Rules to Write By
by Mike Kimel
Rules to Write By
Cross posted at the Presimetrics blog.
Things to keep in mind, especially when posting here or writing me letters:
1. I don’t cite authority as proof, and I ask that you have the courtesy to not do the same to me. Its bad enough when you cite Paul Krugman. After all, you could be quoting him incorrectly, or out of context. Additionally, Krugman, like the rest of us, could simply be wrong. Its even worse when you cite someone who is paid to have a specific opinion. Cut out the middle man and make the argument yourself.
2. Get your data from a reputable source. In general, that means whatever government agency generates the data though there are exceptions. A think tank which pushes a specific point of view is not one of those exceptions. When it comes to international data, either get it from the government agencies in countries you are looking at, or the World Bank, IMF, UN, CIA, Statistical Abstract of the US or Penn World Tables.
3. If you want to compare economic growth across time periods, adjust for inflation or the size of the economy or both.
4. If you want to compare economic growth across countries, adjust for inflation as well currency differences.
5. If you want to compare growth rates of anything, be consistent with your starting and ending points.
6. If you want to compare any two samples, be consistent in how you assign points between the samples.
7. Do not argue by assertion.
8. Economics is not complicated. If you require assumptions you cannot explain or which do not pass the giggle test when stated in plain English to the average person in order to show a given effect, that effect does not exist.
9. Do not try to impress me with big words. Especially when they are statistical terms.
10. If you haven’t tried applying data to your model, your model is probably worthless.
11. If most or all of the observations in your sample are a special case to your model, your model is worthless.
12. One anecdote does not make a rule.
13. Use as much data as is available, or follow a consistent rule for how much data to use and how to deal with it. Do not cherry pick.
14. No magic lags. Be consistent in your use of lags. If your analysis says that Reagan is responsible for growth during the Clinton administration, he better be responsible for growth during the Bush 1 administration too. And if Reagan is responsible for events that happened four to twelve years after he left office, explain why he isn’t responsible for events that happened 13 years after he left office. Also, explain why some predecessor of Reagan’s isn’t responsible for growth during Reagan’s administration.
15. In economics, time moves in a single direction. For some reason a lot of people write to tell me about how growth during the Kennedy administration only picked up after the so-called Kennedy tax cuts. But those tax cuts occurred in 1964, and Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. And growth was very rapid during the Kennedy administration. (I.e., quite a bit faster than under Reagan.) I also get a lot of people informing me that growth sucked under FDR until WW2 began. But… if you consider growth during FDR’s term only through ’38 or only through ’40, it is still faster than under any other President.
16. Correlation does not imply causality. Sadly, it is impossible to prove causation in the real world when you’re talking about economics. However, if X leads to Y using a variety of different types of data, looked at a variety of different ways, it is certainly strongly suggestive.
17. Lack of correlation does imply lack of causality. If you cannot show that economic growth or tax revenues are negatively correlated with tax rates, then please don’t argue that lower tax rates lead to faster economic growth.
18. Before you insist that paying taxes cannot possibly help the economy, either explain why building roads, funding basic research and fighting epidemics harms the economy or explain why there will be a more optimal provision of such services should the government ceases providing them.
19. Regardless of what you want to believe, real economic growth during the Reagan administration was slower than real growth during the FDR, JFK, LBJ and Clinton administrations. Two of these administrations raised marginal tax rates and one cut them. What these administrations had in common was a vision for expanding the role of government.
20. In the U.S., monetary policy is conducted by the Fed, not by the President. Inflation is caused by printing too much money. Do not attribute the inflation of the 1970s to Carter (or Nixon, for that matter). Do not attribute the end of that inflation to Reagan. One can reasonably state that the Fed reacted badly to something the President did and that caused inflation. One cannot reasonably state that the President caused inflation.
21. If your example of a libertarian paradise is a city state whose government owns much of the productive capacity of that city state, drop it and come up with something that actually does look like a libertarian paradise. That is to say, a place with a very small, very non-intrusive government that does little more than setting and enforcing a very limited number of rules. I can come up with several I am sure you can come up with several too.
