Olá, Visitante. Por favor entre ou registe-se se ainda não for membro.

Entrar com nome de utilizador, password e duração da sessão
 

Autor Tópico: Krugman et al  (Lida 614530 vezes)

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4630
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2260 em: 2015-08-08 23:28:23 »
não esquecer como começou este debate.
foi sobre o keynesianismo e o ciclo económico.

foi dito que investimento público nos down turns era aceitável desde que houvesse correspondente tightening nos up turns.
eu reclamei que o único superávite dos últimos anos tinha sido com o clinton.
depois houve uma série de argumentos (que sinceramente não percebi bem) afirmando que esse facto não era relevante.

o facto é que esse facto se inscreve num contexto geral de:

maior investimento privado nos mandatos democratas
menor investimento público nos mandatos democratas
maior crescimento do emprego nos mandatos democratas
maiore deficits públicos nos mandatos republicanos.

não sou eu que o afirmo. são os dados.
aceito que poderá haver várias interpretações dos dados. mas o dados são mesmo estes.

L
« Última modificação: 2015-08-08 23:29:36 por Lark »
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Reg

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 14195
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2261 em: 2015-08-09 00:12:28 »
sao ciclos economicos

a penultima crise americana  foi ronald Reagan  que apanhou a grande inflaçao.
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estagflação

Estagflação define-se como uma situação típica de recessão, ou seja, diminuição das actividades econômicas e aumento dos índices de desemprego, além da inflação, além da falta de instrumentos institucionais que regulem a economia, ou seja, que pelo método científico-econométrico retirem-na da chamada "estagnação" ou "armadilha da liquidez"; após um "merecido ciclo de virtuoso-crescimento-econômico, que toda Economia ou País-viável, merece"; de conformidade com a doutrina de Keynes(é o que caracteriza esse conceito, basicamente, nos meios acadêmicos).

A palavra tem origem durante a crise económica que assolou o mundo durante a década de 1970, de um lado pelo superaquecimento das economias dos “países desenvolvidos”, a partir da excessiva expansão de procura agregada, o que levou a pressões inflacionistas; do outro lado, pela redução da oferta agregada, a partir das restrições impostas pelos países produtores de petróleo, perdas de safras e redução das actividades em sectores que dependem do petróleo como matéria-prima, ou simplesmente como complemento, levando ao desemprego, provocando a "depreciação das moedas fortes" pelos "desinvestimentos" e "deseconomias de escala", patrocinada pelos grupos econômicos(OPEP, por exemplo) que estavam acima dos Estados.
« Última modificação: 2015-08-09 00:17:47 por Reg »
Democracia Socialista Democrata. igualdade de quem berra mais O que é meu é meu o que é teu é nosso

O problema dos comunistas, de tão supostamente empenhados que estão em ajudar as pessoas, é que deixam de acreditar que elas realmente existem.

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4630
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2262 em: 2015-08-09 00:42:26 »
Just a further thought about Reaganolatry: consider the track of unemployment under two presidents. One is lauded as the ultimate economic hero and savior; the other reviled as an economic failure, who killed jobs by being nice to poor people and insulting job creators. The chart compares their records.

OK, you can come up with reasons why president#2’s record isn’t as good as it looks. But is there really enough contrast there to justify the difference in perception? How much of what we’re looking at is the psychological impact of a V-shaped recession — things got really bad, so there was a sense of relief when they got better? How much is simply the result of decades of propaganda?

Anyway, I’m surprised that this chart isn’t more widely discussed.



Krugman
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2263 em: 2015-08-09 00:57:34 »
e a taxa de participacao, nao interessa?

! No longer available
« Última modificação: 2015-08-09 00:58:34 por Neo-Liberal »

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2264 em: 2015-08-09 01:01:25 »
tb nao me parece uma discussao muito logica, desisto ja  :D

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4630
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2265 em: 2015-08-09 01:39:33 »
tb nao me parece uma discussao muito logica, desisto ja  :D

pode ser pouco interessante para ti mas pouco lógica? isso é uma afirmação estranha.
o que se procura é tornar lógico e compreensível uma série da dados.

estás a dizer que não é lógíco tornar as coisas lógicas?

L
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4630
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2266 em: 2015-08-09 03:35:46 »
e a taxa de participacao, nao interessa?


não. isso é mais um sound byte conservador repetido até à exaustão apesar de ser falso.



a queda da taxa de participação é quase toatalmente explicada pela aposentação dos baby boomers.

tens aqui um paper para te entreteres (anexo).
espero não ver este argumento utilizado outra vez.

