, you will see that the comparison is against the University of Michigan survey of households. I don’t think it’s a “wrong” link – households have expectations. Those expectations were for something close to 4% inflation by year’s end. I (explicitly) didn’t write that this proved Hassett would be wrong. I did point out that Hassett’s track record had not been stellar. Or are you arguing that his prediction on the end of Covid-19 infections, and Dow 36,000 had been validated?
Or are you arguing that his prediction on the end of Covid-19 infections, and Dow 36,000 had been validated?
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EDJI/
Hey Brucie boy – man splain to Dr. Chinn that the DOW did reach 36K by the end of 2021 – twenty years after Kevin told us that it would. Only twenty years off is close enough for the dumbest troll ever. BTW – what has the inflation rate been calculating it the way you do, Prices today relative to prices in 1999. I bet you will get a yuuuuge number!
“If the links go to something that is not correct, then providing alternate information that is correct should be the proper response.”
why should anybody else have to fact check your garbage? your comment shows how much disrespect you have towards other people and their time. nobody should be obligated to fix your mistakes bruce. you should be obligated to present material in good faith. but you do not do that. or are you actually dumb enough to make those posts in good faith? if so, it says much about your intelligence level.
Now remember – Brucie is paid big bucks to lie for Kelly Anne Conway. Our correcting his numerous deliberate falsehoods may cost Brucie his only job. Which is why the little boy gets so mad at us!
Oh, and sorry for the continuing italics. Just another mistake I made.
Gee Brucie – you even lie about what you said. As in this claim:
“So, was the chart (which was the only salient part of the linked article) really wrong? You may recall that it relates back to the much earlier exchange where I pointed out that the change in CPI from 1/21 through 6/22 was “around” 13% (pgl likes it to 3 or 4 decimal places) and that between 6/22 and 12/22 was “around” 1%. I referred to those as differing inflation”
Let’s go back to just before the Nov. 2022 elections when Republicans and YOU were trying to claim inflation was still high. That is when you cooked up your dishonest 13.3% BS. WE pointed out that recent inflation was very low – you did not do that. In fact, you mocked these claims back then. Now I noted to you that Alan Blinder oped which called out this Bruce Hall Republican dishonesty. Of course being the little weasel you are – you ignored Blinder’s oped.
NOW you claim YOU were the one who noted the fall in the rate of change of the price level? That is sort of like stealing the homework of the bright kids in the class after your attempts to do the homework utterly failed.
Come on Brucie boy. Lie about the issues, Lie about the facts. That would be the behavior of the standard troll. But NOOO – you take this to the next level – you LIE about what YOU said. Which is why EVERYONE here mocks you. Get used to it – LIAR.
Says Menzie:
“Just Because You Provide a Link, Does Not Mean that Link Is Worth Reading”
What is also true is this: “Just Because you Provide a Graph, Does Not Mean that Graph is Worth Looking At”
Just because you provide a graph on how, under the Biden Administration, the debt in the hands of the public has decreased as a percentage of GDP, as if this were an accomplishment of the current Administration, does not mean you are telling the whole story.
I just love how Menzie thinks he is completely free of sin, and so morally superior, that he can always cast the first stone.
I guess you can do that when you had access to degrees from Harvard and Berkeley.
Biden has succeeded in getting the economy back to full employment which massively lowered the deficit. Fact Manfred. Now STFU troll.
Actually as the owner and administrator of this site Menzie is 100% in charge of what is worth being looked at on his site.
As a reader you have the option of not reading his posts, if the subject is not of interest to you. You also have the option of making an argument as to why a specific graph is not informative or it gives a misleading impression. If you feel that some part of the “whole story” is missing you can deliver the rest in the comment section. Just beware that this is not a place where you can BS your way away from data you don’t like or give links to morons writing words with no meaning – both Menzie and many of the commenters here will let you know if you are on thin ice. But I guess you know that since you are hiding under non-specific, non-committal hostile BS comments.
Manfred: what is your obsession about “access” to degrees at Harvard and Berkeley? I applied, and was admitted. You could’ve applied too. Are you implying I was a “legacy” admit to Harvard? Sorry, my parents didn’t attend Harvard. Are you implying I was an affirmative action admit to Harvard? Well, we’ll not know this for sure, but the so called reverse-discrimination case that has been brought against Harvard would seem to argue against this. Are you arguing that I was an affirmative action admit to UC Berkeley? Given the composition of the UC Berkeley students, I’m somewhat dubious. But have at it — I really want to know.
