Comments on: Surgin’ USA

By: 大波を感じる by Steven Landsburg – 道草

大波を感じる by Steven Landsburg – 道草 — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:17:50 +0000

[...] ポール・クルーグマンは政府支出の急上昇は今までどこにも無いと言う。私はそれは既に起きていると言う。ポールは証拠としてグラフを提示した。私は同じグラフに4年間の急上昇を見て取った。 [...]

By: Some Links

Some Links — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:15:05 +0000

[...] Here and here, the indispensable Steve Landsburg challenges Paul Krugman’s fabricated claim that government spending of late hasn’t increased significantly. [...]

By: Weekend Roundup at Steven Landsburg | The Big Questions: Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics, and Physics

Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:26:36 +0000

[...] government spending posts are here and here. It seems to me that the graphs in the second post are [...]

By: Feeling the Surge at Steven Landsburg | The Big Questions: Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics, and Physics

Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:56:48 +0000

[...] Buy « Surgin’ USA [...]

By: Brian Moore

Brian Moore — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:52:40 +0000

Ben is totally right:

“The real scandal is that he zeroed the Y axis of the second graph to make the spending increase look smaller while not zeroing the Y axis of the first graph.”

Yeah, this is 100% not kosher on Krugman’s part. You cannot resize the Y axis and then visually compare both graphs. If you actually look at the % increase in each graph, the 2nd actually shows a HIGHER increase than the first. Krugman has “refuted” his critics by finding a graph that actually shows a higher relative increase in gov spending…

By: Ken B

Ken B — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:50:47 +0000

“But surge denotes a rapid or sudden increase.” Surge implies sudden only in an electrical context. Waves and flood-tides surge and can do so relentlessly. (English is full of traps for the unwary). The context here strongly suggests to me the surging flood-tide analogy so Burrito seems off the mark here.

The point at tissue is not has spending surged but does a graph showing a 25% rise in a short period disprove a surge. I’m guessing if your blood pressure, your mortgage payment, or your weight went up that fast you would be laughed at for saying “surge, what surge, look at this chart.”

By: Seth

Seth — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:03:39 +0000

Krugman offers this in response to the apparent surge on the spending as % of GDP chart:

“Yes, that’s right: it’s what happens when you divide by GDP in a time of terrible economic performance.”

This doesn’t compel me to believe that spending as a % of GDP is not relevant.

By: Cornelius McFudgemuffin

Cornelius McFudgemuffin — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:56:43 +0000

If you look with your eyes you will notice the chart only goes up about one and a half centimeters. That is hardly a stimulus at all. Seriously, you all have to learn as much maths as me.

By: Benkyou Burito

Benkyou Burito — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:03:53 +0000

Krugman is using BEA numbers for total government expenditures. I like to the table in my earlier post.

It’s interesting to see the Steven pulls 4 years out of his hat to compare spending levels. 4 years ago we were at an uncharacteristically low level of government spending considering the long term trend.

Obama has had lower than average spending growth every quarter except for his first, when massive short-term spending was needed to address the financial crisis.

By: Harold

Harold — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:32:47 +0000

Is the difference federal vs. total govt (state plus federal)? This line from Krugman might explain the difference between the two sets of figures:
“So states and cities, which can’t run large deficits, were forced into drastic spending cuts, more than offsetting the modest increase at the federal level.”