On 11/17/2013 4:27 PM, James C.W. Ahiakpor wrote:
> Indeed, I think such "studies" as publicized by Alesina
> without getting to the heart of the Keynesian mythology
> don't serve a very useful purpose.  They are rather
> a distraction.  Aggregate data are generated by
> a multitude of factors (or impulses, the favorite language
> of the econometric estimators).  Without carefully
> identifying them and isolating their respective impacts on
> observed data, no estimation tells a useful story about
> the economy.  This is what we learn from econometrics.
> And this is also why someone once wrote about the two
> things he wouldn't like to see in their preparation:
> sausages and econometric estimation, the latter because
> many unsavory things can be done to generate the end
> result!


I take it that the reference "sausages" is a reference to
Leamer's "How to Take the Con Out of Econometrics".
Would it be unfair to say that Leamer would be appalled by
the thrust of what James writes, which proposes dismissing the
econometric evidence on the basis on the James's utter conviction
of the rightness of his own theoretical analysis?

In addition, there is a delicious irony in this reference,
since although Leamer was critical of the ARRA, he
thought the effective, targeted stimulus ("the wise part
of the package", to quote Leamer) was too small.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac