 |
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Sten:
The US should not get savings rates like Japan. You got an advantage in capital productivity. But you have to make a choice between investment and consumption when the capital import game ends.
Btw, the Gross National Savings rate fell substantially in 2001 and 2002 with the business profits collapse and deficit spending...
A propos, is the bond market now totally immune to evergrowing deficits?
Last edited by HershOstropoler on 17-01-2003 at 14:20
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Colon
Too bad those dumps were enthusiastically used a couple of years ago to prove the miracle. Now those stats can't be used anymore it's just a matter of faith. Noy much IMHO.
Really, you'll have to come with something from impressive with an acceleration from sub-par productivity growth to mediocre to show the US has undergone a transformation to withstand any kind of economic imbalance.
|
1. (typical problem) You are fighting an absent opponent. Proving exagerations by the New Economy boosters does not prove that "there is little superior about the US". Plenty of people, including Euopeans, have written about superior aspects of the US financial system for a long time. Also, to disprove claims, you should cite them.
2. Dumping statistics without giving the "so what" is poor business communication. A big table of statistics can make a lot of different points. Ef should state his claim and than show what aspect of the stats support it. Just dumping a table of numbers like a lead weight is asinine. Ef should also do some analysis. (Calculate the CAGRs to show change over time. Do a regression to show correlation. Subtract corresponding numbers for a comparison. Call attention to an outlier point if that is the issue.)
3. Is the issue refuting previous claims? Or making new claims of weakness in the US economy? Can the statistics shed any light on the claims of different benefits from regulatory policies (monetary policy, government spending levels, worker mobility laws, etc.) In other words, how does it all tie together?
4. Ef's data dumps seem more like an attempt to throw some random mud, without making a clear point for discussion. If we have a clear claim, we can bring other data to bear on it. We can also look at confounding factors. Please, label the mud.
Last edited by TCO on 19-01-2003 at 00:54
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Colon
|
 |
Antwerp, Colon's Chocolate Canard Country
Jan 1970 time: 06:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GP
1. (typical problem) You are fighting an absent opponent. Proving exagerations by the New Economy boosters does not prove that "there is little superior about the US". Plenty of people, including Euopeans, have written about superior aspects of the US financial system for a long time. Also, to disprove claims, you should cite them. |
Well, what does it prove then? I haven't seen many arguments. The new economists are death but the claim of US as a superior place to invest in (hope that's a better wording) is still alive and kicking. You just need to open your paper to get references. It always come down to the same, that the US enjoys a higher rate of productivity because it's more fleixble. I'd love a more substantial argumentation but I don't often see it.
quote: 2. Dumping statistics without giving the "so what" is poor business communication. A big table of statistics can make a lot of different points. Ef should state his claim and than show what aspect of the stats support it. Just dumping a table of numbers like a lead weight is asinine. Ef should also do some analysis. (Calculate the CAGRs to show change over time. Do a regression to show correlation. Subtract corresponding numbers for a comparison. Call attention to an outlier point if that is the issue.)
3. Is the issue refuting previous claims? Or making new claims of weakness in the US economy? Can the statistics shed any light on the claims of different benefits from regulatory policies (monetary policy, government spending levels, worker mobility laws, etc.) In other words, how does it all tie together?
4. Ef's data dumps seem more like an attempt to throw some random mud, without making a clear point for discussion. If we have a clear claim, we can bring other data to bear on it. We can also look at confounding factors. Please, label the mud. |
I don't understand your issue with EF and I think I've already been explaining how it all ties together. If you want clarification then point me out where.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Colon
Well, what does it prove then? I haven't seen many arguments. The new economists are death but the claim of US as a superior place to invest in (hope that's a better wording) is still alive and kicking. You just need to open your paper to get references. It always come down to the same, that the US enjoys a higher rate of productivity because it's more fleixble. I'd love a more substantial argumentation but I don't often see it. |
"It" proves that the New Economy was overhyped. YOU were the one claiming a larger proof (that there is little superior in the US). If you really think so, make the connection. Try to rise above the hurt regional pride and back and forth sniping and make the interesting arguments/points. I used to see more of that.
There has been a lot of writing that claims various benefits from freer labor and capitol mobility in the states other than New Economy writings. Do you doubt what I said? Or just want to read those works? A good start would be the first chapter of the second edition of Valuation by Copeland, et al.
quote: I don't understand your issue with EF |
I've explained it in my 4 points. As for specific issues, I will bring them up as they come, but the last two data dumps are good indicators of my kvetch. It's a stylistic point. But an important one. How can we move the argument forward and learn something if we don't make clear arguments. I very much appreciate ef doing some grunt research and bringing facts to the table. But he may think the stats prove something different from what they do. How can I argue with him unless he makes his point? Or, conversely, he may have some wonderful insight, but since he hasn't clearly made his point, I may miss it.
Really, this is just common sense. Don't dump data. Don't even just dump charts. Have a chart and than clearly show the "so what".
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|