Moreover, this is the second time you’ve done this, as if I have implied that I know more because I went to these institutions. I might, but I would say a lot more has to do with experience in the US government. By the way, I don’t make reference to your education in critiquing your commentary. I could assert that what you write is due to your having “access” to degrees from your undergraduate and graduate institutions — but I won’t because that’s juvenile.
Me thinks Manfred is attending Wossamotta University along with Econned.
No pgl, not wassamotta. I attended an online course in econ, that had a PO Box in the Cayman Islands. That’s where I get my econ from, just like you.
wassamotta?
Dude – learn to spell. I guess your trips to the Caymans never taught you to even cut and paste?
Manfred has a habit of “hit and runs” here on the blog. That seems to be Manfred’s schtick.
I realize I am not saintly. Sometimes I drink adult drinks and send Menzie nonsense YT music links. (I can’t seem to stop myself after drinking, it’s like keyboard Tourette Syndrome). I’ve had regular kind of sophomoric battles with some commenters here I’m not especially proud of. But I can never figure out how a hyper-educated guy like Menzie, who students pay thousands of tuition dollars to partake in his decades acquired knowledge can get so much venom for sharing much of that knowledge~~~FOR FREE!!!!~~~with anyone with an internet connection and an attitude open to learning new things. And practical/pragmatic knowledge we can use IN OUR REAL EVERYDAY LIVES!!!!! When I think of Menzie’s prolific writing, 1–2–3 posts a day I just keep going back to that old cliché, “no good deed goes unpunished”. I just keep hoping and praying Menzie will never finally detonate in a huge mushroom cloud of anger (or just mental fatigue) after the five thousand first nonsense YT music link from me, and the fifteen thousand first unwarranted insult and say he’s finally had it with imparting knowledge to the ungrateful. Because God knows if I was Professor Chinn, I would have given up on the entire experiment by now. If I was capable of such achievement to begin with.
Hey Moses, why don’t you write a religious hymn in honor of Menzie? Include some “Hallelujahs” for excellent effect. Once written, sing it every morning as you start your day.
@ Manfred
If people viewed good economics in a religious fashion, I dare say America would be in much better shape right now. That alone would have saved us from record deficits and debt under “borrow and spend” Reaganism. And yes, I hero-worship intelligent people who are highly self-educated. Especially those who had to work for it, who weren’t born with a silver spoon up their heinie. Manfred, maybe you should try to find some bright stars in the night sky to give you guidance, and less time in the dark, fuming over false villains.
Just as I suspected, Menzie, you do not answer the comment, but just focus on “those two words”.
As a left wing progressive liberal, you just cannot take something in jest.
Yes, I used those “two words”, did it in jest, because I know it bugs you. But evidently, like any leftwinger, who believes to be so much better than the rest of us, you cannot take a bad joke. You just can’t. And this attitude of yours is not only not juvenile, it is childish. (And by the way, don’t get me started on juvenile stuff coming from you.)
As for referencing education and such – sorry Menzie, you have done this yourself in the past. I do not have the link (I do not keep an enemy’s list of links, don’t have the time), but I remember that you had a blog entry where you derided the degrees of people you disagreed with. I remember, because I left a comment in that blog entry.
But again, you do not answer the main point of the comment. You just focus on something completely irrelevant.
There was a point to your ramblings? Seriously dude – you are more of a waste of time than Econned.
“you do not answer the main point of the comment”
Main point ???? I don’t see any point.
All I could find was a bunch of hostile postulates with little connection to the real world.
Hostility was the point – the only point. He is Manfred after all.
Intellectually superior. Menzie is intellectually superior. Morally superior? Yeah, that too, but intellectual superiority is an important issue here, and ought to be recognized.
There are two problems with the approach used by Bruce and a few others here in the comment section.
First it seems that he basically goes out on the web to try and find material in support of an already decided narrative. Rather than go out to find material that is credible and informative with regards to the topic. So if a search finds 9 things against his narrative and 1 in favor – he will post a link to that one. That is the high school debate club approach to “winning” an argument, not the scientific approach to gaining insights.
Second he doesn’t seem to critically read (or sometimes even just read) the material he posts as support for his narratives. There is no attempt to evaluate the credibility of sources or of the information they postulate. If the postulates support his narratives the sources and their information are automatically credible and worth citing.
“he doesn’t seem to critically read (or sometimes even just read) the material he posts as support for his narratives.”
Yep! We have coined a name for this behavior – Bruce Hall disease.