Reddit mentions of Macroeconomics, 2nd Edition

> Sure, because I'm being charitable to you.

and it grows smaller still. Why don't you just call me a peasant and save a few posts? That's where you are going. It will spare you writing the dismissive and condescending post about how I just don't understand because I'm not an economist.

And you have let slip away another chance to show you have bothered to research the issue at all.

I can't help noticing that the actual subject - Krugman being right - is like kryptonite to you. Maybe if you read a textbook on macro or something. Try this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-2nd-Edition-Paul-Krugman/dp/0716771616

> More excuses, everything that doesn't support your argument isn't valid for insert reason here.

So you don't understand the difference between hired guns and impartial economists?

> claim the paper and book you supplied, both of which are provided by the same author

What don't you understand about summary of other work?

> is a partisan policy book and paper.

Except you can't, the fact you would even claim such an absurd position means you have absolutely no idea who NBER are which further exemplifies how little you understand about economics. NBER is an unimpeachable source, all work is peer reviewed and there is no partisan or school bias.

Again you understand the difference between scholarly journals and partisan policy organizations right?

> By the way, the book you gave? Has had numerous inconsistencies and errors pointed out already of which the authors have ignored claiming they don't matter, and they are extremely biased authors.

No they are not, please cite a scholarly work impeaching their work. I gave you one for the work you cited after I already gave you the impeachment work. It doesn't even need to be peer reviewed, simply a paper impeaching either their method or their data which comes from a scholarly source?

> For the paper, an example where he tries to claim that not many studies show positive gains... well yeah, if your taking a bunch of articles mostly analyzing the negative / if there are negatives, then they won't state positives behind it

I think you are confusing N&M with C&K, they didn't disqualify studies because they included data they didn't like. Again you are arguing a peer reviewed work published by a non-partisan journal is nonsense without any evidence to back it up, do you believe the earth is flat and that is about 4000 years old too? Are you that anti-science?

Also you understand the difference between article and study right?

> Furthermore, many of those studies presented there concludes either no negative (some even do show positives) or insignificant figures. You know what insignificant means right?

Collectively the studies show insignificant short term effects in long term markets, those looking at longer term positions found a substantial negative outcome for low wage workers. You don't even understand how to read the research do you?

> And even more so, trying to extrapolate the data is dishonest and manipulative, because it removes context for each detail that must be taken to understand the conclusion, which would be why nearly every study he links to doesn't support his conclusion.

There are two economists not one so no "he". If the work is impeachable why isn't there any impeachment papers? How did it pass peer review.

You also have read NONE of the linked studies otherwise you wouldn't make such an absurd claim. You are quite possibly the most dishonest weasel I have ever had the misfortune of running across on the intertubes, you also seem to believe that your ideological position is more solid then the empirical evidence opposing said position. Did you train to be as intellectually dishonest as you are or did it just come naturally?

> Dude, I gave you peer reviewed papers too, you didn't even check any of them did you? Click the first one if you can, I know links are hard to actually open after all. Instead of finding an excuse to ignore it (partisan organization? Wow, that's bad).

You can't read can you? The single study which is scholarly uses interviews instead of payroll data, the same problem with the C&K study, which introduces a large bias that cannot be accounted for. This paper is also not peer reviewed, its a working paper journal publish. Seriously, stop trying to misrepresent positions you don't understand retard.

> Also, you seemed to ignore the point that I actually said.

I already answered your absurd proposition that the abstract somehow "disproves" the book, again HAVE YOU READ ANY OF THE WORK IN THIS AREA? NO, THEN STFU.

> Yeah, you don't know even the basics about economics. Yes, the basic models assume perfect market conditions. That's why you don't get your economics degree after the first class, and why reality often does not follow the basic principles.

For someone presuming to speak so authoritively on the subject you have clearly never studied macro at any level, macro models presume inefficient markets and account for them. I guess someone needs to read a textbook and take some classes huh? Try this one.

> Here's something for you: I never brought in a side. It's another thing you grasp at to try to invalidate people and data because reality doesn't fit your view, so you try to blame reality.

Actually you very clearly did, three of your "sources" are from partisan policy institutions (AKA NOT ECONOMICS) who side with the "left". Hows the echo chamber working for you retard?

> Yeah, you know what an appeal to authority fallacy is right? In fact, your whole last paragraph is one, everything about your credentials is one, all of it fallacious. In fact, that's all you have, just a bunch of name calling one way or another. "Why, that source is partisan!"

Its not an appeal to authority, its a statement of credentials. An appeal to authority would be to state that one of the economists who did the analysis who deride works for the fed and the other one of the top 3 economic schools in the country, one of yours was unemployed until he managed to convince the democrats to hire him as an advisor.

This would be something you would know if you had any actual knowledge instead of the opinion you have been reading on huffpost and alternet.

It doesn't matter how much you squeeze your beady little eyes together and wish for reality to change it wont, the data tells a different story to what you and your partisan pals represent.