Cristina continues to sell Argentina down the river

[toongeorges]

Do we know who provided the source of the GDP deflator to Krugman? Which known deflator was used for that calculation? Can we verify it?

I do not know that, but it is easy to check IMF data:

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...end=1494021600000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

or

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...end=1494021600000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

It appears the data in Krugman's article is not reliable.

 

[steveinbsas]

You are too quick to label people and put them in a little box. I wonder if you know what Keynesian really means because we, in the Econ profession, quite not agree and most self labeled Keynesian would be horrified to count Krugman among them. Instead of labeling Krugman and attacking his person, I invite you to rebate his argument.

I wonder if you know what "rebate" really means.

I invite you to refute any argument, especially Krugman's.

I also wonder what "we, in the Econ profession" means.

I have a university degree in economics, but it's still difficult to understand those who use words incorrectly as well as meaningless generalities when trying to make a point.

 

[expatinowncountry]

I do not know that, but it is easy to check IMF data:

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...end=1494021600000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

or

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...end=1494021600000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

It appears the data in Krugman's article is not reliable.

Your first graph is per capita Nominal GDP in LEVELS.

Your second graph is Total Nominal GDP in LEVELS.

Krugman graph is an INDEX of Real GDP with base year 2000 = 100. As it is an index, it tries to show growth since 2000 and not overall level as your two graphs show.

IMF data=World Bank data=Krugman data.

 

[expatinowncountry]

I wonder if you know what "rebate" really means.

I invite you to refute any argument, especially Krugman's.

I also wonder what "we, in the Econ profession" means.

I have a university degree in economics, but it's still difficult to understand those who use words incorrectly as well as meaningless generalities when trying to make a point.

I apologize for my less than perfect English and for the words that were used incorrectly in my statement. For a French guy I think my English is not that bad but sometimes it is not clear enough like in this case.

For the confusing "we, in the Econ profession" what I meant is that I am an economist and I really have a hard time to label someone like Krugman as a Keynesian. Since you have a degree in economics, you know that it is not easy to intepret Keynes and there are different schools claiming to be Keynesian (or accusing someone of being one)... inclusing the postkeynesian, the new keynesian, etc.

As for the meaningless generalities, could you please be more specific? I am happy to ellaborate on the generalities. I tried my best to explain my arguments and I had spend a decent time answering question posted about the Brazilian and Argentine economy and explaining why I think Krugman is wrong (that is different from what was stated here). I tried to do it in a respectful way and in a way that is clear enoug for non economist.

 

[steveinbsas]

I can aslo can make generalities: Krugman is a lunatic...just look at his eyes when he talks...and find his speech when he says the US economy would benefit from paying workers for digging ditches and filing them back in.

Keynesian economics results in far more disasterous consequences than those it attempts to correct (which were caused by governement intervention in the market in the first place).

 

[camberiu]

IMF data=World Bank data=Krugman data.

I'd put it this way instead:
Argentine Government data=IMF data=World Bank data=Krugman data.

Since the IMF itself considers all CPI AND GDP data coming from Argentina worthless (see http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2012/pr1230.htm), one can assume that the GDP growth data presented by Krugman in the article is equally without value.

BTW, this is not the first time Krugman has been criticized for writing positive articles on Argentina based on fictitious data. He wrote this about Argentina on his blog almost a year and was panned for using oficial data.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/dont-cry-for-argentina/

BTW, despite not giving Krugman any amount of credibility whatsoever, I do agree with him that Argentina was right to default and that Greece should do the same.

 

[expatinowncountry]

I'd put it this way instead:
Argentine Government data=IMF data=World Bank data=Krugman data.

This is true, the data is supplied by the Argentine government

Since the IMF itself considers all CPI AND GDP data coming from Argentina worthless (see http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2012/pr1230.htm), one can assume that the GDP growth data presented by Krugman in the article is equally without value.

The IMF does not consider the data worthless. Where do you read that in the link? It says that starting 2012 it will not accept it because of the unclear methodology (cheating) used by the government. Krugman uses the data provided by the IMF (not his own, so lets not blame him for that). If the IMF has published the data it is enough proof that it is not worthless... otherwise why it would have done it? As I explained to you, the discrepancies between the CPI and the GDP deflator has triggered a red light but the problem is with the CPI. As I also explained, the overestimation in the GDP growth of the last four years could be around 1% per year on average (actually, the discrepancy grows in time because of the way the data is cooked... so lets say in 2008 you overestimated by 0.3%, then 0.6% the year after, and now we are talking about numbers the IMF does not feel comfortable with and decided to stop publishing)

At this point it is not clear to me if you did not like the argument because is from Krugman, because he is "Keynesian", because you do not believe Argentine growth rate were higher than Brazil on average since 2000, because he used data from the IMF/World Bank that was reliable until 2007 and since then may be overestimating the growth rate (even the overestimation does not invalidate the fact that the growth rate was slightly higher than Brazil), or because Maradona was better than Pele

BTW, this is not the first time Krugman has been criticized for writing positive articles on Argentina based on fictitious data. He wrote this about Argentina on his blog almost a year and was panned for using oficial data.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/dont-cry-for-argentina/

I already explained you this and that every argument has to be analysed for its own merit and not in light of what the author of the statement said before. The data that Krugman uses for Argentina is the same than everyone uses because is the only one available. You may want to include caveats in your conclusions (Krugman is not doing thar because he think is god or because the article is for the general public) because of the reliability of the data but you cannot (1) blame Krugman for using the data everyone uses (2) not acknowledge that Argentina's growth rates are at least at the same level than Brazil, the point Krugman made.