L
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2267 em: 2015-08-09 12:19:19 »
tambem deves estar a curtir a baixa de desemprego em portugal, ja esta abaixo de qd o socrates saiu.
vais votar PSD?
« Última modificação: 2015-08-09 12:22:51 por Neo-Liberal »

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2268 em: 2015-08-09 12:22:02 »
que medidas eh que o obama tomou que se lhe possa dar credito pela taxa de desemprego baixar? a economia funciona praticamente em auto-pilot, o que achas que fez ele ? nao estou no gozo, eh uma pergunta normal.
e qd leio acusacoes q esta recuperacao eh super fraca em termos de salarios tb acho idiota culparem o obama.

outra coisa, achas o clinton um bom presidente?

« Última modificação: 2015-08-09 12:33:52 por Neo-Liberal »

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2269 em: 2015-08-09 12:28:58 »
o estudo diz claramente que o abaixamente rapido da participacao pos-crise se deve a uma fraca economia mas que ha factores estruturais na mistura como o envelhecimento
nao eh tao claro como tu queres fazer parecer, lark.
« Última modificação: 2015-08-09 13:22:39 por Neo-Liberal »

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30971
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2270 em: 2015-08-09 13:17:56 »
e a taxa de participacao, nao interessa?


não. isso é mais um sound byte conservador repetido até à exaustão apesar de ser falso.



a queda da taxa de participação é quase toatalmente explicada pela aposentação dos baby boomers.

tens aqui um paper para te entreteres (anexo).
espero não ver este argumento utilizado outra vez.

L


Lark, pouco importa o motivo da queda da taxa de participação (de resto eu já tinha aqui deixado papers que a explicavam e previram antes de acontecer).

Um facto é que se tiveres algo que faz a taxa de participação cair bastante, torna-se mais fácil ter uma taxa de desemprego menor. A razão é simples de entender -- por exemplo, se alguém se reforma, existe uma boa probabilidade de uma outra pessoa ser contratada para o seu lugar. A reforma do primeiro tira uma pessoa da população activa, a sua substituição mantém o emprego, e por isso a taxa de desemprego desce.

O Krugman ao não levar em conta esse efeito óbvio, está novamente a ser enganador. Não quer dizer que esteja a ser errado (teríamos que analisar os dados com maior cuidado), mas enganador, está a ser.

----------

Outra coisa, é absurdo que digas "é uma cena conservadora repetida até à exaustão", quando da vez que eu para aqui trouxe isso ainda nem fazias ideia nenhuma do que se passava, os seus motivos, etc.
« Última modificação: 2015-08-09 13:32:30 por Incognitus »
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2271 em: 2015-08-09 13:27:24 »
sim, eh como o inc diz. se a malta se reformar toda amanha entao o obama criou muito empregos? eh a conclusao do krugman.

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30971
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2272 em: 2015-08-09 13:33:52 »
sim, eh como o inc diz. se a malta se reformar toda amanha entao o obama criou muito empregos? eh a conclusao do krugman.

Nem se trata de criar muitos ou poucos empregos, mas de que a taxa de participação afecta a taxa de desemprego, seja qual for o motivo.

(E não só a taxa de participação tem estado a cair bastante agora, como estava a subir bastante durante o mandato do Reagan)
« Última modificação: 2015-08-09 13:38:10 por Incognitus »
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2273 em: 2015-08-09 13:53:10 »
sim, eh como o inc diz. se a malta se reformar toda amanha entao o obama criou muito empregos? eh a conclusao do krugman.

Nem se trata de criar muitos ou poucos empregos, mas de que a taxa de participação afecta a taxa de desemprego, seja qual for o motivo.

(E não só a taxa de participação tem estado a cair bastante agora, como estava a subir bastante durante o mandato do Reagan)

nao percebi a tua correccao, parece-me que estamos a dizer o mesmo

alias a taxa de desemprego ate pode descer com perda liquida de empregos

Incognitus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30971
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2274 em: 2015-08-09 17:24:04 »
sim, eh como o inc diz. se a malta se reformar toda amanha entao o obama criou muito empregos? eh a conclusao do krugman.

Nem se trata de criar muitos ou poucos empregos, mas de que a taxa de participação afecta a taxa de desemprego, seja qual for o motivo.

