I'm not going to quote the whole thing. But read it all.
I sometimes get worked up about such claims too, but it does as much good as throwing a brick at the TV during a football game, apparently. Our work will never be done.
But I've got to say that David's tirade is one of the best I've seen.
I sometimes get worked up about such claims too, but it does as much good as throwing a brick at the TV during a football game, apparently. Our work will never be done.
But I've got to say that David's tirade is one of the best I've seen.
econospeak.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-large-of-keynesian-multiplier-do.html
Extends a post by Dani Rodrik in partial defense of the SUNY-Buffalo claim (perhaps)
I'm not sure what your point is, and admittedly in my own post I did not address the real reason for Tufte's criticism either. I mean, we're all used to seeing inflated multipliers for one reason or another, be they for the Super Bowl, a new stadium, the Olympics, or the local airport.
But the one Tufte cited is comical, even by those standards. They're saying to take the economic impact and divide it by state funding. Tufte says to at least take economic impact and divided it by ALL funding sources.
The latter would be more correct, do you not agree?
Leakage is one thing, and we can argue about leakage until we're all blue in the face. But this is a more serious misunderstanding by the people who made the calculation, assuming that the numbers in his source are correct.
Ok, I should have put that in the original post, but now I have done so here.