BTW, despite not giving Krugman any amount of credibility whatsoever, I do agree with him that Argentina was right to default and that Greece should do the same.

Again, I do not agree with PK seems to imply that because Argentine grew well in the last few years, we should follow Argentine type policies. You have to be crazy to say that or belong to the government what nowadays is more or less the same.

 

[surfing]

BTW, I do agree Krugman got lazy. He has not published anything decent in years. He was also a lazy (but interesting) professor.

Please note the Nobel Prize committee is not the same for Economics than all the other disciplines. Alfred Nobel did not leave money for a Nobel in Economics (probably a waste of money). The Nobel in Economics is awarded by the Riskbank (Swedish Central Bank). Their record is quite good. Krugman was one of the most productive and creative economists. The prize is awarded for life achievements, not their last NY Times columns.

I am not sure what the problem with Camberiu is. He/she does not understand plain English... it does not matter if you have reputation or not, it does not matter to what school you belong, it does not matter if you are a flip flopper... what matter is the discussion of the IDEA. You can criticize the idea for what it is, not for who says it. I even had one or two nice ideas in my life and I am no one.

You are correct in spotting my error. I meant to say "committees".

 

[camberiu]

The IMF does not consider the data worthless. Where do you read that in the link?

The fact that the IMF has not published a Staff Report on Argentina since 2006 seems like a good indicator.

If the IMF has published the data it is enough proof that it is not worthless... otherwise why it would have done it?

You are kidding right? You can't be that naive. Hmmm, let's see why the IMF would publish numbers that they (and everyone else) knows are bogus:

A) Because they are supra-national bureaucrats who must follow procedures.
B) Because there are no consequences of doing so, since they do not report to or are punished by the market for posting bogus data.
C) Because it requires a committee of academic/bureaucrats of the IMF to pass a directive for the data to stop to be posted.
D) Because admiting that governments can and do falsify data puts the entire argument of managed economies and therefore their own reason for existence as an organization in check.
E) ALL of the above.

At this point it is not clear to me if you did not like the argument because is from Krugman, because he is "Keynesian", because you do not believe Argentine growth rate were higher than Brazil on average since 2000, because he used data from the IMF/World Bank that was reliable until 2007 and since then may be overestimating the growth rate (even the overestimation does not invalidate the fact that the growth rate was slightly higher than Brazil), or because Maradona was better than Pele

Yes, I really care about football. Those are the two things that define me: Love for Dilma and her policies and football (Pele in particular).
I don't like the argument because it is disingenuous. Krugman has a clear political agenda and is willing to easily forsake any scientific rigor to push it on his NYT articles. He uses his "nobel prize winner" status to make ecnomic statements that are misleading, dangerous and politically charged.

you cannot (1) blame Krugman for using the data everyone uses (2) not acknowledge that Argentina's growth rates are at least at the same level than Brazil, the point Krugman made.

Yes, I can blame him alright. He comes to the NYT making some pretty bold and extensive economic policy suggestion while basing his entire argument on data that he KNOWS (or should know) that is flawed. He tells millions of people that nationalizing a company is not "that bad" and as proof, presents Argentina as "evidence A". Come on dude. Do you honestly see this as being intellectually honest? You have no problem with that? Really?

If not, than we are in such a level of cognitive dissonance that we will be both wasting our times debating this any further.

 

[expatinowncountry]

The fact that the IMF has not published a Staff Report on Argentina since 2006 seems like a good indicator.


You are kidding right? You can't be that naive. Hmmm, let's see why the IMF would publish numbers that they (and everyone else) knows are bogus:

A) Because they are supra-national bureaucrats who must follow procedures.
B) Because there are no consequences of doing so, since they do not report to or are punished by the market for posting bogus data.
C) Because it requires a committee of academic/bureaucrats of the IMF to pass a directive for the data to stop to be posted.
D) Because admiring that governments can and do falsify data puts the entire argument of managed economies and therefore their own reason for existence as an organization in check.
E) ALL of the above.



Yes, I really care about football. Those are the two things that define me: Love for Dilma and her policies and football (Pele in particular).
I don't like the argument because it is disingenuous. Krugman has a clear political agenda and is willing to easily forsake any scientific rigor to push it on his NYT articles. He uses his "nobel prize winner" status to make ecnomic statements that are misleading, dangerous and politically charged.






Yes, I can blame him alright. He comes to the NYT making some pretty bold and extensive economic policy suggestion while basing his entire argument on data that he KNOWS (or should know) that is flawed. He tells millions of people that nationalizing a company is not "that bad" and as proof, presents Argentina as "evidence A". Come on dude. Do you honestly see this as being intellectually honest? You have no problem with that? Really?

If not, than we are in such a level of cognitive dissonance that we will be both wasting our times debating this any further.

Quick answer cause we need to come to an end regarding this:

I agree with you that Krugman is wrong with what he implies from the data because a GDP growth trend does not tell you almost anything (we do not have the counterfactual, ie: without the mess up of the Argentine government the growth rates could have been even higher).

I agree with you that this may be due to his particular agenda and that his not been either intellectually honest or not bathering in providing better evidence to fundament his claim.

I do not agree with you with your statement about IMF data. I have not worked at the Fund but I had done it across the street in the World Bank (among other international organizations) and your description does not fit how things are worked it out there. I can't tell 100% for the Fund but I would not expect to be much different.

I do not agree with you with the disqualification of the analysis because of the deffective data as the "correct" growth rate would still make the statement that Argentina grow faster (since 2000) than Brazil true. The problem in the analysis is the logical jump from "Argentina grew faster than Brazi" then "Argentine should be doing fantastic things."

And of course I was kidding you with the statement that Maradona was better than Pele... we all know the best one was Zidane