(E não só a taxa de participação tem estado a cair bastante agora, como estava a subir bastante durante o mandato do Reagan)

nao percebi a tua correccao, parece-me que estamos a dizer o mesmo

alias a taxa de desemprego ate pode descer com perda liquida de empregos

Sim, apenas estava a falar porque disseste "muitos empregos" (implica muitos empregos absolutos -- isso ATÉ é possível, porque a população tem estado sempre a crescer nos EUA, logo 1% hoje são muito mais empregos do que 1% no passado). É uma coisa subtil.
"Nem tudo o que pode ser contado conta, e nem tudo o que conta pode ser contado.", Albert Einstein

Incognitus, www.thinkfn.com

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4630
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2275 em: 2015-08-10 21:35:12 »


Paul Romer continues to maintain that Chicago’s inward turn, the rejection of all salt-water macroeconomics that left it so hapless in the face of the Great Recession, was a defensive reaction to the sarcasm of Robert Solow. Brad DeLong points out that Solow was, as it turns out, right. Beyond that, as Brad notes and Paul actually acknowledges, what was actually going on at MIT was nothing like the implacable opposition of Chicago fantasies.

I was at MIT from 1974 to 1977, and everyone — both at MIT and basically everywhere in the profession — knew that Rudi Dornbusch and Stan Fischer were the preeminent teachers of macroeconomics. Both wrote seminal papers during those years — Rudi’s “Expectations and Exchange Rate Dynamics” and Stan’s “Long-term contracts, rational expectations, and the optimal money supply rule” that combined rational expectations with realistic limitations on wage and price flexibility. This was an attempt to build bridges, not a war on Chicago ideas.

But Chicago responded with trash talk. Lucas and Sargent 1978 talked a lot about the “wreckage” of Keynesian economics, and included assertions like this:

For policy, the central fact is that Keynesian policy recommendations have no sounder basis, in a scientific sense, than recommendations of non-Keynesian economists or, for that matter, noneconomists.

And two years later, as Mankiw points out, this had descended into pure neener-neener, with Lucas asserting that

At research seminars, people don’t take Keynesian theorizing seriously anymore; the audience starts to whisper and giggle to one another.

All of this is relatively important, however; what matters is how you respond to evidence. In Lucas and Sargent, much is made of stagflation; the coexistence of inflation and high unemployment is their main, indeed pretty much only, piece of evidence that all of Keynesian economics is useless. That was wrong, but never mind; how did they respond in the face of strong evidence that their own approach didn’t work?

Such evidence wasn’t long in coming. In the early 1980s the Federal Reserve sharply tightened monetary policy; it did so openly, with much public discussion, and anyone who opened a newspaper should have been aware of what was happening. The clear implication of Lucas-type models was that such an announced, well-understood monetary change should have had no real effect, being reflected only in the price level.

In fact, however, there was a very severe recession — and a dramatic recovery once the Fed, again quite openly, shifted toward monetary expansion.

These events definitely showed that Lucas-type models were wrong, and also that anticipated monetary shocks have real effects. But there was no reconsideration on the part of the freshwater economists; my guess is that they were in part trapped by their earlier trash-talking. Instead, they plunged into real business cycle theory (which had no explanation for the obvious real effects of Fed policy) and shut themselves off from outside ideas.

Sorry, but I don’t see this as something that can be explained by Solow’s snark.

krugman
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4630
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2276 em: 2015-08-11 22:44:33 »
Competitiveness and Class Warfare

For reasons not entirely clear to me, recently I found myself thinking about Lester Thurow’s Head to Head: The Coming Economic Battle Among Japan, Europe, and America. For those too young, or who don’t remember, Thurow’s book was a monster best-seller in the early 1990s; it resonated with many people who feared that America was losing its economic edge, that Japan was an unstoppable juggernaut, and so on. And it also played into the general notion of global economics as a struggle for competitive advantage, which is a perennial popular favorite.

I was pretty critical of that notion at the time, arguing that economic success or failure had little to do with international competition. But what I found myself thinking about was the question of who really did best in the decades that followed Thurow’s book. And the answer is … nobody.

The chart shows real GDP per working-age adult (15-64) in France, Japan, and America since 1990. The demographic correction is important: Japan has lagged economically, but a lot of that is just demography.



What’s striking here is how similar the three look. Japan lagged in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but recovered. France has lagged since 2010, largely thanks to the eurozone crisis and its misguided austerity policies. But given how much rhetoric there is about structural problems here and there, what’s striking is how little divergence there has been among advanced countries.

What this tells you, I think, isn’t just that international competition is far less important than legend has it. It also suggests that economic growth is pretty insensitive to policy: France and the US are at the extremes of advanced-country regimes, yet there’s not much difference in their long-term performance.

But does this say that policy doesn’t matter? Not at all. For while there is not, repeat not, anything like the zero-sum competition among nations so beloved of business types, there really is the question of who gets the gains. U.S. economic growth has been OK these past 25 years; US family incomes, not so much, because such a large share of growth goes to the very top.

