Paul's comment on Robert's latest column confuses me. Paul shows a graph establishing that the investment part of gross domestic product is procyclical, equally if that refutes Robert's viewpoint most what ails the economy. But that fact is hardly a surprise. As Paul's comment on I pose it recently, "the most volatile element of G.D.P. over the employment organisation wheel is spending on investment goods." Moreover, I know Robert good enough, having been his colleague for most a quarter century, to know that he knows the macroeconomic fourth dimension serial too equally anyone.
The employment that Paul glosses over is that correlation does non imply causation. Paul appears to saltation to the determination that this correlation establishes that the the employment organisation wheel is the driving forcefulness behind investment spending. But it could merely equally easily hold upwards the contrary (or a 3rd cistron driving both). I am completely confused equally to why Paul thinks this graph establishes much of anything at all.
I should note, equally an aside, that Robert is the second most cited living economist. That fact does non imply that everything he says is correct. (And indeed Robert and I disagree oft in Harvard seminars.) But it does suggest that i should non hold upwards as well as then glib in summarily rejecting his betoken of view. Sumber https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
The employment that Paul glosses over is that correlation does non imply causation. Paul appears to saltation to the determination that this correlation establishes that the the employment organisation wheel is the driving forcefulness behind investment spending. But it could merely equally easily hold upwards the contrary (or a 3rd cistron driving both). I am completely confused equally to why Paul thinks this graph establishes much of anything at all.
I should note, equally an aside, that Robert is the second most cited living economist. That fact does non imply that everything he says is correct. (And indeed Robert and I disagree oft in Harvard seminars.) But it does suggest that i should non hold upwards as well as then glib in summarily rejecting his betoken of view. Sumber https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
