Just click the link
I don’t have anything interesting to add. My problem is that I can’t help thinking of whether Konczal’s criticisms amount to a credible accusation of impropriety. I have tried not to blog this, but really can’t resist.
At the end of 2012, David Beckworth told the Keynesians they were wrong. In a provocative post, he argued “that nominal GDP (NGDP) growth has been remarkably stable since about mid-2010 despite a contraction in federal government expenditures” and that “the Fed has been doing a remarkable job keeping NGDP growth stable.”
So how did this line in the sand turn out? Here’s the data updated through 2013, with year-over-year (Beckworth’s line) and two quarters showing …
It was stable, until it wasn’t. … NGDP growth was lower in the first two quarters of 2013 than it was in 2012.
The third quarter did spike, [skip]
“I’d note Beckworth didn’t mention this data or his old approach at all in his victory lap. Scott Sumner used this graph and data for his “Most Important Graphic of 2013,” but didn’t include any of the 2013 data. “
I think that suppressing all data from 2013 in a contribution to a collection of “Graphic[s] of 2013” is, at least, getting very close to the line.
I am genuinely interested in what commenters think of this.