B******e
发帖数: 16928 | | d*****s
发帖数: 5610 | 2 看了Bordo的NBER文章吗？给你个link
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2012/wp1214.pdf
很明显abstract讲的和WSJ讲的不一样。原因在NBER文章和wsj的article目标读者不一
样。NBER的文章讲有3个recession不一样，WSJ讲就2008的recession和以前不一样。
再看NBER文章里面的Table 2，1880-2011年的recession中有housing bust的只有1927-
1929，1933-1937，和2008这一次，从这个数据和文章的abstract就可以看出，NBER这
篇文章很难和WSJ的评论联系在一起，NBER因为是给研究者读的，很多是Ph.D.做教授的
,所以文章写的更严谨一点，结论下的更小心。而WSJ的评论确实偏离了文章的本意，当
然WSJ的target reader完全是没有时间看原文的。
楼主是不是属于没有时间看原文的那？
Abstract:
Do steep recoveries follow deep recessions? Does it matter if a credit
crunch or banking panic accompanies the recession? Moreover, does it matter
if the recession is associated with a housing bust? We look at the American
historical experience in an attempt to answer these questions. The answers
depend on the definition of a financial crisis and on how much of the
recovery is considered. But in general recessions associated with financial
crises are generally followed
by rapid recoveries. We find three exceptions to this pattern: the recovery
from the Great Contraction in the 1930s; the recovery after the recession of
the early 1990s and the present recovery. The present recovery is
strikingly more tepid than the 1990s. One factor we consider that may
explain some of the slowness of this recovery is the moribund nature of
residential investment, a variable that is usually a key predictor of
recessions and recoveries.
【在 B******e 的大作中提到】
: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044450600457761312
| m******n
发帖数: 6327 | 3 没看出来有什么不同，NBER上，结论呼之欲出而不出，对Ph.D教授们点到为止
WSJ上是政治经济学的评论，结论明显。两文不可能完全一样，抄自己也是抄。
1927-
【在 d*****s 的大作中提到】
: 看了Bordo的NBER文章吗？给你个link
: http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2012/wp1214.pdf
: 很明显abstract讲的和WSJ讲的不一样。原因在NBER文章和wsj的article目标读者不一
: 样。NBER的文章讲有3个recession不一样，WSJ讲就2008的recession和以前不一样。
: 再看NBER文章里面的Table 2，1880-2011年的recession中有housing bust的只有1927-
: 1929，1933-1937，和2008这一次，从这个数据和文章的abstract就可以看出，NBER这
: 篇文章很难和WSJ的评论联系在一起，NBER因为是给研究者读的，很多是Ph.D.做教授的
: ,所以文章写的更严谨一点，结论下的更小心。而WSJ的评论确实偏离了文章的本意，当
: 然WSJ的target reader完全是没有时间看原文的。
: 楼主是不是属于没有时间看原文的那？
| B******e
发帖数: 16928 | 4 But in general recessions associated with financial
crises are generally followed by rapid recoveries.The present recovery is
strikingly more tepid
than the 1990s.
That is what is embedded in the abstract. The point of the WSJ article is to
refute the argument that financial crises are necessarily followed by tepid
recovery. That is why not much details are needed as you just need to
highlight your main selling point.
1927-
【在 d*****s 的大作中提到】
: 看了Bordo的NBER文章吗？给你个link
: http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2012/wp1214.pdf
: 很明显abstract讲的和WSJ讲的不一样。原因在NBER文章和wsj的article目标读者不一
: 样。NBER的文章讲有3个recession不一样，WSJ讲就2008的recession和以前不一样。
: 再看NBER文章里面的Table 2，1880-2011年的recession中有housing bust的只有1927-
: 1929，1933-1937，和2008这一次，从这个数据和文章的abstract就可以看出，NBER这
: 篇文章很难和WSJ的评论联系在一起，NBER因为是给研究者读的，很多是Ph.D.做教授的
: ,所以文章写的更严谨一点，结论下的更小心。而WSJ的评论确实偏离了文章的本意，当
: 然WSJ的target reader完全是没有时间看原文的。
: 楼主是不是属于没有时间看原文的那？
| d*****s
发帖数: 5610 | 5 You clearly do not understand the difference between regular recession
coupled with financial crises, and recession caused by housing-bubble-
induced-financial crises.
By the way, when I was in graduate school, our professors always take WSJ
articles as examples of bad economics articles. WSJ articles are always
half truth, like 半瓶水. It is the same for Wall Street people on economic
topics, always half truth. The reason is that those people do not have the
time to read, they always skim on everything without thinking about anything
, therefore, their opinion are mostly wrong. I think I will just stop here.
to
tepid
【在 B******e 的大作中提到】
: But in general recessions associated with financial
: crises are generally followed by rapid recoveries.The present recovery is
: strikingly more tepid
: than the 1990s.
: That is what is embedded in the abstract. The point of the WSJ article is to
: refute the argument that financial crises are necessarily followed by tepid
: recovery. That is why not much details are needed as you just need to
: highlight your main selling point.
:
: 1927-
| m******n
发帖数: 6327 | 6 大学教授大概90%都是左翼
economic
the
anything
here.
【在 d*****s 的大作中提到】
: You clearly do not understand the difference between regular recession
: coupled with financial crises, and recession caused by housing-bubble-
: induced-financial crises.
: By the way, when I was in graduate school, our professors always take WSJ
: articles as examples of bad economics articles. WSJ articles are always
: half truth, like 半瓶水. It is the same for Wall Street people on economic
: topics, always half truth. The reason is that those people do not have the
: time to read, they always skim on everything without thinking about anything
: , therefore, their opinion are mostly wrong. I think I will just stop here.
:
| B******e
发帖数: 16928 | 7 What is your point then if you think you understand it? Obama's policy has
no problems? We just have to suffer through this recession and there is
nothing else we can do to make it better? One thing that is clear is that
not all good economics articles have to be written in 100% journal paper
format to convey the main selling point. Tell me what you think the correct
opinion is: this recovery is not the weakest in history and Obama has tried
his best? We need huge government spending and high taxation to get to a
robust economic recovery?
economic
the
anything
here.
【在 d*****s 的大作中提到】
: You clearly do not understand the difference between regular recession
: coupled with financial crises, and recession caused by housing-bubble-
: induced-financial crises.
: By the way, when I was in graduate school, our professors always take WSJ
: articles as examples of bad economics articles. WSJ articles are always
: half truth, like 半瓶水. It is the same for Wall Street people on economic
: topics, always half truth. The reason is that those people do not have the
: time to read, they always skim on everything without thinking about anything
: , therefore, their opinion are mostly wrong. I think I will just stop here.
:
| A*****a
发帖数: 52743 | 8 don't think he has anything constructive.
correct
tried
WSJ
【在 B******e 的大作中提到】
: What is your point then if you think you understand it? Obama's policy has
: no problems? We just have to suffer through this recession and there is
: nothing else we can do to make it better? One thing that is clear is that
: not all good economics articles have to be written in 100% journal paper
: format to convey the main selling point. Tell me what you think the correct
: opinion is: this recovery is not the weakest in history and Obama has tried
: his best? We need huge government spending and high taxation to get to a
: robust economic recovery?
:
: economic
|
|
