Comments on: Jobs saved and counterfactuals

By: Mommsen1625

Mommsen1625 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:39:35 +0000

mm hmmm... says the person who used George Bush's warmongering as a reason to distrust thinking in terms of counterfactuals.

Yes, as we are all aware the Bush administration's positions were very sound.

I'm not sure you have the tightest grasp on what makes a state dangerous, mommsen1625.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

As for what makes the state dangerous, well, that ought to be obvious; human beings make the state dangerous. Which is why the discretion that Democrats and Republicans like to give to the state so problematic. But of course there is always the "strong man" impulse amongst Democrats and Republicans.

By: johnpapola

johnpapola — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:49:26 +0000

The estimates for “jobs created or saved” are the ultimate example of “mark to model” fantasy land accounting. You know, the kind of give-me-a-break, clearly-too-rosy-and-self-serving calculation that was being used by banks to mask their real losses. As they say on the interweb… pot, meet kettle.

By: danielkuehn

danielkuehn — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:17:20 +0000

Re: “Then you aren't terribly familiar with the history of the state.”

mm hmmm… says the person who used George Bush's warmongering as a reason to distrust thinking in terms of counterfactuals. I'm not sure you have the tightest grasp on what makes a state dangerous, mommsen1625.

By: dan

dan — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:51:56 +0000

Can someone explain why the “created or saved” (or destroyed) argument for something as complex as this is not pure “witchcraft” in a world without time machines?

By: Ecommunist

Ecommunist — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:12:43 +0000

Russ, you already lost by tacitly conceding that “saving jobs” is useful.

By: Mommsen1625

Mommsen1625 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:43:06 +0000

Well, unlike liberals (Democrats) and conservatives (Republicans), we libertarians don't call for the ban of things due simply to our personal tastes. Well, there is also the paranoia and mass panic aspect to the pair above as well.

By: Justin Palmer

Justin Palmer — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:37:54 +0000

Actually yes, we should ban vegetarianism out right. =)

By: Mommsen1625

Mommsen1625 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:31:25 +0000

I'd berate Ghandi for being a racist actually - well that and his habit of sleeping with young girls.

Oh, and counterfactuals are irrational.

No need to fear mass murderers, mommsen1625.

Then you aren't terribly familiar with the history of the state.

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:22:37 +0000

What if they merely made a temporal trade, Fewer jobs lost now, more lost later?

By: danielkuehn

danielkuehn — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:57:34 +0000

Hitler was a vegetarian - are we going to berate Gandhi now?

The flag is salutable.
Vegetables are delicious.
Counterfactuals are rational.

No need to fear mass murderers, mommsen1625

By: Mommsen1625

Mommsen1625 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:48:03 +0000

Well, patriotism is the ideology of mass murderers. So I have little use for that as well.

No, the best counter would be to deal with the actual results.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:41:07 +0000

I have never seen anything from either Krugman or the administration about the jobs created or saved by this stimulus that acknowledges the counterfactual jobs destroyed by the stimulus, what Krugman “usually” does notwithstanding. He may be defending the concept of approaching it from the perspective of a counterfactual, but all the marketing I've seen is of selective counterfactuals. Perhaps I just haven't come across the administration's or Krugman's estimate of jobs destroyed by this stimulus?

To be clear, the concept of comparison to counterfactuals is reasonable to me (acknowledging all the bias and subjectivity that is necessarily a part of quantifying them), and I am sure Krugman does a fine job fully considering them elsewhere in his work. I am commenting on the marketing of “created or saved” as “other things equal,” when I have seen no evidence that any effort has been made on the part of the “created or saved” calculators either to acknowledge this netting or to actually hold other things equal.

By: danielkuehn

danielkuehn — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:40:41 +0000

OK, he used patriotism too – and he used patriotism much more effectively than he used counterfactuals. Should I quit saluting the flag as a result? Come on – when people use things badly you question it, you don't just abandon perfectly legitimate reasoning skills. The best counter to Bush (and the best counter currently to Obama) would be to furnish a more convincing counterfactual and point out the problems with theirs.

By: danielkuehn

danielkuehn — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:22:32 +0000

Krugman, Russ, and Mankiw all seem to be saying the same thing to me though – question the number, not the concept. Krugman is imaginging a disagreement with Mankiw and Russ is imagining a disagreement with Krugman. It seems to me they're all on the same page though – argue over the numbers, not the idea of counterfactuals. I can't speak for Meltzer – I haven't read what he's said on it.

By: danielkuehn

danielkuehn — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:20:29 +0000

What do you mean without including jobs destroyed? Whenever he cites a multiplier it includes jobs destroyed (well, output destroyed in that particular case). Besides, I don't think he usually uses the “created or destroyed” nomenclature himself – he's just defending the concept of approaching it from the perspective of a counterfactual.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:55:16 +0000

Krugman talks about ceteris paribus without including jobs destroyed. He and the administration talk about and make up happy counterfactuals about jobs saved, but neither makes mention of jobs that would have existed but for the stimulus that do not exist because of the stimulus. This deserves to be ridiculed.

On a related note, a big elephant in this room is that jobs are costs not benefits.

By: Mommsen1625

Mommsen1625 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:36:44 +0000

Oh, let's point out the obvious; the Bush administration also used a lot of counterfactuals to justify the war in Iraq.

Allowing politicians to use a weapon like to this is sure to get us in deep quick and hard.

By: Mommsen1625

Mommsen1625 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:33:32 +0000

It looks a lot like witchcraft actually.

By: danielkuehn

danielkuehn — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:30:26 +0000

Nobody is defending the administration's numbers in this series of posts, I should say.

By: Lindsay

Lindsay — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:25:16 +0000

Thanks for posting this, Russ. I can only take Krugman's sanctimony and flagrant disregard for economic logic in small doses like this, but I've found it's important to keep up with his articles nonetheless: When I hear nonsense commentary on economics from non-economist academics, I find it's mostly coming from Krugman's last op-ed piece. (They'll blush if you suggest this at the end of your conversation. Try it — it's fun.)