22. If you believe Hong Kong has a flat tax, I suggest you inform the Hong Kong Inland Revenue Department that they are in error. Bonus points if you tell them you found out about their mistake from a friend.
23. Please do not tell me I do not understand the private sector. Yes, I was an adjunct professor for five years, but that does not make me an academic by trade. When I was an adjunct, my primary profession was as a consultant, working for myself. I also have never worked directly (i.e., not as a consultant) for any government. That is to say, I have been in the private sector my entire professional career. And yes, I still have a day job with a Fortune 500 company. This is the second Fortune 500 company for which I have worked. I have also worked for a (then) Big 6 Accounting firm.
24. Please do not tell me I do not understand the entrepreneurial mentality. My wife and I own a small business we started from scratch. My wife is a serial entrepreneur. My sister is a serial entrepreneur. Two of my three closest friends are serial entrepreneurs. I also note that tax considerations have never been a big driver for myself, for my wife, for my sister, or for my buddies when starting a business.
25. Social Security is more than a retirement fund – it is also an insurance fund.
26. If someone (whether the government or the private sector) offers you a financial incentive to shoot your own foot, it is still your own #$%@ fault if you pull the trigger.
27. Birds of a feather flock together.
28. Ignore the catch-up effect at your peril.
29. Have a clue about your data sets. The BEA did not estimate GDP before to 1929. The BLS did not estimate unemployment before to 1948. Estimates for those series prior to those dates were produced decades after the fact by others, using more limited information, and sometimes an agenda. So if you use Lebergott’s unemployment statistics for the 1930s, don’t be surprised if you’re asked why we should trust figures that classified a few million people working for the WPA and the CCC as unemployed. If you tell me about economic growth in 1870, tell me where the data you are using originates and why I should consider it to be credible.
30. I used to write posts looking at the effect of the tax burden on economic growth, and people would write to tell me I should use marginal tax rates. Lately I’ve been focusing on the effect of marginal tax rates on growth, and people write to tell me I should use tax burdens. (In two cases, a person who had the first complaint also had the second complaint.) I cannot repeat every single thing I’ve ever written in every post every time I write a new post. Before you decide to berate me for ignoring your favorite hobby horse or tell me that results would be different if I used A instead of B, look through the archives at Presimetrics or Angry Bear to see if I really haven’t covered that material already.
I’ll be putting this list of rules somewhere permanent on the Presimetrics website, and expanding it as things come to me. Feel free to suggest other things people should keep in mind.
Mike:
Being polite is always welcome
A shorter version:
By Barry Ritholtz
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.
Mike
re point number two: try to tell the difference between official DATA, and opinion published by an “official” source.
it would be particularly nice if you learned to recognize weasel words when you see them. but then you wouldn’t need me.
cases in point
the cbo document MG offered in the open thread yesterday was a good example of taking a “true fact” namely that SS is off budget and then arguing that you should nevertheless not think of it that way.
this is a fair, if incorrect, argument. but it’s sad to see the folks who cite it as proof that SS is really on budget.
i don’t mind pointing that out, and then arguing against the cbo case, but it gets very tedious when the people who want to believe that cbo arguments are “facts,” keep insisting, and resort to childish tricks… i could call them “ad homs” but they are more “little brother annoying big sister” arguments.
on the other hand, where would the fun be if everyone was sensible.
Not to criticize accuracy, but very few academic papers would meet all of those standards.
Polite is always good.
dilbert and run
politeness is probably overrated. i at least don’t mind the occasional insult. use them myself. but i don’t care much for the repeated pointless insults, invariable followed by “you are so mean to me” when i insult them back.
and the ritholtz quote above is unfortunately the sort of thing that people often say whose own logic is not impeccable.
there is a way to go about “scientific” discourse. but this is a blog. and sad to say, even the most polite scientific discourse is often pointless and ultimately based more on pre-conception than any serious attempt to “reason together.”
oh, the second case: the Trustees Report. even the CBO report i often cite. the numbers in them are as good as we have, but the narrative is often misleading. i can’t tell if it is deliberately so, or if the people who write them just don’t ever think of the obvious implications that they pass over in favor of the misleading implications their political bosses are in favor of.