International competition is a mostly bogus notion; class warfare is very, very real.

krugman
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4630
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2277 em: 2015-08-12 00:18:47 »
G.O.P. Candidates and Obama’s Failure to Fail
AUG. 10, 2015

What did the men who would be president talk about during last week’s prime-time Republican debate? Well, there were 19 references to God, while the economy rated only 10 mentions. Republicans in Congress have voted dozens of times to repeal all or part of Obamacare, but the candidates only named President Obama’s signature policy nine times over the course of two hours. And energy, another erstwhile G.O.P. favorite, came up only four times.

Strange, isn’t it? The shared premise of everyone on the Republican side is that the Obama years have been a time of policy disaster on every front. Yet the candidates on that stage had almost nothing to say about any of the supposed disaster areas.

And there was a good reason they seemed so tongue-tied: Out there in the real world, none of the disasters their party predicted have actually come to pass. President Obama just keeps failing to fail. And that’s a big problem for the G.O.P. — even bigger than Donald Trump.


Start with health reform. Talk to right-wingers, and they will inevitably assert that it has been a disaster. But ask exactly what form this disaster has taken, and at best you get unverified anecdotes about rate hikes and declining quality.

Meanwhile, actual numbers show that the Affordable Care Act has sharply reduced the number of uninsured Americans — especially in blue states that have been willing to expand Medicaid — while costing substantially less than expected. The newly insured are, by and large, pleased with their coverage, and the law has clearly improved access to care.

Needless to say, right-wing think tanks are still cranking out “studies” purporting to show that health reform is a failure. But it’s a losing game, and judging from last week’s debate Republican politicians know it.

But what about side effects? Obamacare was supposed to be a job-killer — in fact, when Marco Rubio was asked how he would boost the economy, pretty much all he had to suggest was repealing health and financial reforms. But in the year and a half since Obamacare went fully into effect, the U.S. economy has added an average of 237,000 private-sector jobs per month. That’s pretty good. In fact, it’s better than anything we’ve seen since the 1990s.

Which brings us to the economy.

There was remarkably little economic discussion at the debate, although Jeb Bush is still boasting about his record in Florida — that is, his experience in presiding over a gigantic housing bubble, and providentially leaving office before the bubble burst. Why didn’t the other candidates say more? Probably because at this point the Obama economy doesn’t look too bad. Put it this way: if you compare unemployment rates over the course of the Obama administration with unemployment rates under Reagan, Mr. Obama ends up looking better – unemployment was higher when he took office, and it’s now lower than it was at this point under Reagan.

O.K., there are many reasons to qualify that assessment, notably the fact that measured unemployment is low in part because of a decline in the percentage of Americans in the labor force. Still, the Obama economy has utterly failed to deliver the disasters — hyperinflation! a plunging dollar! fiscal crisis! — that just about everyone on the right predicted. And this has evidently left the Republican presidential field with nothing much to say.

One last point: traditionally, Republicans love to talk about how liberals with their environmentalism and war on coal are standing in the way of America’s energy future. But there was only a bit of that last week — perhaps because domestic oil production has soared and oil imports have plunged since Mr. Obama took office.

What’s the common theme linking all the disasters that Republicans predicted, but which failed to materialize? If I had to summarize the G.O.P.’s attitude on domestic policy, it would be that no good deed goes unpunished. Try to help the unfortunate, support the economy in hard times, or limit pollution, and you will face the wrath of the invisible hand. The only way to thrive, the right insists, is to be nice to the rich and cruel to the poor, while letting corporations do as they please.

According to this worldview, a leader like President Obama who raises taxes on the 1 percent while subsidizing health care for lower-income families, who provides stimulus in a recession, who regulates banks and expands environmental protection, will surely preside over disaster in every direction.

But he hasn’t. I’m not saying that America is in great shape, because it isn’t. Economic recovery has come too slowly, and is still incomplete; Obamacare isn’t the system anyone would have designed from scratch; and we’re nowhere close to doing enough on climate change. But we’re doing far better than any of those guys in Cleveland will ever admit.

krugman
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2278 em: 2015-08-12 00:45:32 »
a politica externa do obama teve muitos desastres no medio oriente, foi terrivel

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4630
    • Ver Perfil
Re: Krugman et al
« Responder #2279 em: 2015-08-12 01:12:35 »
a politica externa do obama teve muitos desastres no medio oriente, foi terrivel

depende do ponto de vista.
para quem não gosta de guerra, acabou com duas. tirou a américa do lamaçal que é o médio oriente.
pôs o lobby judeu em sentido.
fez um acordo nuclear com o irão.

diria que isto é um bocado melhor que qualquer outro antes dele excepto reagan e kennedy que fizeram acordos de paz com o soviéticos.

já para quem gosta de ver porrada e sangue a esguichar, foi uma política um bocado desatrosa.

L
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt