Some of you may recall that Paul Krugman referred to Robert Barro’s analysis of the multiplier associated with World War II spending as “boneheaded.” Admittedly, I did agree with Krugman to the extent that the period in question is not ideal for such measurement given the variety of other simultaneous changes (e.g. price controls, rationing, etc.). Nonetheless, I did acknowledge that “Robert Barro essentially wrote the book on government from a macro perspective.” Further, Barro’s analysis was not “boneheaded”, but merely less than ideal.
Now over at The Atlantic, there is an excellent interview with Robert Barro where he discusses the stimulus package, his analysis, and Krugman. First, in response to Krugman:
He said elsewhere that it was good and that it was what got us out of the depression. He just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn’t behave like an economist. And the guy has…
View original post 157 more words
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Mar 23, 2015 @ 09:34:50
Barro did not even know the US government increased taxes to pay for the Korean war.
His ‘analysis on multipliers is/was appalling.
LikeLike
Mar 23, 2015 @ 09:35:53
how do you know that
LikeLike
Mar 23, 2015 @ 10:39:06
WE know that because in his paer he di not allow that and Christine Romer highlighted this when replying to Barro’s paper.
Barro should simply leave fiscal multipliers alone. That isn’t his area of expertise and he looks a fool when he tries to defend the indefensible.
I might add his paper was an extreme outlier in the research anyway.
LikeLike