Love this post. I particularly like number 8. Here is a couple of other observations. Since Social Security is such an integral part of the “Deficit Commission” deliberations, one would naturally ask the following: How much of the annual deficits or the total national debt was generated by Social Security? And, how much was generated by the “discretionary” budget? I am no economist. But, when Social Security’s “problems” surface in talking amoung my friends and coworkers, I am flabergasted by the number of people who get the answer to those questions right, about 10%. The other 90% think that SS contributes 5% to 50% of our National Debt. These are usually people with at least a college degree and many with advanced degrees. What does this say about our news media’s role in educating people?
Awesome, Mike. Been thinking you should do this for a while. Now you can just say “See #3” and provide the link.
#31: Please know your definitions. Be sure to note which particular version of the word’s application you are using. ie: Communism, The author’s version (as in Marx), Chinese version, Russian version, Cuban version, Tea Party version, neoconservative version (usually some combination of Red Russia and/or China), Glen Beck version, etc.
Patrick, news media and our education system are failures, and not just in this regard.
Regarding Number 1, I keep bumping into anecdotes (see Number 12) and data that are consistent with Mike Kimel’s excellent MTR analyses, but I promise never to try to shut down a conversation with friends simply by saying “Mike Kimel says so.”
Regarding Number 20, should there not be a strong caveat regarding coordination of policies between the Fed and President? I think there is at least some truth to the observation, however overstated, that “Presidents get the Fed policy they want, no matter how “independent” the Fed may be.” (http://old.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200406140846.asp). My mediocre memory says that Carter feared a spike in unemployment and recession, whereas Reagan put higher priority on killing inflation.
coberly:
I didn’t mean you . . . 🙂
coberly,
I agee that politeness is over-rated. But Ritholtz is not polite, and he tends to be more right than a lot of people in part because he doesn’t censor the righteous anger with which he writes.
Yup. Have to say it succinctly though. Any thoughts?
STR,
“Not to criticize accuracy, but very few academic papers would meet all of those standards.”
Correct. And in a reasonable world we’d say that implies very few academic papers are worth all that much. (I assume we’re discussing economics in general, and perhaps macro in particular.)
Polite is not always good. This stuff isn’t a game. Bad policy doesn’t just cause numbers to be different, it negatively impacts peoples’ lives, and even kills. Politeness should be reserved for those who commit honest errors.
Walk into a room for population ecologists and tell them the Earth is 6,000 years old and see what happens. They remember their Lysenkos, and they don’t want any more. Contrast that with, say, Mankiw walking into a room full of ecoomists. Or Laffer twenty years ago. Or Ohanian today, for that matter, just to name one random name.
There’s a reason econoimcs bears no resemblance to a science, and it has to do with economists being polite.
CoRev,
For once we are in agreement.
Patrick Tchou,
Yeah… this list is going to have to be expanded.
Steve Roth,
Inferior minds think alike. I was just telling the ex-GF that was the purpose of this post.
Divorcedone,
Oooooo. I like it.
PJR,
I got no problems being quoted, and in fact, like everyone else, I enjoy the attention. But… something is true or isn’t, and an argument is good or bad for reasons that have nothing to do with who makes the statement or makes the argument. The fact that I’m brilliant, always right, and incredibly humble to boot is not a good enough reason to say: “Mike Kimel believes X and therefore X is true.” It does make sense to say: “Mike Kimel has laid out the following argument for X.” It makes even more sense, if the context allows, to add: “I believe he is mostly right, and these are the reasons why… I believe he is in error in this situation because…”
As to the Fed… in a well-functioning economy, the Fed coordinates with the Executive Branch. However, if the Fed has responsibility over monetary policy, and if it goes along with what the Executive Branch wants in a situation that it should have seen will lead to inflation or a recession, that is the Fed’s fault for doing it.
