« So THIS is Why the ABS Market is So Screwed | Main | Why MFs Ride the Failboat -- A response to MarketSci »

February 18, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mike Jonze

Awesome. Nice work.


Great job! There should be a rule of thumb that states that any graph involving economics or finance that has the year 1999 as its midpoint must automatically be ignored.


Unsurprisingly, another Finance/Econ writer from the NYT exhibits an utter disregard for anything approaching statistical "best practices." Strange, I feel like we've been over this before, sigh...


Damn html tag didn't pick up. I meant, we've been over this (at least once) already...


Bob The Builder

Except for the little detail that your graph bears no relation to Krugman's. Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.


How did you define Party in Control? White House? Congress? or both?

Kid Dynamite

how DARE you confront the Populist Pandering Party and question their superiority!

hey - i had a question as i lay in bed at 5am this morning: why the fuck does anyone listen to anything Nancy Pelosi has to say about anything? i mean, any response to her pandering nonsense should just be: "Case Study: California"... which of course gets a big fat FAIL


Hmmm... which author is a nobel laureate???


The NY Times own ombudsman already called out Krugman as playing loose with the facts. No credibility. complete shill for his masters, Obama and Clinton


It's quite wonderful to see the damage Krugman continues to inflict on the reputation of the NYT, which so richly deserves it. He displays very effectively the faults riddling the paper's coverage.

slaney black

Oh sure, if you fudge the numbers to absolve Reagan entirely from the '80-'82 depression, your argument is just f'ing peachy.


Interesting that your chart is fairly stable for 30 years, then starts a long trend up beginning in the late to mid-70s. Could this be women entering the workforce in droves? If so, is this portion of the chart relevant?

Is the real story that the long secular trend upward in the EM Ratio was interrupted by the '01/'02 recession, did not experience a strong recovery after that, only to get knocked down again in the current recession?

I don't know about any implied agenda of Mr Krugman--I guess I'll take your word for it, since you seem fairly confident that you do. But his time frame seems to capture the point I make above.


Krugman has written groundbreaking economic theory, won the Nobel Prize, the Bates Clark Medal, and been right about nearly everything for 10+ years.

You are no one, who's done nothing.

A sensible person knows whom to believe.


Good job, it's very cognitive!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rule #1: Share

Find Us:

  • Anal_yst:
    its.the.anal.yst at gmail dot com Twitter: Anal_yst
  • 1-2:
    onetwoknockout at gmail com Twitter: onetwoko

Search 1-2 Knockout

Contact 1-2

  • Contact 1-2


Google Analytics

  • google analytics