tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post5942237979136945370..comments2024-03-29T22:18:45.103+11:00Comments on loon pond: It must be time to do the washing up ...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-90449662647843227642018-05-08T16:12:00.656+10:002018-05-08T16:12:00.656+10:00Judie Groan cliams that she has "worked as a ...Judie Groan cliams that she has "<i>worked as a professional economist for more than 40 years</i>"<br /><br />Now apart from indicating, to my simple mind, that the entry qualifications for being a "professional economist" are minimal, it also caused me to seek out the advice given by another professional economist, Simon Wren-Lewis. I thought we might keep his advice handy in order to be able to intelligently review what the Groan has to say after the budget has been released:<br /><br /><b>How to spot fraudulent economic arguments: an example from Lexit</b><br />https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com.au/2018/05/how-to-spot-fraudulent-economic.html<br /><br />How to be aware that you may be reading a piece of political persuasion rather than serious analysis. <br /><br />The first sign that the wool is being pulled over your eyes is wildly exaggerating your opponents case. It is so much easier to attack a straw man.<br /><br />A second sign of a fraudulent argument is to focus on a single study that supports what you want to say, and ignore all the rest.<br /><br />This leads to a third tactic: tar academic work that goes against what you say with some broad assertions that have only a grain of truth.<br /><br />Another tactic that if you see being employed you should start to worry is to impugn the motives of your opponents.<br /><br />The fifth is less obvious to the non-expert, which is to inconsistently use lots of broad brush statistics that do not get to the heart of the issue, or which are problematic for other reasons.<br /><br />GrueBleennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1462488453822156883.post-81520300696946921412018-05-08T14:45:29.142+10:002018-05-08T14:45:29.142+10:00"Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure ..."<i>Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure 19 [pounds] 19 [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure 20 pounds ought and six, result misery</i>."<br /><br />Oscillantis meum fan: "<i>And what about polls that suggest voters want greater government spending rather than personal tax cuts</i> ?"<br /><br />"<b>Suggest</b>" ? They only "<b>suggest</b>" ? Every single time that I have seen this matter polled, "<i>voters</i>" are quite clear as to wanting sensibly targetted (ie life enhancing) government spending. But this is the precise time that pollies go all Burkeian on us, and refuse to surrender their own ignorant judgement to our clearly stated sensible desires and wants. And then, of course, we vote for them yet again.GrueBleennoreply@blogger.com