run
would it worry you if i said it never occurred to me that you did?
i’m not sure how much we can blame the education “system.” i’d agree that it is pretty much of a mess, mostly due to political interference and wonderful new ideas to improve it.
but as a former teacher who tried his heart out trying to teach an easy math course, i’d say the students need to have some aptitude, and human aptitude is not as common as you might suppose.
i don’t know that aptitude is the same as “ability”; “interest” seems to be a huge part. and a brilliant teacher can generate interest. but brilliant teachers are not common either,and no system will make them so. though i suppose there are many, many systems that make them less so.
btw, in case it occurs to anyone..
i was by no means as rude to students as i am to sammy and corev. i used to be a nice guy.
However, if the Fed has responsibility over monetary policy, and if it goes along with what the Executive Branch wants in a situation that it should have seen will lead to inflation or a recession, that is the Fed’s fault for doing it. Would it be reasonable to say that ex-chairman Greenspan would fall into this category? Based on where the economy is right now, I’d say that is a plausible argrument.
Or my pet peeveL “deficit”. Are talking about the President’s Budget Deficit or the Dept of Treasury’s ongoing calculated real/total/ deficit for period X?
Or my pet peeve, “deficit”. Are we talking about the President’s Budget Deficit estimate or the Dept of Treasury’s ongoing calculated real/total/ deficit for period X?
CoRev,
You may have noticed I always go with the BEA’s actual figures for the calendar (not fiscal) year and that’s for a reason. Projections are usually bullshit. But you really don’t want me to get started on Romer and Romer again, right?
nanute,
Greenspan is another category altogether. I have a chapter I wrote a while back for a book I will never have the time to write… maybe I’ll do like Tyler Cowen and publish it as its own book someday after cleaning it up. Its on Greenspan’s behavior. To use a DeLongism – Greenspan’s behavior was worse than you thought, even after you make allowance for it being worse than you thought.
I recognize that last one came close to arguing by assertion. Like I said, I have something written up… just more incentive to actually find time to clean it and get it out.
I said it was my pet peeve! 🙂
coberly:
No, because we often times disagree on issues.
Mike:
You can politely call someone an “idiot” without actually doing it. KHarris is a good example of doing such.
If you have to resort to verbal abuse or an onslaught of ad hominums, chances are you have lost or are going to lose. Best to keep to the discussion points or just walk away.
Then too, I should practice more of what I preach.
coberly:
You are mking me laugh here. When and where were you nice? As for me teaching certain things such as shooting and survival techniques in the outdoors, I am the literal DI who will drill it into your head until you can recite it sleeping.
Mike:
Does it “quack-like-a-duck?” Then it must be a duck or someone with a duck call.
I happen to agree with that assertion. Who has been responsible for “many “of our economic woes or gains? The Pres., Congress, or the Fed Chairman?
i don’t mind.
run]]
you have not been getting the love letters from kharris that i have. he/she can be quite nasty and, worse, completely wrong. she/he thinks i called her a racist, which is about the last thing i would ever call anyone. some of my best friends are racists.
well, that’s one way of being nice.
run75441,
Its not the idiots I’m concerned about. Its the hacks. There is a difference.
someone has already written a book blaming Greenspan for everything. I can’t remembe title or author, and I don’t know enough bout Fed to even have an opinion.
but anyone who takes Ayn Rand seriously can’t be all right in the head.
I’ve had a few posts showing that the growth in real M1 per capita makes a big difference. But then so does tax law… and tax enforcement. Thus, all three make a difference.
Mike,
#7. Do not argue by assertion.
I don’t get this one 🙂
What about a “supported assertion”?
I can see how you put together this list: you are one of the fairest debaters out there.
And argument by assertion is oh-so-out-of-place here.
Cheers!
JzB
JzB,
I should have pointed out that I’ve had posts on all three topics.
