Could Paul Krugman’s take on the austerity promoter’s favorite (faked?) study hold a hint regarding the possible motivation for our Governor’s odd budget proposals (in bold):
What the Reinhart-Rogoff affair shows is the extent to which austerity has been sold on false pretenses. For three years, the turn to austerity has been presented not as a choice but as a necessity. Economic research, austerity advocates insisted, showed that terrible things happen once debt exceeds 90 percent of G.D.P. But “economic research” showed no such thing; a couple of economists made that assertion, while many others disagreed. Policy makers abandoned the unemployed and turned to austerity because they wanted to, not because they had to.
So will toppling Reinhart-Rogoff from its pedestal change anything? I’d like to think so. But I predict that the usual suspects will just find another dubious piece of economic analysis to canonize, and the depression will go on and on.
Dare we hope the Governor will choose not to spend too much time wallowing in the ranks of the “usual suspects”?
Will he, instead, rejoin the reality-based community, in which it’s considered a bad thing to leave out all the numbers that inconveniently fail to support one’s desired conclusion?
Will he recognize the reality that supporting humans who need help makes the world a better place?
I guess we’ll find out.
And a bit of humor:
The question I find myself asking is…flawed or faked?
I suspect the authors saw a result they liked, and ran with it without looking back. But the methodology sounds so bogus that fakery is plausible. Criminal negligence perhaps?
You can be sure if some non-denialist climate researchers made a blunder like this, the right-wing noise machine would be calling for their heads on a pike.
Have your pick:
Reinhart-Rogoff misrepresentations vs. Reality-based analysis
Peer-reviewed research vs. Ideological propaganda
Objective Results vs. Result-Oriented
Flawed vs. Faked
You say “Taw-MAY-toe” and I say “
Taw. . .BULLSHIT”