Thread: Study - stimulus destroyed one MILLION private sector jobs

http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf

whoops

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf

whoops

BUMP....

Hey shouldn't this have been in the "SEE I TOLD YOU SO" thread?

When you lefties are wrong, you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO wrong that it eclipses any minor right wing wrong by $800,000,000,000 and 1,000,000 jobs.

Can we just eliminate this forum now as it has become a one sided afair. There's conservatism and insanity.

Anyone still coming to a political argument from the left has been SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO discredited that they have to be mentally gone to still not see how fucking wrong they are.

But it created interweb posting positions for you champs, so it nets out

Conley and Dupar...christ, this one looks bad for Obama. Though the confidence interval on their study is a little wide, these guys are top notch. Bet he is going to have to run a full court press to stop this from upsetting his chances in 2012

They cited Krugman, so it must be inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

Conley and Dupar...christ, this one looks bad for Obama. Though the confidence interval on their study is a little wide, these guys are top notch. Bet he is going to have to run a full court press to stop this from upsetting his chances in 2012

It's a working paper, not a study, and if you read the conclusion and not just the abstract the author's acknowledge the limitations of their method and the need for a better model.

As you've pointed out, however, their confidence interval is so much wider than statistical norms that the title/abstract, using the same equations and data presented in the working paper could just as easily be presented as the stimulus "created 1.5 million jobs."

From the paper, "Much work on the effects of the ARRA remains to be done."

Originally Posted by Triage

It's a working paper, not a study, and if you read the conclusion and not just the abstract the author's acknowledge the limitations of their method and the need for a better model.

As you've pointed out, however, their confidence interval is so much wider than statistical norms that the title/abstract, using the same equations and data presented in the working paper could just as easily be presented as the stimulus "created 1.5 million jobs."

From the paper, "Much work on the effects of the ARRA remains to be done."

let me just say how shocked i am to see you try to put as positive a spin as you can on this. meanwhile i suspect you would have very little problem with someone flat out assuming a multiplier of close to 2 as often happens

so lets take the middle ground and say it created 0 private sector jobs. is that a pretty good result for an investment of close to a trillion dollars?

Didn't the shrub start the stimulus In motion, seems I got a little bonus check

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

let me just say how shocked i am to see you try to put as positive a spin as you can on this. meanwhile i suspect you would have very little problem with someone flat out assuming a multiplier of close to 2 as often happens

so lets take the middle ground and say it created 0 private sector jobs. is that a pretty good result for an investment of close to a trillion dollars?

Yawn. You remain as tedious and ignorant about economics as ever, but good for the lolz. The point is not to defend or criticize the stimulus but to respond to the statistical aspect of the paper. But since it supports your ideology you can continue to treat an insignificant working paper as gospel.

Originally Posted by SuperChief

Didn't the shrub start the stimulus In motion, seems I got a little bonus check

thank you for this insightful, and totally meaningful, post

Originally Posted by Triage

The point is not to defend or criticize the stimulus but to respond to the statistical aspect of the paper.

?????

for trolls like me, and blind delusional homers like yourself, thats exactly the point. case in point this thread

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf

Which peer-reviewed economics journal has this been published in?

Originally Posted by Triage

It's a working paper, not a study, and if you read the conclusion and not just the abstract the author's acknowledge the limitations of their method and the need for a better model.

Isn't the global warmings a working theory, with limitations and need for a better model.

Originally Posted by skiballs

Isn't the global warmings a working theory, with limitations and need for a better model.

Except that climate studies have undergone peer review, and have a confidence level greater than the effectivity of taking the birth control pill...this economic paper has statistical confidence that puts the premise of the paper in doubt, and it has not been peer reviewed.


Although written by capable economists, it might as well have been written by People magazine, until it passes the scrutiny of peer review.

Originally Posted by iscariot

Which peer-reviewed economics journal has this been published in?

what part of the paper do you think will not stand up to peer review?

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

what part of the paper do you think will not stand up to peer review?

elaborate. what i can't understand? be specific.

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

what part of the paper do you think will not stand up to peer review?

Failing to control for background employment levels in the regression of ARRA's effect on state budge vs. state employment seems to be the obvious thing to me, but maybe I missed that in the paper.

That, and what possible mechanism would their be for this to work? Their guess is:

Finding (b) might be partially explained by a `crowding out' eect. In the absence of the ARRA, many government employees would have found jobs in the private sector.

This explanation only works if the number of people seeking jobs is less than the number of job openings. This is obviously wrong.


It's funny that people who normally reject entire fields of academia with thousands of published papers are suddenly so accepting of one shitty unpublished paper.

How did they determine what the base level of jobs would be? i.e., how do they know how many jobs would have been retained / lost / gained absent the stimulus? Maybe they covered that in the paper; I only skimmed the introduction.

Originally Posted by Powow

It's funny that people who normally reject entire fields of academia with thousands of published papers are suddenly so accepting of one shitty unpublished paper.

Well elaborated, easy to understand and specific.

Originally Posted by Powow

It's funny that people who normally reject entire fields of academia with thousands of published papers are suddenly so accepting of one shitty unpublished paper.

I am just going to quote this again...for shits and giggles.

Originally Posted by Powow

It's funny that people who normally reject entire fields of academia with thousands of published papers are suddenly so accepting of one shitty unpublished paper.

Whoops! Did I do it again? ...so solly.

Originally Posted by Powow

It's funny that people who normally reject entire fields of academia with thousands of published papers are suddenly so accepting of one shitty unpublished paper.

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Well elaborated, easy to understand and specific.

Originally Posted by Grape_Ape

I am just going to quote this again...for shits and giggles.



Whoops! Did I do it again? ...so solly.

Interesting that you guys see the humor in that, but not in the people who normally hold the contributions of academia up as the gospel tripping all over their dicks to discredit this paper

must suck for you guys to only be able to get half the jokes, but i guess thats the price of being a blind, delusional homer

^^^Now that is funny! Good one ilikecandy!

I think the point that you so amazingly glazed over is that this paper is NOT PEER REVIEWED and NOT PUBLISHED in any scientific journal. Once it has been published AND scrutinized by experts in the field AND if they say that it will hold water, then we can come close to calling this paper "gospel". Understand? I doubt it.

Your comparison of this one non-published, non-peer reviewed paper to the globally-scrutinized research regarding global warming is utterly infantile. Thanks for furthering the notion that you are the joke here.

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

Interesting that you guys see the humor in that, but not in the people who normally hold the contributions of academia up as the gospel tripping all over their dicks to discredit this paper

Do you have any response to my specific criticisms?

Originally Posted by Powow

Do you have any response to my specific criticisms?

yes. your theory of labor markets is severely flawed. i wont say more because i dont want to discourage you when youre finally trying to think critically

but i would suggest that you try to use the same critical eye you used for this paper in cases where you agree with the conclusions

its called intellectual honesty. look into it

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

blind, delusional homer

most accurate description of ilikecandy yet