No one used the CBO document to claim that the SSA is on budget. You’re just making a false claim. What the CBO document did was explain the reasons for seeing the entire federal government expenditures and obligations picture. Those reasons are valid.
Mike,
Thirty rules? Why not 100 or 400 rules?
Once you blow past 10 basic rules for writing, you’re in the ditch. Many writers aren’t going to pay attention to lists much longer than that.
The key term is “supported” and I think Mike amplifies #7 in the course of #12 to the first part of #14
“12. One anecdote does not make a rule.
13. Use as much data as is available, or follow a consistent rule for how much data to use and how to deal with it. Do not cherry pick.
14. No magic lags. Be consistent in your use of lags.”
Nothing is “supported” if it ignores these 2 1/2 rules.
Mike,
Nice list. I highly suggest you continue to try to keep rules 16 & 17 in mine more often
When you actually apply this one please drop me a line, I want to be in on the discussion:
” 8. Economics is not complicated. If you require assumptions you cannot explain or which do not pass the giggle test when stated in plain English to the average person in order to show a given effect, that effect does not exist. “
And lastly, from 19:
“What these administrations had in common was a vision for expanding the role of government.”
And also a vision for less individual freedom that almost always comes from the expansion of the central government. I’ll trade less GDP growth and more freedom for more GDP growth and less freedom – see China as an extreame example.
Islam will change
good old MG
rely on him to present an argument that CBO says that Social Security is rightly viewed as just another budget item, and then to deny that’s what it said. maybe the confusion is that i used “on budget” to summarize CBO’s claim. There is nothing in MG’s mind that can even understand the idea of “summarize.”
Then, just to help MIke out, he offers a prime example of “argument by assertion.”
The CBO argument amounted to saying that since you deposited your money in Bank X at the teller’s window, and will ask for it back from Bank X at the tellers window, your money is really the Banks money. There is no difference between your account and any other account, or the Banks own finances. It was the kind of fast talking and arm waving designed to fool the rubes, of which, sadly, we have a few right here in River City. Those are not valid reasons.
buff,
“And also a vision for less individual freedom that almost always comes from the expansion of the central government.”
Well, this is progress. We started, a few years ago, with “of course Republican policies produce faster growth.” We moved onto “well, if you take X and Y into account, you’ll show that Republican policies produce faster growth.” We then transitioned into “the data is too noisy to show it, but Republican policies produce faster growth.” Then “yes, the data seems to show Democrats produce faster growth, but that’s just due to correlations with other factors.” We got stuck for a long time on “correlation is not causality” but it got hard to sustain with states showing the same thing, ditto recessionary periods, non-recessionary periods, tax burdens and marginal rates showing the same thing (for both states and federal gov’t), and now Canada.
So now its “well, even if its true, I prefer freedom.” And that answer is way too pat. Perhaps you remember my post on how a gas driller decided to store its diesel fumes in the living room of my apartment, causing my wife to get sick, my cats to get sick, and me to get sick. It also caused us to move quickly (in the middle of the month, blowing a chunk of rent). Several others in the apartment building also moved out. Those who couldn’t afford it stayed behind.
Now, the driller enjoyed his freedom which came from minimal or no regulatory enforcement. Pray tell – what freedom did the various apartment dwellers and the apartment owner enjoy from minimal or no regulatory enforcement? Collectively, we lost thousands of dollars, and just about everyone got sick.
Abe Lincoln, who many Republicans seem eager to disavow these days, said something like “your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.” I’m sure you can envision how you might get faster growth when you limit the rights of the people who are erratically swinging their fists around in crowded rooms.
Yes indeed, the central government expanded from the thirteen colonies to an international empire, conquering the South along the way, resulting in less individual freedom for everyone.
Why, do you know, a man can’t even own slaves anymore?
Never shouldda repealed the Articles of Confederation. I coulda told ya.
coberly, the CBO document stands on its own merits. Your reading skills are the problem and that is a personal issue.
What the CBO document did was explain the reasons for seeing the entire federal government expenditures and obligations picture. It accomplished that purpose.